Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 53 to 65 of 95
  1. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by Gib's Son View Post
    Barney's boyfriend was in charge of the subprime loan dept at either Freddie or Fanny, I forget which. He made wheel barrow fulls of cash and got out, quit, just in the nick of time and opened a pottery shop. Probably just a qa-winky-dink.
    You should be proper. He is now his husband! YUUUCKKKKKK!!!!

  2. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Six View Post
    Ok answer this one question HONESTLY....

    Why did Fannie and Freddie start purchasing sub-prime loans to package and sell as derivitives to the Investment bankers ?

    The answer is in one of my previous post. Lets see if you have thr courage to be honest.
    "In 1989 President George H.W. Bush signed into law the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act that included provisions to increase public oversight of the way CRA was enforced. Regulators were required to issue public, written performance evaluations of banks including a system that rated bank compliance Outstanding, Satisfactory, Needs to Improve pr Substancial non-Compliance. This public scrutiny began to push banks to make more loans to low-income borrowers, a process that often involved putting in place relaxed lending standards."


    "Shortly afterward, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac addressed bank fears that the low-income lending with relaxed standards would unduly increase risk by beginning to securitze "affordable mortages." This was the beginning of subprime lending. It was the "pull" factor that complimented the "push" factor of the CRA."


    So the beginning of the securitzed financial products was propelled by this act signed into law by Republican G.W. Bush.


    Thanks to Cool in Cayman for the link from which these statements were drawn.


    A further interesting bit of history also drawn from Cool in Cayman's link:

    "The Bush administration was also active in pushing home ownership. In early 2005, largely at the behest of the banking sector, the Office of Thrift Supervision implemented new rules that were widely perceived as weakening the CRA. Supervision of banks with under $1 Billion in assets was loosened, and larger banks were allowed to voluntarily reduce the amount of regulator scrutiny of their "investment" and "service"-two longstanding catergories of assessment under the CRA.


    So as I mentioned in an earlier post the Bush folks were involved in the financial crisis up to their necks and were indeed a cause of it.


    Must be galling to be shafted (however unintentionally) by one of your own kind.


    You and Romney have just been having a really bad week.


    Again thanks and a tip of the hat to Cool in Cayman for the information.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  3. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    985
    Quote Originally Posted by geerair View Post
    "In 1989 President George H.W. Bush signed into law the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act that included provisions to increase public oversight of the way CRA was enforced. Regulators were required to issue public, written performance evaluations of banks including a system that rated bank compliance Outstanding, Satisfactory, Needs to Improve pr Substancial non-Compliance. This public scrutiny began to push banks to make more loans to low-income borrowers, a process that often involved putting in place relaxed lending standards."


    "Shortly afterward, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac addressed bank fears that the low-income lending with relaxed standards would unduly increase risk by beginning to securitze "affordable mortages." This was the beginning of subprime lending. It was the "pull" factor that complimented the "push" factor of the CRA."


    So the beginning of the securitzed financial products was propelled by this act signed into law by Republican G.W. Bush.


    Thanks to Cool in Cayman for the link from which these statements were drawn.


    A further interesting bit of history also drawn from Cool in Cayman's link:

    "The Bush administration was also active in pushing home ownership. In early 2005, largely at the behest of the banking sector, the Office of Thrift Supervision implemented new rules that were widely perceived as weakening the CRA. Supervision of banks with under $1 Billion in assets was loosened, and larger banks were allowed to voluntarily reduce the amount of regulator scrutiny of their "investment" and "service"-two longstanding catergories of assessment under the CRA.


    So as I mentioned in an earlier post the Bush folks were involved in the financial crisis up to their necks and were indeed a cause of it.


    Must be galling to be shafted (however unintentionally) by one of your own kind.


    You and Romney have just been having a really bad week.


    Again thanks and a tip of the hat to Cool in Cayman for the information.
    There was nothing unintentional about my link. I know republicans can act like complete idiots particularly when they are acting like liberals. Point is, government forced banks into doing something they did not traditionally do.

    I'm glad my link met your approval for accuracy, however I notice you did not mention anything about the link utterly destroying your "argument" regarding the CRA.


    When politicians, even republicans, engage in liberal policy making you get things like the housing bubble.

  4. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Six View Post
    Ok answer this one question HONESTLY....

    Lets see if you have thr courage to be honest.
    Son, you don't want an honest answer. What you want is an answer that is approved by yourself and Rushbo and that conforms to your ideology.


    The last thing you want is an honest answer. That is plainly evident in the fetid rubbish you post which is overwhelmingly laced with fractured history, a lack of facts, and a vise-like grip on your ideology no matter what thw evidence shows.


    Courage? Hell boy, you haven't the courage to break away from the Limbaugh line and think for yourself. You happily shovel Limbaugh's blatherings down and then vomit them up on internet forums.


    Laughable
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  5. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    985
    Quote Originally Posted by geerair View Post
    Son, you don't want an honest answer. What you want is an answer that is approved by yourself and Rushbo and that conforms to your ideology.


    The last thing you want is an honest answer. That is plainly evident in the fetid rubbish you post which is overwhelmingly laced with fractured history, a lack of facts, and a vise-like grip on your ideology no matter what thw evidence shows.


    Courage? Hell boy, you haven't the courage to break away from the Limbaugh line and think for yourself. You happily shovel Limbaugh's blatherings down and then vomit them up on internet forums.


    Laughable
    All that to say, "no I cannot answer you honestly".

  6. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by cool-in-cayman View Post
    There was nothing unintentional about my link. I know republicans can act like complete idiots particularly when they are acting like liberals. Point is, government forced banks into doing something they did not traditionally do.
    From all reports, banks and financial firms hardly had to have their arms twisted to participate in what they perceived as a goldrush.






    I'm glad my link met your approval for accuracy, however I notice you did not mention anything about the link utterly destroying your "argument" regarding the CRA.
    I saw nothing that contradicted what I have said about the CRA.

    Perhaps you could be more specific.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  7. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by cool-in-cayman View Post
    All that to say, "no I cannot answer you honestly".
    All this to say, your version of honestly requires a suspension of facts and credibility.


    But then, some conservatives are immune to factual material.


    I gave an honest answer, just not the warped brand of honesty to which you folks subscribe.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  8. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    985
    Quote Originally Posted by geerair View Post
    From all reports, banks and financial firms hardly had to have their arms twisted to participate in what they perceived as a goldrush.






    I saw nothing that contradicted what I have said about the CRA.

    Perhaps you could be more specific.
    Well I will admit I am inferring things about what you believe because you don't have the courage to actually take a position but you said this for one:

    Then they concluded that the CRA involvement was minor .........about 6%.
    So, though you agree that policies that were made by Bush, Clinton and others coerced banks into compliance with CRA, you don't believe the CRA is the root of the banking collapse.?

  9. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    985
    Quote Originally Posted by geerair View Post
    All this to say, your version of honestly requires a suspension of facts and credibility.


    But then, some conservatives are immune to factual material.


    I gave an honest answer, just not the warped brand of honesty to which you folks subscribe.
    You still won't answer why Fannie/Freddie decided to buy the loans.

  10. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    985
    Quote Originally Posted by geerair View Post
    From all reports, banks and financial firms hardly had to have their arms twisted to participate
    Well, I guess you must only retain parts of the article you like. From the same article you liked so much.

    The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which opened the door for interstate banking and encouraged a new wave of banking M&A, made the ratings under the CRA a test for determining whether acquisitions would be allowed. That same year, the Fed refused to allow a Hartford, Connecticut bank to acquire a New Hampshire bank on fair housing and CRA grounds.

    This was the first time the Fed had ever taken this kind of action, and it had profound effects through the banking sector. It sent a strong signal to the banks that the Fed would closely scrutinize lending practice, limiting the ability of banks to grow or make acquisitions if they were found to have insufficient low income or minority lending. Banks immediately responded by lowering down payment requirements and using more flexible income criteria.

  11. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Paper Street Soap Company
    Posts
    2,304
    Quote Originally Posted by cool-in-cayman View Post
    All that to say, "no I cannot answer you honestly".
    Yep, IT didn't answer thr question did it.

    A expected response to blame a Republican at any cost. Even at the cost of his/her/its own integrity.

    Liberals are like retarded crabs .Easy to trap and geery showed he/she/it has NO intention of answering the question and have the courage to step up.

    The Affordable Housing act forced Fannie and Freddie to buy toxic mortgages.

    FOR 70 ODD FUC**ING YEARS FANNIE HAS BEEN BUYING MORTGAGES. WHY AFTER BARNEY FRANKS AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT DID EVERYTHING GO STRAIGHT TO HELL? BECAUSE THEY WERE FORCED TO BUY SUBSTANDARD LOANS BY THE DEMOCRATS.

    GEERY IS SO CLOUDED WITH HIS IDIOTIC IDEOLOGY ITS BASICALLY IMPRISONED HIM.

    He absolutley can not tell the truth or think objectively. I would feel sorry foe a guy like that but I know how dangerous people are to the future of our Republic.

  12. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by cool-in-cayman View Post
    Well I will admit I am inferring things about what you believe because you don't have the courage to actually take a position but you said this for one:



    So, though you agree that policies that were made by Bush, Clinton and others coerced banks into compliance with CRA, you don't believe the CRA is the root of the banking collapse.?
    Let's see, first you accuse me of not taking a position, then you highlight a position I've taken.

    You've made an assertion then contradicted that assertion in the very next sentence.

    I take it your editorial policy is to avoid checking the content of your posts for consistency.




    Coerced? The amount of participation by banks and other financial institutions would not support that.

    You might have missed or probably ignored this little tidbit in your link. "Larely at the behest of the banking sector, new rules were implemented that were widely seem as weakening the CRA.

    At the behest of the banking sector........not really what any moderately intelleigent person would define as coercion.


    Indeed, Richard Fuld CEO of Lehman Bros. was asked what role Freddie and Fannie played in the demise of Lehman Bros.

    Fuld replied "De Minimis"

    Now if you have your EPA cert. you know the definition of de Minimis.


    Perhaps you have a different definition that you can share with us.







    Believe CRA is the root of the banking collapse? I'm more persuaded by the conclusions of the national commission set up to study the causes of the financial collapse: "The Commission concludes that the Community Re-investment Act was not a significant factor in the subprime lending or the financial crisis."
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  13. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by cool-in-cayman View Post
    You still won't answer why Fannie/Freddie decided to buy the loans.
    Hmmm.........I expect you ignored this clear answer to that question: So the beginning of the securitized financial products was propelled by this act signed into law by George H. W. Bush.

    From your link.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event