And why were they taking that risk? Because they could just sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie.

 

And German banks and Iceland banks and to each other and to everyone.

I can't speak for "we", I can speak for me.

 

I am better off now on an overall scale than I've ever been, I said this much in the Democrat thread. The issue is most of (if not all) of that gain is negated by local taxes and fees surging. That said, I was better off in 2009 than I was in 2006, or 2007, and I'm better off now than I was in 2009.

 

I'm a bit of an exception to the rule when it comes to this, however, as every year since my career began I've been better off the year after, successively, regardless of the economy.

Me too. Probably just more coincidence than anything else.

like what? what have they done that you agree with.

Well they clearly decided after they lost the last Presidential election that they would do everything in their power to stonewall Obama, and they certainly have carried that out effectively.

I was JUST going to post that same response.

 

That would be a pretty silly response to post because their critique of Ryan was accurate.

You've jumped the reasoning shark now.

 

My statement, that the .com collapse was historic, was and is accurate no matter how you try to spin this.

 

Define your metric for "historic"

And why were they taking that risk? Because they could just sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie.

 

Freddie and Fannie were not anywhere near the primary buyer of those loans.

Freddie and Fannie were not anywhere near the primary buyer of those loans.

 

Who was buying more?

Define your metric for "historic"

 

It was historic in that we've never seen the near instant creation and near instant destruction of wealth that the rate in which it happened, and how it happened. Money and jobs were falling from the sky, seemingly out of the same thin air they evaporated back into just as quickly.

 

It was historic in that the NASDAQ went from under 2000 to over 5000 in the span of a two years...and back again. It was a historic rise and fall, and cannot be called anything less.

 

I don't know what else one could call what happened during that time, other than calling it historic.

Who was buying more?

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2009/05/06/5554/subprime-25

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/5380...not-fannie.html

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

 

More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

 

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/5380...l#storylink=cpy

Who was buying more?

 

 

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2009/05/06/5554/subprime-25

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/5380...not-fannie.html

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

 

More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

 

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/5380...l#storylink=cpy

 

Yeah, ISSUED and MADE, and then those GSE groups bought those mortgages up.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insi...ie_mae_and.html

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2009/05/06/5554/subprime-25

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/5380...not-fannie.html

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

 

More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

 

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/5380...l#storylink=cpy

 

You just changed the topic.

 

 

That's total MBS's, not sub-prime.

You just changed the topic.

 

You're clinging on to bad arguments that were put down four years ago.

You're clinging on to bad arguments that were put down four years ago.

 

So you've got nothing. I see.

Except that data I've posted? I haven't seen anything from you.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2...agination=false

 

Contrary to Wallison, the nine other members of the commission, including three others appointed by Republicans, concluded that Fannie and Freddie were not the main causes of the crisis.

 

Along with many other experts, the nine members pointed to considerable evidence that, despite large losses, these government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), as they are known, bought or guaranteed too few highly risky loans, and did so too late in the 2000s, to cause the crisis. But in their new book, Reckless Endangerment, the New York Times reporter Gretchen Morgenson and mortgage securities analyst Joshua Rosner try to revive the issue of their responsibility.

Except that data I've posted? I haven't seen anything from you.

 

You mean data that doesn't answer your statement, or my question, and instead changed the subject? I'd hardly call that something.

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report that shot down this nonsense years ago

You mean data that doesn't answer your statement, or my question, and instead changed the subject? I'd hardly call that something.

 

Where is the data supporting your initial contention? You made the claim that Fannie and Freddie bought enough of the subprime loans to cause the crisis. Provide support.

This bold claim, however, is not substantiated by persuasive analysis or by any hard evidence in the book. The GSEs did generate large losses, but their bad investments in housing loans followed rather than led the crisis; most of those investments involved purchases or guarantees made well after the subprime and housing bubbles had been expanded by private loans and were almost about to burst.

 

Even then, the GSEs’ overall purchases and guarantees were much less risky than Wall Street’s: their default rates were one fourth to one fifth those of Wall Street and other private financial firms, a fact not made clear by the authors.

In response to Biden criticizing Romney's "Let Detriot Go Bankrupt" article, Ryan responded:

 

RYAN: Mitt Romney’s a car guy. They keep misquoting him, but let me tell you about the Mitt Romney I know. This is a guy who I was talking to a family in Northborough, Massachusetts the other day, Sheryl and Mark Nixon. Their kids were hit in a car crash, four of them. Two of them, Rob and Reed, were paralyzed. [anecdote about noblesse oblige and paying for their college education]

 

That's a pretty incredible non-sequitor.

 

 

Did Biden reference the Op-Ed? And did he actually read it? Because no where did Romney say let Detroit go Bankrupt.

Where is the data supporting your initial contention? You made the claim that Fannie and Freddie bought enough of the subprime loans to cause the crisis. Provide support.

 

I don't think anyone said it caused it, but it played a major role in it. If you know you're going to be backed by Freddie/Fannie, it's easy to make the decision to give out a loan you know has a 90% chance of defaulting. Blame for sure goes to the private lenders, but Republicans saw this issue in 2006 and tried to increase the lending standards but congressional dems blocked them. Would it have prevented or stopped everything? No. Would it have made the financial impact a little smaller? Yes.

Well they clearly decided after they lost the last Presidential election that they would do everything in their power to stonewall Obama, and they certainly have carried that out effectively.

 

so basically, you are complaining that politics are so partisan, but you insist the other side doesn't do anything right . they only hurt "your team". your intentions were less noble than I thought.

Edited October 12, 201213 yr by mr_genius