Who's to blame for the slow recovery?

[Kushinator]

Without either of these laws in place, the mortgage bubble wouldn't have formed.

Opinion that cannot be supported by the data or economic reasoning.

 

[eohrnberger]

When did the mortgage bubble start, form, and grow?

As posted, contributing factors / precursors. Nothing happens in a vacuum, all by itself.

This is the point! Using your logic, the tech bubble was the result of 1980's adaption of computers for business solutions.

That's probably true.

Here is a thread that completely beat this topic to a bloody pulp. Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs

It is inherently dishonest to blame any single person or single administration for the long forming ills of the mortgage bubble.

 

[Kushinator]

As posted, contributing factors / precursors. Nothing happens in a vacuum, all by itself.

Why did it blow up between 2003 and 2006, and not any other time within the frame of your "contributing factor" periods?

It is inherently dishonest to blame any single person or single administration for the long forming ills of the mortgage bubble.

There is strong evidence that the Bush administration didn't try to regulate the mortgage market adequately. However, my point is not about any particular administration. Bankers were making far too much money to enforce the type of endogenous regulation that characterizes self-interest. In reality, the American public and taxpayer were defrauded out of trillions of dollars in taxpayer contributions and asset values.

 

[mmi]

Community Reinvestment Act … emboldened the federal government to dictate to banks how to run their mortgage business, as if they knew better than the banks how to run this business.

Disgusting, Fentonian crap. Emboldened? Ya mean finally started to enforce important elements of the 1968 Fair Housing Act prohibiting bigoted redlining?

>>Clinton administration when he signed Gramm–Leach–Bliley

GOP legislation that, I agree, he never should have signed. He should have pursued his and other Democrats' objections. When 43 got in two months later, it was too late. The foxes were guarding the henhouse.

>>Clinton pretty much black mailed the banks using the CRA to open up the lending requirements.

Completely unsupported RW BS.

>>Without either of these laws in place, the mortgage bubble wouldn't have formed.

Without Republicans pushing hard for irresponsible deregulation and a reckless lack of enforcement under 43 while massive criminal activity was taking place, there never would have been a collapse. We all know which party wants gubmint off the backs of the divine private sector. The crap about improvident lending to low-income Negroes being forced upon the sainted mortgage industry by unscrupulous, vote-buying Demecrats is utterly vile and contemptible. Iow, SOP for the GOP.

 

[eohrnberger]

Why did it blow up between 2003 and 2006, and not any other time within the frame of your "contributing factor" periods?



There is strong evidence that the Bush administration didn't try to regulate the mortgage market adequately. However, my point is not about any particular administration. Bankers were making far too much money to enforce the type of endogenous regulation that characterizes self-interest. In reality, the American public and taxpayer were defrauded out of trillions of dollars in taxpayer contributions and asset values.

Is it the responsibility of the administration or congress to regulate the mortgage markets? I thought that more so fell on congress, and there is also evidence that the Bush administration did warn congress of the impending bubble popping, but the congress refused to act, and, most famously, claimed they didn't see any impending doom. Frankly it is reasonable to blame both / all of them, as well as those that altered the situation which enabled the mortgage bubble to start and grow, and continue to grow.

Disgusting, Fentonian crap. Emboldened? Ya mean finally started to enforce important elements of the 1968 Fair Housing Act prohibiting bigoted redlining?

>>Clinton administration when he signed Gramm–Leach–Bliley

GOP legislation that, I agree, he never should have signed. He should have pursued his and other Democrats' objections. When 43 got in two months later, it was too late. The foxes were guarding the henhouse.

>>Clinton pretty much black mailed the banks using the CRA to open up the lending requirements.

Completely unsupported RW BS.

At President Clinton’s direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

The threat was codified in a 20-page “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending” and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.

Bloomberg to OWS: Congress caused the mortgage crisis, not the banks « Hot Air

Hard to imagine any bank standing up to no fewer than 10 federal agencies rooting around their business like wild boars looking for something, anything.

Seems that this "Fair Lending" idea may have gone overboard. But never mind, don't let these troubling facts cloud your already preconceived beliefs that there's no down side to these "Fair Lending" standards.

>>Without either of these laws in place, the mortgage bubble wouldn't have formed.

Without Republicans pushing hard for irresponsible deregulation and a reckless lack of enforcement under 43 while massive criminal activity was taking place, there never would have been a collapse. We all know which party wants gubmint off the backs of the divine private sector. The crap about improvident lending to low-income Negroes being forced upon the sainted mortgage industry by unscrupulous, vote-buying Demecrats is utterly vile and contemptible. Iow, SOP for the GOP.

Yeah, more preconceived dogma. As you wish.

For your reference, this, and many other things, factors, contributing changes and actions are in the thread http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...-bush-mortgage-bubble-faqs-w-1083-1531-a.html

No sense re-litigating all this in this thread when it's already all there.

 

[Kushinator]

Is it the responsibility of the administration or congress to regulate the mortgage markets? I thought that more so fell on congress, and there is also evidence that the Bush administration did warn congress of the impending bubble popping, but the congress refused to act, and, most famously, claimed they didn't see any impending doom. Frankly it is reasonable to blame both / all of them, as well as those that altered the situation which enabled the mortgage bubble to start and grow, and continue to grow.

The President nominates and sets the tone for SEC oversight. Do you deny the deregulation mentality that persisted during the Bush Presidency? See the sentiments of Keith Hennessy and Lawrence Lindsey for a glimpse.

 

[mmi]

Hard to imagine any bank standing up to no fewer than 10 federal agencies rooting around their business like wild boars looking for something, anything.

Yeah, "something, anything" like discriminatory lending practices. If they weren't redlining, what did they have to fear?

>>don't let these troubling facts cloud your already preconceived beliefs that there's no down side to these "Fair Lending" standards.

There is no downside to fair lending standards. Are you contending that there is?

Was this "Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending" still in effect in 2001 and thereafter, or just under Clinton when there was no problem AT ALL in the housing market? Did the 43 administration enforce it or, gee, do ya think they may have altered the enforcement policies when they came in?

Why weren't lenders crying about all this before before 2007? You figure they couldn't get the 43 boys to "go along" with their way of doing things? And what about the explosion of sub-prime mortgages after Clinton left office and all the criminal behaviour that wasn't investigated and prosecuted in those years?

It's clear t' me what this is all about. "We didn't start the war; the Poles attacked us."

>>preconceived dogma

Fine. Deny that it's the Right that pushes for deregulation. I'll stand by my claim that they do. And you can continue to push the narrative that vote-buying Demecrats "forced" conscientious lenders to write mortgages for low-income Negroes that suddenly became a problem more than a decade later. Have fun out there in the political wilderness.

>>For your reference, this, and many other things, factors, contributing changes and actions are in the thread

Oooh, a DP thread loaded up with Fentonian crap. Pulitzer-Prize-quality stuff, I'm sure. I think I'll pass on yer two-thousand-post trash reference. Of course, if you have any other HotAir links, …

>>No sense re-litigating all this in this thread when it's already all there.

No sense at all in either case, I'd say. Not with this collection of RW morons there to "enlighten" me.

 

[eohrnberger]

The President nominates and sets the tone for SEC oversight. Do you deny the deregulation mentality that persisted during the Bush Presidency? See the sentiments of Keith Hennessy and Lawrence Lindsey for a glimpse.

I deny nothing, but would point out that the deregulation mentality was also already in place during the Clinton administration, per the aforementioned legislation passed into law.

 

[eohrnberger]

Yeah, "something, anything" like discriminatory lending practices. If they weren't redlining, what did they have to fear?

Regardless of whether the bank in question was or was not redlining, just the fact the 10 federal agencies disrupting your business would put you out of business. Yeah, that was pretty much blackmail; an overt threat.

>>don't let these troubling facts cloud your already preconceived beliefs that there's no down side to these "Fair Lending" standards.

There is no downside to fair lending standards. Are you contending that there is?

Obviously went overboard, wouldn't you say? Or perhaps we should simply and quietly just accept your LW crap that minority communities should not be responsible for the borrowing they do (or anything else it would seem), and have the Fed just print up money to cover their debits and the ever increasing demands for government hand outs?

All I know is I played by the rules and got screwed for it, while others didn't play by the rules and walked away with bundles of cash, and I'm still pissed off about it.

Yeah, that means I'm pissed off at Bush, Clinton, Carter, the Republicans, the Democrats, multiple sessions of the entire ****ing Congress, the ****ing mortgage originators who poisoned the system with their crap NIJA mortgages, as well as the banksters that got bailed out and are pretty much back at it again already.

**** them all to hell for this **** they pulled.

So, yes, bitter and distrustful of anything from NY, DC, (Sodom and Gomorrah if you ask me) or the East 'Banking' coast. What great societal damage are you guys going to cause next? Hmm? Can you perhaps leave me out of it?

Was this "Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending" still in effect in 2001 and thereafter, or just under Clinton when there was no problem AT ALL in the housing market? Did the 43 administration enforce it or, gee, do ya think they may have altered the enforcement policies when they came in?

Why weren't lenders crying about all this before before 2007? You figure they couldn't get the 43 boys to "go along" with their way of doing things? And what about the explosion of sub-prime mortgages after Clinton left office and all the criminal behaviour that wasn't investigated and prosecuted in those years?

It's clear t' me what this is all about. "We didn't start the war; the Poles attacked us."

>>preconceived dogma

Fine. Deny that it's the Right that pushes for deregulation. I'll stand by my claim that they do. And you can continue to push the narrative that vote-buying Demecrats "forced" conscientious lenders to write mortgages for low-income Negroes that suddenly became a problem more than a decade later. Have fun out there in the political wilderness.

You know, this line of yours here would get far more traction if it wasn't the congressional Demcorats that didn't want to do something about the over extended and bubble inflating GSEs. Hell, I've got a video there that bastard Frank in a congressional hearing stating that the GSE's should increase their subprime buying (inflating the demand and the bubble), rather than trim it back (shrinking demand and the bubble).

Geez Whiz. Had Frank not been so deep in the banksters pockets, maybe he could have curbed it, shrank it, reduced the demand and the bubble, but no. That's not what he and all the other congressional Democrats did, is it?

So this holier than though BS is exactly that, BS. So go stuff it someplace else.

>>For your reference, this, and many other things, factors, contributing changes and actions are in the thread

Oooh, a DP thread loaded up with Fentonian crap. Pulitzer-Prize-quality stuff, I'm sure. I think I'll pass on yer two-thousand-post trash reference. Of course, if you have any other HotAir links, …

Well, goes to show you once again, that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

>>No sense re-litigating all this in this thread when it's already all there.

No sense at all in either case, I'd say. Not with this collection of RW morons there to "enlighten" me.

Far better than the LW moron crap.

Come to think of it, it was the left wing that let all the banksters off the hook, and didn't end up prosecuting them or holding them accountable. You think maybe that the left wing wasn't able to because the banksters bought them off? Kinda like Hillary is already bought off?

Take you LW superiority crap somewhere else for someone else swallow.

 

[mmi]

whether the bank in question was or was not redlining, just the fact the 10 federal agencies disrupting your business would put you out of business.

BS. If you weren't redlining, you weren't going to be investigated.

>>Obviously went overboard, wouldn't you say?

In what sense? Are you saying that some illegal discrimination is OK as long as there isn't a lot of it?

>>your LW crap that minority communities should not be responsible for the borrowing they do (or anything else it would seem), and have the Fed just print up money to cover their debits and the ever increasing demands for government hand outs?

A big, smelly load of bigoted, RW BS. The evidence is clear. Most sub-prime loans (about 75%) were issued by institutions that were not at all or only partially regulated by the CRA. And the most irresponsible ones, with rates as much as twice as high as regulated banks and thrifts, came from independent mortgage companies.

Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities.

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity."

Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.

What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.

These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.

In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems.

"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business." — "Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis," McClatchy Newspapers, Oct 12, 2008​

Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration,a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose,a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive practices in the subprime lending market. Oops.

Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt. — "Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis", Bloomberg Oct 2, 2008​

(continued)

 

[mmi]

Here's Fed chair Yellen at a conference in 2008:

There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending, or with lending to low-income families in general. I believe it is very important to make a distinction between the two. Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.​

And here's a former Clinton Treasury official at a congressional hearing:

In fact, subprime lending exploded in the late 1990's, reaching over $600 billion and 20 percent of all originations by 2005. More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies, another 30 percent by affiliates of banks or thrifts, and the remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts themselves.

Although reasonable people can disagree about how to interpret the available evidence, my own judgment is that the worst and most widespread abuses have occurred in the institutions with the least Federal oversight.​

>>All I know is I played by the rules and got screwed for it, while others didn't play by the rules and walked away with bundles of cash, and I'm still pissed off about it.

I will quickly agree that that's all you know. I suggest you figure out who's to blame.

>>I'm pissed off at Bush, Clinton, Carter, the Republicans, the Democrats, multiple sessions of the entire ****ing Congress, the ****ing mortgage originators who poisoned the system with their crap NIJA mortgages, as well as the banksters that got bailed out

Carter is entirely blameless. Clinton effed up, making a deal that let the cat out of the regulatory bag. The Republicans controlled the Congress 2001-07 when action was required. The rest of yer list I agree with.

And I'll go further.

"It isn’t losses from CRA loans that drove the crisis (although they are disproportionately responsible for losses at some banks). Instead, the CRA required lax lending standards that spread to the rest of the mortgage market. That fueled the mortgage boom and bust." — Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending, Business Insider, Jun 27, 2009​

"Fueled," as in "contributed to," not "caused," or even "drove."

I'll agree that there are a lot of people and gubmint actions to blame for the crisis, but the CRA and minority borrowers are NOT legitimately included in that group.

>> What great societal damage are you guys going to cause next? Hmm? Can you perhaps leave me out of it?

Keep sending RW Republicans to Congress and you'll have yerself to blame. I vote for Democrats.

 

[mmi]

You know, this line of yours here would get far more traction if it wasn't the congressional Demcorats that didn't want to do something about the over extended and bubble inflating GSEs.

From the McClatchey article cited above:

This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.

To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.

But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.

About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.​

>>Had Frank not been so deep in the banksters pockets, maybe he could have curbed it, shrank it, reduced the demand and the bubble, but no. That's not what he and all the other congressional Democrats did, is it?

They were in the minority in the House. You know what that made them — spectators.

>>So this holier than though BS is exactly that, BS.

Not holier than you. Geez, I gave you a hamburg joint a couple o' years ago for nuthin'. No, holier than the lying, thieving assholes you can properly be enraged at.

>>you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink

I've been around DP RW water for a couple of years. It's fetid.

>.it was the left wing that let all the banksters off the hook, and didn't end up prosecuting them or holding them accountable. You think maybe that the left wing wasn't able to because the banksters bought them off?

No, I think Obummer and Associates recognise that the big banks, for the time being at least, have a controlling influence over our economic and political systems. Which party champions them and handed them that influence?

>Take you LW superiority crap somewhere else for someone else swallow.

Hey, it's not my fault that the Left is superior. There's not much competition these days, is there? And I can understand that yer not able to consider any other perspective. Having already consumed a bellyful of ideological nonsense, you likely don't have room for anything else. My suggestion would be to digest and void the material you've relied upon so far.

 

[eohrnberger]

Here's Fed chair Yellen at a conference in 2008:

There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending, or with lending to low-income families in general. I believe it is very important to make a distinction between the two. Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.​

And here's a former Clinton Treasury official at a congressional hearing:

In fact, subprime lending exploded in the late 1990's, reaching over $600 billion and 20 percent of all originations by 2005. More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies, another 30 percent by affiliates of banks or thrifts, and the remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts themselves.

Although reasonable people can disagree about how to interpret the available evidence, my own judgment is that the worst and most widespread abuses have occurred in the institutions with the least Federal oversight.​

>>All I know is I played by the rules and got screwed for it, while others didn't play by the rules and walked away with bundles of cash, and I'm still pissed off about it.

I will quickly agree that that's all you know. I suggest you figure out who's to blame.

>>I'm pissed off at Bush, Clinton, Carter, the Republicans, the Democrats, multiple sessions of the entire ****ing Congress, the ****ing mortgage originators who poisoned the system with their crap NIJA mortgages, as well as the banksters that got bailed out

Carter is entirely blameless. Clinton effed up, making a deal that let the cat out of the regulatory bag. The Republicans controlled the Congress 2001-07 when action was required. The rest of yer list I agree with.

And I'll go further.

"It isn’t losses from CRA loans that drove the crisis (although they are disproportionately responsible for losses at some banks). Instead, the CRA required lax lending standards that spread to the rest of the mortgage market. That fueled the mortgage boom and bust." — Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending, Business Insider, Jun 27, 2009​

"Fueled," as in "contributed to," not "caused," or even "drove."

I'll agree that there are a lot of people and gubmint actions to blame for the crisis, but the CRA and minority borrowers are NOT legitimately included in that group.

>> What great societal damage are you guys going to cause next? Hmm? Can you perhaps leave me out of it?

Keep sending RW Republicans to Congress and you'll have yerself to blame. I vote for Democrats.

Democrats were very much part of the problem of the ever expanding GSE exposure to, and driving the demand for, subprime mortgages.

As previously stated, it's not credible, except in a blindly partisan contortion of logic and facts, to blame a single administration nor a single political party for this mess. Multiple administrations and both parties across multiple sessions congress fed / contributed / caused to grow this mortgage bubble.

 

[eohrnberger]

From the McClatchey article cited above:

. . . .

>>Had Frank not been so deep in the banksters pockets, maybe he could have curbed it, shrank it, reduced the demand and the bubble, but no. That's not what he and all the other congressional Democrats did, is it?

They were in the minority in the House. You know what that made them — spectators.

>>So this holier than though BS is exactly that, BS.

Not holier than you. Geez, I gave you a hamburg joint a couple o' years ago for nuthin'. No, holier than the lying, thieving assholes you can properly be enraged at.

>>you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink

I've been around DP RW water for a couple of years. It's fetid.

>.it was the left wing that let all the banksters off the hook, and didn't end up prosecuting them or holding them accountable. You think maybe that the left wing wasn't able to because the banksters bought them off?

No, I think Obummer and Associates recognise that the big banks, for the time being at least, have a controlling influence over our economic and political systems. Which party champions them and handed them that influence?

>Take you LW superiority crap somewhere else for someone else swallow.

Hey, it's not my fault that the Left is superior. There's not much competition these days, is there? And I can understand that yer not able to consider any other perspective. Having already consumed a bellyful of ideological nonsense, you likely don't have room for anything else. My suggestion would be to digest and void the material you've relied upon so far.

There in lies your problem, your viewpoint that the left is.
The facts of the matter is that they are not. The left is just as foolish, stupid, self centered, and subject to human foibles as any other human.

Also the facts of the matter is that you've already consumed a bellyful of ideological nonsense. We can see it in "the Left is superior".

Just have to look at the Democratic party being blown up by the primary scandal and Hillary campaign. Which allegedly 'superior' party would put forth a candidate such as Hillary for consideration?

On balance, the same can be said for, and is being done by, Trump and the GOP, and quite rightfully so. The two entrenched major party political elites have evolved to the point where they are only self-serving, rather than public service, doing what's best for the nation and the electorate. Both parties most certainly deserve to, and in fact need to, be blown up.

So it's 'wise' to lend to people who over extend themselves and can't pay on their obligation, just as it's 'wise' to have government dictate to whom banks should lend? :lamo

The bottom line about the CRA is that governmnet shouldn't be dictating to banks to who is a safe risk and whom isn't a safe risk. The bank actuarial data is by far a better indicator than some misguided social engineering public policy.

 

[Kushinator]

I deny nothing, but would point out that the deregulation mentality was also already in place during the Clinton administration, per the aforementioned legislation passed into law.

Why didn't it manifest before 2003-2006? These are the years of heavily unregulated mortgage issuance that just so happen to coincide with the highest default rates and valuation trajectory/peak.

 

[Kushinator]

The bottom line about the CRA is that governmnet shouldn't be dictating to banks to who is a safe risk and whom isn't a safe risk. The bank actuarial data is by far a better indicator than some misguided social engineering public policy.

Are you aware that the CRA arose because banks were not providing due-diligence for specific potential borrowers because of race, zip code, etc...? The bank actuarial data is useless if not used.

 

[eohrnberger]

Why didn't it manifest before 2003-2006? These are the years of heavily unregulated mortgage issuance that just so happen to coincide with the highest default rates and valuation trajectory/peak.

Who knows why the timing of the bubble bursting? I don't pretend to.
Some critical mass of toxic assets in the system coupled with an economic downturn. Everyone leveraged to the hilt in hopes of hitting big easy money.
I dunno for sure. Not sure that anyone could be 100% sure.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I deny nothing, but would point out that the deregulation mentality was also already in place during the Clinton administration, per the aforementioned legislation passed into law.

Who knows why the timing of the bubble bursting? I don't pretend to.
Some critical mass of toxic assets in the system coupled with an economic downturn. Everyone leveraged to the hilt in hopes of hitting big easy money.
I dunno for sure. Not sure that anyone could be 100% sure.

But the point is that deregulation was not the ideology of liberals, liberals want controls on the economy, whereas conservatives do not want limits on business....they want to allow the "invisible hand/animal spirits" run in a "free market".

 

[mmi]

Democrats were very much part of the problem of the ever expanding GSE exposure to, and driving the demand for, subprime mortgages.

Completely unsupported.

>>it's not credible … to blame a single administration nor a single political party for this mess.

Ditto.

There in lies your problem, your viewpoint that the left is.

I was making fun of yer claim that the Left sees itself as superior. Fwiw, I figure we are, but I'd say that's the Right's fault. Step up yer game.

>>The left is just as foolish, stupid, self centered, and subject to human foibles as any other human.

Well, let's say you guys have some prominent examples of people with those characteristics.

>>you've already consumed a bellyful of ideological nonsense. We can see it in "the Left is superior".

See above.

>>look at the Democratic party being blown up by the primary scandal and Hillary campaign.

There is no "scandal."

>>Which allegedly 'superior' party would put forth a candidate such as Hillary for consideration?

The one that will win easily in November and continue the progress we've been making since the GOP got booted from the WH.

>>The two entrenched major party political elites have evolved to the point where they are only self-serving

I'd say things are about the same as they've always been. The difference, imo, is that in recent years the GOP allowed a fairly small faction of extremist morons to control the party's actions in the Congress. I'm hoping that period is over, because the whole country suffered for it.

>>So it's 'wise' to lend to people who over extend themselves and can't pay on their obligation

It's yer false claim that this has anything to do with the CRA and Democrats pushing for easy credit for Negroes. A lot of bad loans were written. Those on the Right who are overly passionate about deregulation and a collection of crooked lenders caused the problem to develop.

>>just as it's 'wise' to have government dictate to whom banks should lend?

It's constitutionally and statutorily required that businesses not discriminate based on race.

>>The bottom line about the CRA is that governmnet shouldn't be dictating to banks to who is a safe risk and whom isn't a safe risk.

No, the bottom line is enforcing the Equal Protection Clause of the god damn Fourteenth Amendment and the various statutes enacted in pursuance of that hard-earned mandate.

>>The bank actuarial data is by far a better indicator than some misguided social engineering public policy.

Yes, and as long as a lender's data didn't show a pattern of discrimination, there was nothing to be concerned about.

 

[eohrnberger]

But the point is that deregulation was not the ideology of liberals, liberals want controls on the economy, whereas conservatives do not want limits on business....they want to allow the "invisible hand/animal spirits" run in a "free market".

The ideology of liberals is to force their beliefs of what should happen onto others that don't share that same view, and have those others pay for that social agenda. We can see this with the downturn of small businesses during the Obama administration and their orgy of new business and EPA regulations.

Since when has liberal led government had sufficient wisdom to dictate to the private sector what to do and not to do in order to support the liberal's social agenda?

From my perspective there's a fine balance to be struck between the benefits due to society, and the private sector's support of that society. The need being to ensure that the private sector can thrive and provide the economy activity to pay for all the overhead of government and society, with sufficient management, but not too much as to distort the markets rendering them ineffective and inefficient. It's a case of 'just right'.

To my taste, the liberal agenda keeps going off the deep left end of excessive regulation, squelching the economic vitality of the private sector.

In all this, there is no statement 'eliminate all regulation', nor even deregulation. The regulations that we need to have also need to be easy to understand, easy and cheap to comply with, even if it means there are some aspects that this regulation should address, but can't do so in this fashion.

If you look at the tome that is the Frank-Dodd statute, and then multiply that by 1000 for the regulations surrounding it, you can pretty easily see my point. The end effect of Dodd-Frank is NOT to eliminate 'too big to fail'. It's end result was to drive banking consolidation guaranteeing 'too big to fail' for one, and force a less robust, less resilient monoculture of the banking industry, exactly opposite it's stated aims.

 

[mmi]

The ideology of liberals is to force their beliefs of what should happen onto others that don't share that same view, and have those others pay for that social agenda.

Yes, we will work hard to force our liberal belief that all mean are created equal and must be treated that way by the gubmint "onto others that don't share that same view." If there's a cost to be paid, so be it. A very large price has already been paid to establish and defend "that social agenda."

>>the downturn of small businesses during the Obama administration and their orgy of new business and EPA regulations.

Both completely unsupported.

>>Since when has liberal led government had sufficient wisdom to dictate to the private sector what to do and not to do in order to support the liberal's social agenda?

Since Appomattox and the consequences that followed.

>>The need being to ensure that the private sector can thrive … with sufficient management, but not too much as to distort the markets rendering them ineffective and inefficient.

The markets do not require racial discrimination to operate effectively and efficiently. In fact, the opposite is true.

>>the liberal agenda keeps going off the deep left end of excessive regulation, squelching the economic vitality of the private sector.

As is typically the case, a worthlessly vague anti-regulation statement.

>>regulations … need to be easy to understand, easy and cheap to comply with, even if it means there are some aspects that this regulation should address, but can't do so in this fashion.

I and others, which I'd say constitute a strong majority, will not tolerate racial discrimination by mortgage lenders.

>>The end effect of Dodd-Frank is NOT to eliminate 'too big to fail'.

I'm not defending that legislation. I'm sure it could be improved upon. I figure the problem is the heavy influence that very large banks have on our economic and political systems. That's not the Left's fault.

 

[eohrnberger]

Completely unsupported.

>>it's not credible … to blame a single administration nor a single political party for this mess.

Ditto.



I was making fun of yer claim that the Left sees itself as superior. Fwiw, I figure we are, but I'd say that's the Right's fault. Step up yer game.

>>The left is just as foolish, stupid, self centered, and subject to human foibles as any other human.

Well, let's say you guys have some prominent examples of people with those characteristics.

>>you've already consumed a bellyful of ideological nonsense. We can see it in "the Left is superior".

See above.

>>look at the Democratic party being blown up by the primary scandal and Hillary campaign.

There is no "scandal."

>>Which allegedly 'superior' party would put forth a candidate such as Hillary for consideration?

The one that will win easily in November and continue the progress we've been making since the GOP got booted from the WH.

>>The two entrenched major party political elites have evolved to the point where they are only self-serving

I'd say things are about the same as they've always been. The difference, imo, is that in recent years the GOP allowed a fairly small faction of extremist morons to control the party's actions in the Congress. I'm hoping that period is over, because the whole country suffered for it.

>>So it's 'wise' to lend to people who over extend themselves and can't pay on their obligation

It's yer false claim that this has anything to do with the CRA and Democrats pushing for easy credit for Negroes. A lot of bad loans were written. Those on the Right who are overly passionate about deregulation and a collection of crooked lenders caused the problem to develop.

>>just as it's 'wise' to have government dictate to whom banks should lend?

It's constitutionally and statutorily required that businesses not discriminate based on race.

>>The bottom line about the CRA is that governmnet shouldn't be dictating to banks to who is a safe risk and whom isn't a safe risk.

No, the bottom line is enforcing the Equal Protection Clause of the god damn Fourteenth Amendment and the various statutes enacted in pursuance of that hard-earned mandate.

>>The bank actuarial data is by far a better indicator than some misguided social engineering public policy.

Yes, and as long as a lender's data didn't show a pattern of discrimination, there was nothing to be concerned about.

Yes, we will work hard to force our liberal belief that all mean are created equal and must be treated that way by the gubmint "onto others that don't share that same view." If there's a cost to be paid, so be it. A very large price has already been paid to establish and defend "that social agenda."

>>the downturn of small businesses during the Obama administration and their orgy of new business and EPA regulations.

Both completely unsupported.

>>Since when has liberal led government had sufficient wisdom to dictate to the private sector what to do and not to do in order to support the liberal's social agenda?

Since Appomattox and the consequences that followed.

>>The need being to ensure that the private sector can thrive … with sufficient management, but not too much as to distort the markets rendering them ineffective and inefficient.

The markets do not require racial discrimination to operate effectively and efficiently. In fact, the opposite is true.

>>the liberal agenda keeps going off the deep left end of excessive regulation, squelching the economic vitality of the private sector.

As is typically the case, a worthlessly vague anti-regulation statement.

>>regulations … need to be easy to understand, easy and cheap to comply with, even if it means there are some aspects that this regulation should address, but can't do so in this fashion.

I and others, which I'd say constitute a strong majority, will not tolerate racial discrimination by mortgage lenders.

>>The end effect of Dodd-Frank is NOT to eliminate 'too big to fail'.

I'm not defending that legislation. I'm sure it could be improved upon. I figure the problem is the heavy influence that very large banks have on our economic and political systems. That's not the Left's fault.

Denial so deep, it is neither the topic of this thread, nor worth my time.

Do please feel free to continue to live in your fact free liberal bubble.

 

[cpwill]

Exactly. Keynes figured this out a long time ago, and the idea of public spending in recession is even more important today, as technological innovation and trade agreements cause employment to atrophy.

We aren't in a recession. According to Mr Keynes theory, we should currently be running a surplus, and saving the extra.

 

[Ganesh]

The ideology of liberals is to force their beliefs of what should happen onto others that don't share that same view, and have those others pay for that social agenda. We can see this with the downturn of small businesses during the Obama administration and their orgy of new business and EPA regulations.

Since when has liberal led government had sufficient wisdom to dictate to the private sector what to do and not to do in order to support the liberal's social agenda?

From my perspective there's a fine balance to be struck between the benefits due to society, and the private sector's support of that society. The need being to ensure that the private sector can thrive and provide the economy activity to pay for all the overhead of government and society, with sufficient management, but not too much as to distort the markets rendering them ineffective and inefficient. It's a case of 'just right'.

To my taste, the liberal agenda keeps going off the deep left end of excessive regulation, squelching the economic vitality of the private sector.

In all this, there is no statement 'eliminate all regulation', nor even deregulation. The regulations that we need to have also need to be easy to understand, easy and cheap to comply with, even if it means there are some aspects that this regulation should address, but can't do so in this fashion.

If you look at the tome that is the Frank-Dodd statute, and then multiply that by 1000 for the regulations surrounding it, you can pretty easily see my point. The end effect of Dodd-Frank is NOT to eliminate 'too big to fail'. It's end result was to drive banking consolidation guaranteeing 'too big to fail' for one, and force a less robust, less resilient monoculture of the banking industry, exactly opposite it's stated aims.

The bolded section above provides a clear example of right wing misunderstanding of the workings of the economy and society. When we look at to whose advantage such skewed logic profits, one can understand why it keeps being promoted.

The private sector represents the approximately 60% of economic activity that, for various reasons, is deemed to function better outside the public area. This reasoning varies, and is quite subjective. Public health care tends to work pretty well in the public sphere in most countries, it does not work so well in the privatized US. Heavy industries such as steel and shipbuilding have worked very well in close partnership with government in places like Japan, and S Korea, not so well in other countries.

The point is, private initiative no more pays the bills than public effort. The Wall St trader and the Air Force pilot both do their pro-social thing, and one could debate the relative worth of either, but both are paying their dues. To carry it to an extreme for the sake of argument, if one nationalized every business in the US, then who would be "paying the bills?" If Boeing, Microsoft, Starbucks, etc, carried on making money, but as government departments, then who is paying the bills?

Priorities are set by either private speculation, or public policy, and then goals are met- or not- based on available human and natural resources, built infrastructure, organizational abilities, and other factors. These goals might be successful and increase wealth and well being in society, or they may not. Some functions have been shunted to the private sector, as they have tended to work better in that area, others remain there due to public perception, or merely the momentum of history. Some functions have tended to better perform in the public area. There is much grey area in between.

The problem with the right is that the hysteria that places private business on a quasi-religious pedestal, and sees public organizations as the anti-Christ, is continually stoked by those at the apex of wealth, and the politically fanatical and politically naive who are so useful to the aforementioned.

 

[eohrnberger]

The bolded section above provides a clear example of right wing misunderstanding of the workings of the economy and society. When we look at to whose advantage such skewed logic profits, one can understand why it keeps being promoted.

The private sector represents the approximately 60% of economic activity that, for various reasons, is deemed to function better outside the public area. This reasoning varies, and is quite subjective. Public health care tends to work pretty well in the public sphere in most countries, it does not work so well in the privatized US. Heavy industries such as steel and shipbuilding have worked very well in close partnership with government in places like Japan, and S Korea, not so well in other countries.

The point is, private initiative no more pays the bills than public effort. The Wall St trader and the Air Force pilot both do their pro-social thing, and one could debate the relative worth of either, but both are paying their dues. To carry it to an extreme for the sake of argument, if one nationalized every business in the US, then who would be "paying the bills?" If Boeing, Microsoft, Starbucks, etc, carried on making money, but as government departments, then who is paying the bills?

Priorities are set by either private speculation, or public policy, and then goals are met- or not- based on available human and natural resources, built infrastructure, organizational abilities, and other factors. These goals might be successful and increase wealth and well being in society, or they may not. Some functions have been shunted to the private sector, as they have tended to work better in that area, others remain there due to public perception, or merely the momentum of history. Some functions have tended to better perform in the public area. There is much grey area in between.

The problem with the right is that the hysteria that places private business on a quasi-religious pedestal, and sees public organizations as the anti-Christ, is continually stoked by those at the apex of wealth, and the politically fanatical and politically naive who are so useful to the aforementioned.

The fundamental problem I see here is the lack of acknowledgement of the simple fact that government doesn't produce added value, in an economic sense. There are only 3 ways that you produce added value, you grow it, you dig it out of the ground, or you manufacture it. Government does none of these things, ergo, government doesn't produce added value, ergo government is overhead. Overhead needed for running a society.

Do not misconstrue that government doesn't do things that are valuable, it does. Essential, yes, that too. But it doesn't produce value added. So it's a value sink, and not a value source in the economic scheme of things.

In business, the difference between the sale price and the production cost of a product is the unit profit. In economics, the sum of the unit profit, the unit depreciation cost, and the unit labor cost is the unit value added. Summing value added per unit over all units sold is total value added. Total value added is equivalent to revenue less intermediate consumption. Value added is a higher portion of revenue for integrated companies, e.g., manufacturing companies, and a lower portion of revenue for less integrated companies, e.g., retail companies. Total value added is very closely approximated by compensation of employees plus earnings before taxes. The first component is a return to labor and the second component is a return to capital. In national accounts used in macroeconomics, it refers to the contribution of the factors of production, i.e., capital (e.g., land and capital goods) and labor, to raising the value of a product and corresponds to the incomes received by the owners of these factors. The national value added is shared between capital and labor (as the factors of production), and this sharing gives rise to issues of distribution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added

Apply the calculations to the government, I think you'll see it more clearly. Government is simply society's overhead costs. And as such, should be limited, reduced at every turn, ruthlessly controlled.

I know. All those concepts are probably foreign to you when applied to government. Pity really.