2012 debates

[Shady]

Obama has actually outline and put into bills what his plans on all those things are Shady. Maybe go research them. Now Romney actually hasn't come up with any plan.

Nope, he's done none of that. You're a huge liar. In the Obama mold I see.

[punked]

Nope, he's done none of that. You're a huge liar. In the Obama mold I see.

OMG republicans love to project don't they? Yes Obama has outlined all those things Shady go do some research.

[Shady]

OMG republicans love to project don't they? Yes Obama has outlined all those things Shady go do some research.

What's his Medicare reform proposal?

[punked]

What's his Medicare reform proposal?

He has saved 716 Billion for Medicare and closed the donut hole to give it an extra 8 years. While Romney promise to restore those things so Medicare is bankrupt in 4 years.

[Shady]

He has saved 716 Billion for Medicare and closed the donut hole to give it an extra 8 years. While Romney promise to restore those things so Medicare is bankrupt in 4 years.

I'll ask again. What's his plan to reform Medicare? What's his plan to reform Social Security? What's his plan punked? Just link to his policy plan. That's all I ask.

[punked]

I'll ask again. What's his plan to reform Medicare? What's his plan to reform Social Security? What's his plan punked? Just link to his policy plan. That's all I ask.

Who needs to reform Social Security? It is fully funded for the next 70 years. For a whole generation. [

[dre]

That's complete nonsense, as usual you have no idea what you're talking about. Government regulation lowered lending standards so that people that wouldn't otherwise qualify for mortgages, would qualify. In particular, it was government institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that were the chief architects of these new loans. Private banks had a choice to either compete with Freddie and Fannie, or lose business. That can't be debunked because it's fact. No matter how many times you wanna bury your head in your ass and refuse to accept the truth.

No thats not a fact its flat out bunk.

In particular, it was government institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that were the chief architects of these new loans

GSE's accounted for less than 1/4 of subprime and Alt A loans.

The chief architects?

1. Countrywide Financial

At least $97.2 billion

2. Ameriquest Mortgage/ACC Capital Holdings

At least $80.6 billion

3. New Century Financial

At least $75.9 billion

4. First Franklin/National City/Merrill Lynch

At least $68 billion

5. Long Beach Mortgage/Washington Mutual

At least $65.2 billion

6. Option One Mortgage/H&R Block

At least $64.7 billion

7. Fremont Investment & Loan/Fremont General

At least $61.7 billion

8. Wells Fargo Financial/Wells Fargo

At least $51.8 billion

9. HSBC Finance/HSBC Holdings

At least $50.3 billion*

10. WMC Mortgage/General Electric

At least $49.6 billion

11. BNC Mortgage/Lehman Brothers

At least $47.6 billion*

12. Chase Home Finance/JPMorgan Chase

At least $30 billion

13. Accredited Home Lenders/Lone Star Funds V

At least $29.0 billion

14. IndyMac Bancorp

At least $26.4 billion

15. CitiFinancial/Citigroup

At least $26.3 billion

16. EquiFirst/Regions Financial/Barclays Bank

At least $24.4 billion

17. Encore Credit/ECC Capital/Bear Stearns

At least $22.3 billion

18. American General Finance/American International Group (AIG)

At least $21.8 billion*

19. Wachovia

At least $17.6 billion

20. GMAC/Cerberus Capital Management

At least $17.2 billion*

21. NovaStar Financial

At least $16 billion

22. American Home Mortgage Investment

At least $15.3 billion

23. GreenPoint Mortgage Funding/Capital One Financial

At least $13.1 billion

24. ResMAE Mortgage/Citadel Investment Group

At least $13 billion

25. Aegis Mortgage/Cerberus Capital Management

At least $11.5 billion

Still... while Fanny and Freddy were not origionators of sub prime loans its noteworthy to point out that they certain purchased a fair ammount... The St Louis Federal Reserve Bank studied this to see if perhaps housing mandates played a role in that...

We find no evidence that lenders increased subprime originations or altered pricing around the discrete eligibility cutoffs for the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) affordable housing goals or the Community Reinvestment Act. Our results indicate that the extensive purchases of risky private-label mortgage-backed securities by the GSEs were not due to affordable housing mandates.

Private banks had a choice to either compete with Freddie and Fannie, or lose business.

Most subprime loans were not made by EITHER private banks or GSE's. They were made by mortgage companies like CountryWide. And these entities were not just competing with GSE's they literally ploughed them under. These companies made these loans simply because they were profitable at the time.

[Moonlight Graham]

I just finally finished watching all of the 1st debate. In the first part of the debate, about the economy, Romney definitely whooped Obama. Obama was always on the defensive, and looking lost while he was stuck looking down at his notes. But for the rest of the debate, on healthcare, education, social security etc., I saw it about dead even with Obama maybe even taking it by a hair. After the economy debate, which was very heated, the debate seemed to relax a lot an Obama looked like his old self and there really wasn't the heated exchanges and zingers like when they debated the economy. The first 30 minutes were not good for Obama at all but I don't see this as a major catastrophy as everyone else did...maybe most people tuned out after the first 30-45 minutes? I suspect this is always the case for the public when watching a 90 minute debate so the 1st 30 minutes are the most vital and impactful on voters who flip to watch something else when it gets boring at the 30-45min mark.

[kraychik]

I would say that "whoppers" is in the eye of the beholder, but yes, the media did get into Obama's lies too, but it seems the consensus is that Romney strayed from the facts more often, and to a greater degree, than Obama did.

The "consensus" from objective media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, Politico, and CBS? I guess you're still living in a world where you trust most of the media's analysis of events.

[kraychik]

You'll have to excuse me if I don't take your word for that, as you've proven yourself to be nothing but partisan.

I don't hide my values, but I am not a partisan. Had Obama won the debate, in one way or another, I would not have said otherwise.

It's not an "excuse" at all; simply a statement based on fact, in response to the comment that I was responding to.

Of course it's an excuse, and it's straight from the Obama reelection campaign which tried to keep expectations low by stating in the days leading up to the debate that Obama is extremely busy with his presidential responsibilities (i.e. fundraising with Hollywood celebrities) and unable to prepare as Romney could. It's a pathetic excuse to deflect from Obama's incompetence which was on full display during the debate. He's not the quite the same man when he isn't alone on stage with prepared remarks, is he?

[kraychik]

Most likely people who went into the debate undecided care more about the content than the performance, and therefore are more likely to fact-check what was said. That's not going to turn out so well for Romney.

So you think Obama's "$5 trillion dollar tax cut lie" (which Stephanie Cutter already admitted was a lie) which Obama harped on about for three segments isn't going to be a problem for Obama? Obama's lies were swatted down left and right by Romney.

Furthermore, the entire term "fact check" is another nonsensical leftist term, anyways. You know what we used to call "fact checkers"? The media. Unfortunately, the media is so despised that they've rebranded themselves as "fact checkers" in an attempt to make themselves more credible. We've seen the same rebranding from communists to socialists to leftists to liberals to progressives. This strategy does fools socialists like cybercoma, however who quote Politifact.com, because, if it's got the word fact in its title, then it must be true! It even won the Pulitzer Prize, which we all know is a completely apolitical award. "Fact checking" is just more spin.

Enjoy voting for Obama on November 6.

[kraychik]

The claim that the government made banks lend out all those risky mortgages has been debunked so many times on this board that it's getting to be like the "who's on first?" routine. You (or Seinfeld or Pliny) spout this crap, then the facts are presented and you abandon thread and make the same claim 2 days later in a new thread. It's like Whack-A-Mole.

Banks were forced to lend to people with substandard creditworthiness, all justified on the false premise of racist/bigoted lending practises from lenders. This is how leftists (including Obama, who participated in a lawsuit brought against lenders with false accusations of racial discrimination) described "red-lining". Of course, the risk was absorbed by the public who guaranteed the repayment of these loans to the banks via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is the core of the subprime housing crisis, no matter how many times you and your ilk try to deny it.

[Michael Hardner]

Banks were forced to lend to people with substandard creditworthiness, all justified on the false premise of racist/bigoted lending practises from lenders.

How were they forced, specifically ? That might help clarify the discussion.

[Black Dog]

I don't hide my values, but I am not a partisan.

Say what? You have never once made a positive statement regarding your beliefs. Your politics are that of opposition to "leftism." You don't stand for anything.

[punked]

FDR reminds us not to forget. I think the biggest problem we have is the greatest was a generation of moderates who learned from their parents that if someone promises you everything and it costs nothing they are a liar. I hope it doesn't take a great depression to teach the boomers, and Xers the same thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3RHnKYNvx8

[Moonlight Graham]

We've seen the same rebranding from communists to socialists to leftists to liberals to progressives.

[Moonlight Graham]

Say what? You have never once made a positive statement regarding your beliefs. Your politics are that of opposition to "leftism." You don't stand for anything.

Well give him credit, once in a blue moon he will. He usually bashes "lefties" rather than voice his own stance, but he does sometimes come out and have something to say about his dislike of radical Muslims and a few other tidbits. But ya I did notice he doesn't make many statements about his own beliefs. Much easier to defend yourself when you don't do that, hmm?

[Shady]

Who needs to reform Social Security? It is fully funded for the next 70 years. For a whole generation. [

You're delusional.

]The fact is, the federal government had to borrow $37 billion last year to finance Social Security, and will need to borrow more this year. The red ink is projected to total well over half a trillion dollars in the coming decade.[/b]

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/

[Shady]

No thats not a fact its flat out bunk.

GSE's accounted for less than 1/4 of subprime and Alt A loans.

The chief architects?

Still... while Fanny and Freddy were not origionators of sub prime loans its noteworthy to point out that they certain purchased a fair ammount... The St Louis Federal Reserve Bank studied this to see if perhaps housing mandates played a role in that...

Most subprime loans were not made by EITHER private banks or GSE's. They were made by mortgage companies like CountryWide. And these entities were not just competing with GSE's they literally ploughed them under. These companies made these loans simply because they were profitable at the time.

You keep giving the government a pass for lowering mortgage standards as to initiate more home ownership to lower income individuals. Why do you give them a pass? That was the biggest contributor to the housing crisis. Government meddling in the market. Luckily in Canada, we don't have any do-gooder type politiicians trying to pass on similar policy. In fact, in Canada we strengthened mortgage standards, which make it more difficult for qualifying.

[Shady]

How were they forced, specifically ? That might help clarify the discussion.

By law they had to make a percentage of loans too unqualified buyers. In fact near the end of the Clinton administration, the attorney general actually prosecuted some banks for "discriminatory" lending practices. In effect, for not lending to people that didn't qualify for mortgages.

[cybercoma]

What was the percentage they were required to lend out by law and what percentage did they actually lend out in practice?

[August1991]

MR. ROMNEY: ...I love Big Bird.

MR. ROMNEY: Let -- well, actually -- actually it's -- it's-- it's a lengthy description, but number one, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.

So Romney is a Salt Water leftist?

msj, you make my point for me.

Leftists are so reactionary.

Anyone who still talks about Big Bird or "pre-existing conditions" must be a Leftist.

Edited October 11, 2012 by August1991

[dre]

You keep giving the government a pass for lowering mortgage standards as to initiate more home ownership to lower income individuals. Why do you give them a pass? That was the biggest contributor to the housing crisis. Government meddling in the market. Luckily in Canada, we don't have any do-gooder type politiicians trying to pass on similar policy. In fact, in Canada we strengthened mortgage standards, which make it more difficult for qualifying.

The government wasnt even setting mortgage standards for the companies making all those subprime loans. And the CRA does not lower lending standards. Banks subject to the CRA can set whatever standards they like. They just arent allowed to selectively apply those standards.

What the CRA actually says is...

That an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution

Furthermore...

A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.

And I DONT give the government a pass. They brought interest rates down to fast after the .COM bubble burst and kept them too low for too long, and ignored their own formulas. And didnt regulate the shadow banking system or ratings agencies properly.

[August1991]

I just finally finished watching all of the 1st debate. In the first part of the debate, about the economy, Romney definitely whooped Obama. Obama was always on the defensive, and looking lost while he was stuck looking down at his notes. But for the rest of the debate, on healthcare, education, social security etc., I saw it about dead even with Obama maybe even taking it by a hair. After the economy debate, which was very heated, the debate seemed to relax a lot an Obama looked like his old self and there really wasn't the heated exchanges and zingers like when they debated the economy. The first 30 minutes were not good for Obama at all but I don't see this as a major catastrophy as everyone else did...maybe most people tuned out after the first 30-45 minutes? I suspect this is always the case for the public when watching a 90 minute debate so the 1st 30 minutes are the most vital and impactful on voters who flip to watch something else when it gets boring at the 30-45min mark.

I had a similar impression when watching the debate live. Now, I'm tempted to watch it a second time.

IMV, on first view, neither Obama nor Romney "won" the debate. Instead, it was a good discussion between opposing viewpoints about America's future.

----

I reckon that Romney "won" the debate simply because so many inattentive American voters (normal people) didn't know him well, and imagined the worse (MSM, life in general, risk aversion). They were surprised with the real Romney.

Edited October 11, 2012 by August1991

[dre]

How were they forced, specifically ? That might help clarify the discussion.

They were not.forced. First of all, the only banks subject to the CRA are banks that want to be. Participation is voluntary... IF you want the government to insure your deposits you have to follow the rules.

Secondly, participating banks were completely free to set their own standards. If a FDIC participating bank wants to require a very high income/debt ratio, they were free to do so. What they were NOT allowed to do was blacklist entire neighborhoods in areas where they collected deposits. So if they required a guy in community A to have an 80K per year income to get a mortgage for 200K, they have to also apply those same standards to community B.