Obama's Contribution To The Subprime Lending Bubble (1996)

[kimmy]

Yeah. Thanks, Gost, I can't believe this thread went this far without somebody pointing out the big fat lie which underlies this whole premise, which is that the banks were forced to do it.

Only a fraction of the sub-prime mortgages were mandated by government policies; the bulk of them were created by the banks themselves, when the banks discovered they could make money hand-over-fist by giving sub-prime mortgages and then selling the risk to unsuspecting investors by disguising them in complicated financial products.

-k

[GostHacked]

Yeah. Thanks, Gost, I can't believe this thread went this far without somebody pointing out the big fat lie which underlies this whole premise, which is that the banks were forced to do it.

Only a fraction of the sub-prime mortgages were mandated by government policies; the bulk of them were created by the banks themselves, when the banks discovered they could make money hand-over-fist by giving sub-prime mortgages and then selling the risk to unsuspecting investors by disguising them in complicated financial products.

-k

Yes and there was one critical piece that was struck down in order to allow this to happen. I've brought this up before, so this seems like a good place to reiterate it.. We can thank Clinton for setting the stage..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

The Banking Act of 1933 (Pub.L. 73-66, 48 Stat. 162, enacted June 16, 1933) was a law that established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and imposed banking reforms, several of which were intended to control speculation.[1] It is often referred to as the Glass–Steagall Act, after its Congressional sponsors, Senator Carter Glass (D) of Virginia, and Representative Henry B. Steagall (D) of Alabama.

The term Glass–Steagall Act, however, is most often used to refer to four provisions of the Banking Act of 1933 that limited commercial bank securities activities and affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms.[2] Starting in the early 1960s federal banking regulators interpreted these provisions to permit commercial banks and especially commercial bank affiliates to engage in an expanding list and volume of securities activities.[3] By the time the affiliation restrictions in the Glass–Steagall Act were repealed through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, many commentators argued Glass-Steagall was already “dead.”[4] Most notably, Citibank’s 1998 affiliation with Salomon Smith Barney, one of the largest US securities firms, was permitted under the Federal Reserve Board’s then existing interpretation of the Glass-Steagall Act.[5] Clinton publicly declared, "The Glass-Steagall Act is no longer relevant."[6]

Many commentators have stated that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass–Steagall Act was an important cause of the late-2000s financial crisis.[7][8][9] Some critics of that repeal argue it permitted Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in affiliated commercial banks.[10][11][12][13][14][15] Others have argued that the activities linked to the financial crisis were not prohibited (or, in most cases, even regulated) by the Glass–Steagall Act.[16] Commentators, including the American Bankers Association in January 2010, have also argued that the ability of commercial banking firms to acquire securities firms (and of securities firms to convert into bank holding companies) helped mitigate the financial crisis.[17]

So without those kinds of regulations to keep the banking/financial industries in check we even saw entities like MF Global dipping into sanction customer accounts to shore up their losses. Wiping out many customers savings in an instant.

There are a lot of players involved in this scam which had global reach and global economic impact. The extent of the financial damage is still being calculated. It's really insane.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Nope that is the banks fault. If they weren't deciding on peopled based on race (giving whites loans but blacks of the same qualification no loans) they never would have been forced into this. Good job racists is what you should be saying. Then again why would you blame yourself for the problem right?

Ah so now I'm a racist eh? Classy. Actually, predictable.

Lefties, all the same. When facts don't work, they play the R card. Or say something mean about you because you made some money.

Envy, class, race, willful ignorance, groupthink, name calling. Familiar calling cards of the brilliant left.

Edited September 4, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld

[Smallc]

You're not a racist. You're just so far to the right that you have no grasp on reality.

[JerrySeinfeld]

You're not a racist. You're just so far to the right that you have no grasp on reality.

Subprime was caused in part, not entirely, but in part, because left wing )Democrat) legislators pushed banks into mortgages that would help minorities purchase a home, and in many cases this meant loosening lending standards to accommodate uncreditworthy or risky borrowers. This isn't up for debate. It's a fact. There is nothing far right wing about facts.

WHat's sad is that some people (you?) are so brainwashed by left wing narratives (never say anything negative about any race except white people), that they are blind even in the face of something the rest of us call reality..you know - the truth?

The truth has no ideology. What has an ideology is your reaction to it. See what I'm doing is stating the truth. What your reaction does is clearly paint you into an ideological corner - that of someone who is so blinded by ideology that when their beliefs clash with the truth, they get upset and call names. Get help.

Edited September 4, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld

[Smallc]

The truth has no ideology. What has an ideology is your reaction to it. See what I'm doing is stating the truth. What your reaction does is clearly paint you into an ideological corner - that of someone who is so blinded by ideology that when their beliefs clash with the truth, they get upset and call names.

I haven't even responded to this thread before now. Truth, as you know, is rarely absolute.

[GostHacked]

I haven't even responded to this thread before now. Truth, as you know, is rarely absolute.

So what makes one think that either Romney or Obama would tell anyone the truth?

[Smallc]

So what makes one think that either Romney or Obama would tell anyone the truth?

They're humans. Humans don't always tell the truth...some more than others. Obama doesn't seem like a liar to me. Romney doesn't, I don't think, even know what he believes anymore, I don't think, so how could he possibly know if he's telling the truth?

[JerrySeinfeld]

They're humans. Humans don't always tell the truth...some more than others. Obama doesn't seem like a liar to me. Romney doesn't, I don't think, even know what he believes anymore, I don't think, so how could he possibly know if he's telling the truth?

He's not a liar, he's just a talker.

This is pretty funny. This time he means it?

[GostHacked]

They're humans. Humans don't always tell the truth...some more than others. Obama doesn't seem like a liar to me. Romney doesn't, I don't think, even know what he believes anymore, I don't think, so how could he possibly know if he's telling the truth?

I would hope that the person sitting in the chair as President representing all Americans and being the face of America to the world would have some integrity. We should not be electing inferior liars and be apologetic for them being 'human' when that resulting fraud most likely will get people killed. But yet it keeps happening. The government is simply bureaucratically too big to even be effective anymore. Both Obama and Romney know full well that they are lying to the public with their rhetoric to nowhere. They also know full well that there are suckers out there born every minute.

I would just hope that someone better than ME is running the show. If not, then failure is imminent.

[Smallc]

I would just hope that someone better than ME is running the show.

Then you're being unrealistic.

[GostHacked]

Then you're being unrealistic.

Wanting to have leaders with integrity is unrealistic?

So you have no problem with leaders lying? And that seems to be more common. 'Oh they are just humans too, they screw up.'

How many of Obama's campaign promises has he managed to keep? How many do you think Romney will be able to keep? Why do the clowns keep getting elected?

[Smallc]

Wanting to have leaders with integrity is unrealistic?

Well, if you want them to be better than you, and you're saying you want them to have integrity, then you need to work on yourself before criticizing others, I think.

So you have no problem with leaders lying? And that seems to be more common. 'Oh they are just humans too, they screw up.'

I try not to lie. I try to do what's right. I expect the same while realizing that people running governments are human, just as I am.

How many of Obama's campaign promises has he managed to keep? How many do you think Romney will be able to keep? Why do the clowns keep getting elected?

They keep what they can, and what they reasonably can once they have the bigger picture.

[GostHacked]

Well, if you want them to be better than you, and you're saying you want them to have integrity, then you need to work on yourself before criticizing others, I think.

My lack of integrity is not in question. My decisions don't take a country to war, my decisions don't have global financial repercussions. Of COURSE I want someone better than me in office. If you want to elect any f'n clown in, then you damn well deserve what you get. Even if that means the country is in economic ruins. OR if you get Romney in, you can bet another war is around the corner.

I try not to lie. I try to do what's right. I expect the same while realizing that people running governments are human, just as I am.

Clinton was in hot water for lying, minor scandal really, but a lie none the less. Bush lied too, got the country wrapped up in a couple wars which did not help at all. Obama's lies are ruining the country from within.

IF I lie at work, for whatever reason, people's lives are not on the line.

They keep what they can, and what they reasonably can once they have the bigger picture.

So why would anyone swallow anything Obama or Romney would say at this point knowing full well that they are both making promises we know they will never be able to keep? Yet people are hanging on every word screaming USA USA USA at every pause.

[cybercoma]

Ah so now I'm a racist eh? Classy. Actually, predictable.

Lefties, all the same. When facts don't work, they play the R card. Or say something mean about you because you made some money.

Envy, class, race, willful ignorance, groupthink, name calling. Familiar calling cards of the brilliant left.

Actually, you're the one that brought race into the conversation, champ.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Actually, you're the one that brought race into the conversation, champ.

So now even talking about issues affected by race is racist?

Gotcha there, Chris Matthews

[punked]

So now even talking about issues affected by race is racist?

Gotcha there, Chris Matthews

No but saying banks should be allowed to treat blacks different from whites based solely on race is racist.

[GostHacked]

I think this is a good thread to bring this up in ...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/04/who-do-owe-most-that-16-trillion-to-hint-it-isnt-china/

USA currently debt load is 16 trillion. TRILLION.

[punked]

I think this is a good thread to bring this up in ...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/04/who-do-owe-most-that-16-trillion-to-hint-it-isnt-china/

USA currently debt load is 16 trillion. TRILLION.

A debt they largely owe to themselves that is with mentioning how much the US and US business is worth.

[GostHacked]

A debt they largely owe to themselves that is with mentioning how much the US and US business is worth.

So the current borrowing is banking on productivity and income from future generations. So any one born now automatically has a debt load they will never be able to pay back, because the borrowing will continue to bank on future generations. Cyclical insanity. Sounds like financial slavery.

[punked]

So the current borrowing is banking on productivity and income from future generations. So any one born now automatically has a debt load they will never be able to pay back, because the borrowing will continue to bank on future generations. Cyclical insanity. Sounds like financial slavery.

That is what they said during the great depression when cutting spending which only lead to high debts being taken on. You are trying (and failing) at making a very complex problem, very simple. That hurts everyone and doesn't solve the problem.

There is a time and place to pay down the debt and deficit. There is a time and place to cut spending and raise revenues. It is not when those cuts in spending will drive your economy right off a cliff. Look at Spain cut cut cut they all shouted now it has 25% unemployment and 50+% youth unemployment. That is what you and republicans want. It will drive down labor costs and make lots of people like Romney very rich. Good bye modern age, hello gilded age.

Edited September 4, 2012 by punked

[GostHacked]

That is what they said during the great depression when cutting spending which only lead to high debts being taken on. You are trying (and failing) at making a very complex problem, very simple. That hurts everyone and doesn't solve the problem.

The problem has been going on longer than I've been alive. Of course it's a complex issue. Simplification gets the point across better though. Not many can fully understand the scope of what is happening, so in order to start the conversation, you have to simplify things. Then elaborate from there.

[punked]

The problem has been going on longer than I've been alive. Of course it's a complex issue. Simplification gets the point across better though. Not many can fully understand the scope of what is happening, so in order to start the conversation, you have to simplify things. Then elaborate from there.

Yah it might be because when ever there is surplus instead of putting it away for a rainy day or paying down current debts all I hear about from Conservatives is TAX CUTTTSSS!!!!

Look at Harper. Look at Bush.

Edited September 4, 2012 by punked

[JerrySeinfeld]

Yah it might be because when ever there is surplus instead of putting it away for a rainy day or paying down current debts all I hear about from Conservatives is TAX CUTTTSSS!!!!

Look at Harper. Look at Bush.

Yea. Look at this chart. As you can see, the problem is clearly tax cutting, not growth in spending:

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-size-spending-by-president.jpg

[punked]

Yea. Look at this chart. As you can see, the problem is clearly tax cutting, not growth in spending:

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-size-spending-by-president.jpg

That chart should go up. If the us is generating and growing its GDP there is no reason why it shouldn't here is a news flash for you if that chart didn't go up then that would mean cuts in services.

The only point you are making is you don't understand economics.