Upset By Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Banks Debate Halting Some Campaign Donations

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Agent_286, Mar 29, 2015.

  1. Ctrl

    Ctrl Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    25,745
    Likes Received:
    1,944
    Trophy Points:
    113
    She didn't come from the aether. She has been here for years... spilling truth about the banking industry. Her funding is being hampered by her wide eyed idealism ffs. You don't have to agree with me to agree that the fundamental structure is completely (*)(*)(*)(*)ed. Bring me a conservative who has the same ideals AND isn't a socialist prick, and I will vote for him. I am team Warren because she is counter-intuitive on a grand scale... but she will be wrecked. She has too vocal a history... and frankly making it to the major stage will cause me to question who got to her... but I expect she wont get that spotlight... because she has spoken too much against the oligarchy. That is the fact Jack, as I see it.
     
  2. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You don't have to convince me about the whole financial structure. I have railed about it for years, & see the whole system is nothing but plundering of the working man.. from dilutions to money shuffling as an avocation.

    But sending a wolf to guard the henhouse? Warren is an elitist.. she gamed the system for her own enrichment & ambitions. I'm sick of these kinds of personalities running rough shod over the American landscape, promising to be benevolent dictators.

    MOD EDIT - Off topic
     
  3. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since my first post to the thread got dinged, will restate it in "friendlier" more neutral terms, that I'm sure everyone will find MUCH more useful... and telling.

    1. As a preliminary, The Huffington Post has been shown to be an unreliable source of news based on its history of inaccurate and dishonest partisan "reporting" as calculated by Politifact. Summarizing all coverage of Huffington Post by Politifact yields the following atrociously bad tally of Huffington Post stories that Politifact has evaluated since the start of 2011:

    True - 14, Mostly True - 30, Half True - 14, Mostly False - 16, False - 12, Pants on Fire - 12. Of note it's interesting how hard it is to get to these numbers from an ordinary search engine query "huffington post politifact." You see, most of the top results on that query -coincidentally- and -conveniently- link not to Politifact, but to... Huffington Post... Hmmm. SEO working overtime? Something to HIDE? Draw your own conclusions.

    That's all the data Politifact includes on Huffington Post from the start of 2011 in case anyone doubts the following statements. Since partisan-type stories are the most evaluated by Politifact, and partisan stories are what end up as sources here... several times a day... we can draw some reasonable conclusions:

    A. Only 15% of Huffington Post stories evaluated by Politifact are completely true. How BAD is that? In my opinion, that's LOUSY reporting. You have a 1 in 6!!?? chance of getting the unalloyed truth in a partisan article from HuffPuff? Ugh? Who would ever waste time on such? Why not just make up one's own news?

    B. About 53% of Huffington Post Stories evaluated by Politifact are at best only half true, and at worst, pure pants on fire lies. WOW! Talk about a waste of space and time!

    C. 14 stories are wholly true, 12 are bald-faced, pants on fire lies, so toss a coin when reading HuffPuff to guess whether the story is all true or a complete and total fabrication! Is THAT a source YOU would trust to report accurately? I sure wouldn't. Is THAT a kind of GIGO risk you want to take with YOUR precious mental real estate? I sure don't.

    Since people DO in fact cutpaste and link several Huffington Post stories... every... single... day here, that only 15% of them are likely to be entirely true is something I feel posters here would want to know with respect to this and ALL threads using Huffington Post as a source.

    (Before anyone rushes to "FOXDIDITTOO!!," that's wholly irrelevant because i) no Fox News article is the source of THIS OP, and ii) no one on PF is cutpasting several whole stories from Fox News and daily posting them to the forum's "current events section" every... single... day... oh, and arguendo, politifact includes GUESTS when evaluating Fox, not kosher at all to do that IMO, who knows what GUESTS are going to say one way or the other, especially on a station like Fox News that gives say to all points of view on this or that topic).

    2. Moving past the -lacking- credibility of the OP's source, to the actual substance, note a couple of things:

    a) the Reuters source of the OP story doesn't cite ANY source for its claims at all, just the nebulous "industry insiders." You buying that? Especially from coopted MSM? I'm not.

    b) OP claims that Dodd Frank is a panacea solution, yet tells us little about it, and what they do say is ENTIRELY WRONG. Dodd Frank, you see, doesn't break up ANYTHING. Doesn't "divest Wall Street" of any "power" whatsoever, other than massive costs to comply with it. To be clear, no "break up" and no "divesting" is ANYWHERE in Dodd Frank, making the OP post just as specious as Huffington Post is.

    But arguendo, let's talk breakup like Warren is constantly doing in her rabble rousing. WHO PUT THE BANKS TOO BIG TO FAIL IN THE FIRST PLACE? Mostly her party in the 90s where the Clinton Administration waived the antitrust laws and allowed HUNDREDS, maybe THOUSANDS of unwise banking mergers. Is she going to EVER admit or talk about this? OF COURSE NOT.

    c) Here's what Dodd Frank actually does, just read the wiki page for yourselves. Don't trust rabble rousers like Warren, and don't trust Huffington Post. REAL, trustworthy information on what is IMO a very BAD LAW is out there:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd–Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act

    Look like an unwieldy albatross hot mess of a confusing law? that's because IT IS EXACTLY THAT. THEY CAN'T EVEN FIGURE OUT HOW TO FULLY IMPLEMENT IT, IT'S THAT BAD. Will Warren tell you this? NO of COURSE NOT! Will Huffpuff tell you this? NO of COURSE NOT! Will OP tell you this? NO, of COURSE NOT! Fact is, Dodd Frank is WORSE than ACA, it's the Obamacare of the financial markets. Banks aren't complaining because they are trying to pull a fast one, they are complaining because THE LAW SUCKS OUT LOUD.

    Note that what Dodd Frank DOESN'T do is mess with the multifaceted government "honey pot" I identified in my prior long post... heavens we can't have that! Too much graft money at stake there... perish the thought. And to relink, here's an excellent blog on the crux of the issues from a nonpartisan, astute commentator on the banking industry as a whole who describes the problems better than I can:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/frances...nks-is-pointless-but-it-will-go-ahead-anyway/

    "After the 2007/8 crisis, films such as Inside Job and books such as The Big Short depicted insanely risky and fraudulent behaviour in capital markets and investment banking, fuelled by outrageous bonus payments and a testosterone-driven, highly competitive culture. So investment banking and capital markets were blamed for the crisis, and governments proposed structural reforms to protect “safe” retail banking from “riskier” investment banking. But even though subsequent investigation has clearly shown that the roots of the financial crisis lie in the residential mortgage and commercial property lending markets, we are still going ahead with expensive structural reforms that will achieve little, simply because public opinion has bought the “retail banking safe, investment banking risky” myth.

    This is one of the most dangerous myths ever created. ALL banking is intrinsically risky. Mortgage lending is no safer than securities trading. Done badly, it brings down banks just as quickly and catastrophically as the supposedly “riskier” activities that these reforms aim to protect us from."

    There IS much regulation needed of banks and the mortgage markets, and that regulation should focus on THE LENDING PRACTICE ITSELF, specifically REMOVING government social engineering entirely from the mortgage markets, not the faux issues that Dodd Frank targets. But you see, the actual lending practice itself is a particularly corrupt GOVERNMENT, not private sector, honey pot, the source of BILLIONS or trillions of false, incumbent-bolstering stimulus AND endless campaign contributions, as linked in my prior long post (as if the contributions of "Big Wall Street" are the real issue here, as if!) So in an effort to HIDE this, we have the awful Dodd Frank instead of meaningful, efficacious regulations of... or rather WITHDRAWAL FROM... the mortgage markets, which is what we really need, to end the 80+ year history of addicting the economy to illicit stimulus crack via govt meddling once and for all. We have SEEN what results from that in bubble after bubble.

    Warren is a chump of a Huey Long rabble-rouser with no record of accomplishment whatsoever in complex regulations of sophisticated capital markets. If she could even claim to be a real, experienced "lawyer" in any practice area, and any such claim would be very shaky, her only expertise is in CONSUMER bankruptcy law, a menial, lackluster BACKWATER of broader financial law and regulation. Taking her word for ANYTHING related to the legal regulation of sophisticated capital markets or larger banking would be the equivalent of taking a bicycle shop's opinion on how to fix a Lamborghini. Seriously.
     
    Talon and (deleted member) like this.
  4. Yosh Shmenge

    Yosh Shmenge New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    22,146
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's more shocking to make such an asinine contention.
     
  5. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That the banks are opposed to her measures is not a point in favor of her measures. I'd imagine they'd be quite opposed if she proposed having them all summarily hung by the neck until death.

    The banking cartel is a creation of people like herself. She needs to look in the mirror: where does she think the banks got all this easy credit from, with which to loan to risky poor (*)(*)(*)(*)s? Her damn system. Wilson's system. Hamilton's system.
     
  6. dad2three

    dad2three New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Weird how you can link to BS but not to polifact? lol

    Oh right it's NOT actually polifact but a hit piece meant to distort. Shocking

    FOX's file



    Statements made on FOX

    Click on the ruling to see all of the statements made on FOX.

    True14 (11%) (14)
    Mostly True15 (11%) (15)
    Half True24 (18%) (24)
    Mostly False28 (21%) (28)
    False40 (30%) (40)
    Pants on Fire12 (9%)(12)


    70% false pal!!

    lol
    '
    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/



    Like just about EVERYTHING you posit, it's a mix of right wings false premises, distortions or lies. Shocking

    PLEASE , PRETTY PLEASE GIVE ME THE

    " THE LENDING PRACTICE ITSELF, specifically REMOVING government social engineering entirely from the mortgage markets, "

    THAT REQUIRED THIS:

    "Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

    https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf

    Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN’T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

    A Yes.




    Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

    A Banks.


    Q WHY??!?!!!?!

    A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them


    PLEASE BE SPECIFIC, WHICH LAW REQUIRED THAT? lol


    http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/394878-facts-dubyas-great-recession.html



    It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.
    More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/

    - - - Updated - - -

    MOD EDIT - Rule 3
    Yeah, because the free banking system worked sooooo well right? lol
     
  7. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Missed this. FYI NOTHING in Dodd Frank "breaks up" or divests ANYTHING. OP has totally mischaracterized what the law actually does in head-bobbing acquiescence to Warren's rabble rousing. Moreover, when do you think all those banks got that big? Mostly during the Clinton Administration, hundreds of illicit mergers involving First Union, Nationsbanc, others, in utter disregard of our preexisting antitrust laws.

    I agree with you totally, banks should not have been allowed to merge to become that big. But be clear on some things, Glass Steagall nor Gramm Leach Bliley had anything to do with that, Dodd Frank has nothing to do with that. A little reported DEMOCRAT law called Riegle Neal did, but GOOD LUCK getting the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-lawyer-MSM Complex to EVER mention that real cause of "too big to fail." Why? Authored by Democrats. OTOH Why focus on Gramm Leach Bliley which is mostly irrelevant to the 2008 collapse despite all the partisan Complex noise (as Coppola describes in the blog post I linked)? Authored by three Republicans. Draw your own conclusions as to why the wiki entries on GS an GLB are Loooonnnng, and this entry is tiny...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riegle-Neal_Interstate_Banking_and_Branching_Efficiency_Act_of_1994

    The problems in banking were not due to vertical mergers into other business lines, but good old horizontal territorial mergers, unwisely centralizing most of their credit committee functions. We already have perfectly fine antitrust laws to prevent this, have for over 100 years, and those laws were mysteriously disregarded during the Clinton Administration. Surprise, surprise, Clinton is stinking rich today due to million dollar "speaking fees" paid disproportionately by guess who? THE BANKING INDUSTRY. Coincidence? Draw your own conclusions. My conclusion is that Clinton and half of Washington should be IN JAIL for allowing this.
     
  8. dad2three

    dad2three New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0

    lol, GOP will fix it though, right?
     
  9. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Without Warren's cartel the banks

    a) wouldn't have enough money to lend to such risky borrowers.
    b) would be a whole lot more careful leveraging their finances.

    You can blame a system of "free banking" for a lot of things: a lack of liquid credit in the economy, resulting unemployment, bank runs, etc - but one thing you absolutely, positively cannot blame it for is promoting malinvestment of credit. That's entirely on the current banking cartel.
     
  10. dad2three

    dad2three New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Weird the US has had 3 major Bankster failure since the current system was put in place, all 3 times we had GOPers in charge of the Executive branch (see regulator oversight). Weird right?


    Yeah, electing GOPers who "believe in" the "free market" and their ability to self regulate has worked out well right?



    The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. P. J. O'Rourke
     
  11. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    O... really? Fell for it did you? LOL

    http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=huffington+post

    Actually I meant to link it in the prior post, but forgot, no trap intended. You fell right in it anyway, and as the link makes crystal clear, the numbers in my prior post came STRAIGHT FROM POLITIFACT.

    Already dealt with Fox, did you miss it? 1. Huffington Post, not Fox News is the source of the OP of this thread, making comparisons to Fox entirely irrelevant and as usual from you, off-topic. 2. No one regularly posts several threads... every... single... day as sourced from Fox News on the current events forum, making comparisons again, irrelevant and... off-topic. 3. Politifact include "GUESTS" in assessing Fox News accuracy, which IMO is ridiculous. Who knows what a guest is gonna say.

    Flames... go down in them.

    Still trying to drag in your irrelevant, stale cutpastes? Sorry. The topic is "whether banks are threatening to withhold campaign support from Democrats," and "whether Dodd Frank is good, effective law that will prevent another mortgage collapse."

    Got anything to say on that? APPARENTLY NOT.

    Who the hell created a climate of lowered credit standards across the board over decades? GOVERNMENT! Your BUSHDIDIT arguments in THIS thread only support MY claims that GOVDIDIT!

    Readers are free to compare my link to Coppola, a far more convincing Forbes commentator on the banking industry, because that's ALL SHE DOES,that you of course don't comment on at all, and your guy Denning, whom I don't see much depth in personally...and draw their own conclusions.

    Once again off topic. The topic is a) banks threatening to withdraw campaign funds from Democrats, and b) the efficacy of the Dodd Frank law in preventing another mortgage collapse. Care to make ONE SINGLE ON TOPIC POST TO THIS THREAD? Apparently not.
     
  12. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We've been through this before. Every damn time we talk you get this idea that I'm on the side of the GOP. (*)(*)(*)(*) the GOP, they're every bit as bad as their opposition. In many areas, worse.

    GOPers don't believe in the "free market" at all. I'm suffering to make it through your rhetoric, but I feel that this discussion is for your benefit, so I will persevere. The GOP supports the current cartel with minimal restrictions for the banking industry. The Dems support the current cartel with slightly stronger restrictions for the banking industry. It appears that neither of us support either of their positions, so why are you bringing them up?



    [ctrl + c] + [ctrl + v] is too much effort for this. I've changed my mind on persevering, go figure it out for yourself.
     
  13. dad2three

    dad2three New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0

    polifact? huffpo?

    OH YOU MEAN STORIES THAT WERE ON HUFFPO UT WERE RATED ACTUALLY ON STATEMENTS MOSTLY OTHER THAN HUFFPO, LIKE OBAMA, WENDY DAVIS, ETC LOL

    VERSUS THE 70% FALSE FROM FOX NEWS??? LOL

    Sorry Pal, YOU brought up Banksters created a subprime crisis to meet housing goals via social policies. Nope, Dubya only hosed F/F on that with HIS policies

    "Who the hell created a climate of lowered credit standards across the board over decades? GOVERNMENT! Your BUSHDIDIT arguments in THIS thread only support MY claims that GOVDIDIT!"




    THAT WOULD BE FUNNY IF NOT PATHETIC PAL

    THIS WAS BECAUSE OF DECADES:


    [​IMG]



    LOL

    WHO WAS IN CHARGE WHEN "GOV'T REGULATORS" (NOT REGULATION) FAILED AGAIN?


    Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

    A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

    From Bush's President's Working Group on Financial Markets March 2008

    "The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007."




    Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


    A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "





    http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/394878-facts-dubyas-great-recession.html


    MOD EDIT - Rule 3
     
  14. dad2three

    dad2three New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Yet the "cartel" with Dems in charge don't tend to create credit bubbles that blow up the economy like they do with the GOP in charge. Weird

    And who is fighting Dod/Frank and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) again??
     
  15. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Could it be the party that I have no affiliation with and have done my best to make clear I despise in the highest degree? You're arguing with yourself.
     
  16. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That statement actually contains some rather chilling subtext.

    I don't like bankers either, I HATED working as an executive for the largest one in the country in the 90s. I hated selling their products as a stockbroker before that, and I HATED the Wall Street law firm I worked at that did their securitizations. Banks SUCK OUT LOUD, will be the first to admit it. They had PLENTY of blame for the mortgage collapse.

    But what I hate more is the stupid, incompetent, corrupt, grafty gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-lawyer-MSM Complex that has created a totally false, rabble-rousing lie narrative attempting to blameshift the entire fault for 2008 off of themselves, where well over half the blame belongs (hell 80-90% of it in my very well-informed opinion based on 25 years real experience), and entirely onto the private sector. I hate this because the costly "solutions" they have foisted on us don't come close to addressing the real problems that they have PURPOSEFULLY left untouched, an 80+ year government-banking-mortgage meddling honeypot of illicit economic stimulus, illicit grafty flouting of some of the few -good- laws we have (the antitrust laws), illicit GSE crooks getting stinking rich at all our expense, illicit campaign contributions to BOTH parties, and other various and sundry GRAFT.

    The private sector has gotten all the blame and all the subsequent regulation, including hideously awful Dodd Frank... which all the rest of us pay for. The government crooks though? Scot free, and rest assured, another bubble is in the offing. Only a matter of time, that honeypot is too sweet for the Washington crooks to give up. Please read the Coppola forbes link I have posted twice now. It makes the problems infinitely clear.

    Finally, I hate rabble-rousing kooks like Warren, a know-nothing affirmative action liar with very few legitimate legal accomplishments, NONE in complex financial system regulation (consumer bankruptcy law makes for great rabble-fodder, but trust me, it's legal kindergarten), and the disgusting Huey Longism she represents. Run her though? Fine by me, I agree with you that she has no chance of winning and her as a nominee practically guarantees a GOP WH in 2017.
     
  17. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    English much?

    You lost politifact, my numbers are clear and fair, directly from that source. Get over it. Fox remains off topic, get over that too.

    Rest of the post is pure, stale, off topic cutpaste dispelled long ago in other threads.

    THIS THREAD is about a) bankers withdrawing campaign funds from Demos, b) the efficacy of Dodd Frank to prevent future banking crises. ALL my comments on the causes of the financial crisis are directly addressed to Dodd Frank and why it's bad. NONE of your posts are, just the same stale hash.

    So once again, do you have ANYTHING to say about the actual topics of THIS thread?
     
  18. dad2three

    dad2three New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0

    MORE RIGHT WING GARBAGE

    It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.
    More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.


    Low interest rates fueled an apparent boom

    Asset managers sought new ways to make money

    The credit rating agencies gave their blessing: The credit ratings agencies
    — Moody’s, S&P and Fitch had placed an AAA rating on these junk securities, claiming they were as safe as U.S. Treasurys.


    Fund managers didn’t do their homework


    Derivatives were unregulated

    The SEC loosened capital requirements: In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission changed the leverage rules for just five Wall Street banks. This exemption replaced the 1977 net capitalization rule’s 12-to-1 leverage limit. This allowed unlimited leverage for Goldman Sachs [GS], Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch (now part of Bank of America [BAC]), Lehman Brothers (now defunct) and Bear Stearns (now part of JPMorganChase–[JPM]). These banks ramped leverage to 20-, 30-, even 40-to-1. Extreme leverage left little room for error. By 2008, only two of the five banks had survived, and those two did so with the help of the bailout.


    The federal government overrode anti-predatory state laws

    Compensation schemes encouraged gambling


    Wall Street became “creative”: The demand for higher-yielding paper led Wall Street to begin bundling mortgages. The highest yielding were subprime mortgages. This market was dominated by non-bank originators exempt from most regulations.
    Private sector lenders fed the demand: These mortgage originators’ lend-to-sell-to-securitizers model had them holding mortgages for a very short period. This allowed them to relax underwriting standards, abdicating traditional lending metrics such as income, credit rating, debt-service history and loan-to-value.




    Financial gadgets milked the market


    Commercial banks jumped in:
    To keep up with these newfangled originators, traditional banks jumped into the game. Employees were compensated on the basis loan volume, not quality.


    Derivatives exploded uncontrollably

    The boom and bust went global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust. A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.”


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/


    What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral.

    One group has been especially vocal about shaping a new narrative of the credit crisis and economic collapse: those whose bad judgment and failed philosophy helped cause the crisis.

    Rather than admit the error of their ways — Repent! — these people are engaged in an active campaign to rewrite history. They are not, of course, exonerated in doing so. And beyond that, they damage the process of repairing what was broken. They muddy the waters when it comes to holding guilty parties responsible. They prevent measures from being put into place to prevent another crisis.

    Here is the surprising takeaway: They are winning. Thanks to the endless repetition of the Big Lie.

    A Big Lie is so colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. There are many examples: Claims that Earth is not warming, or that evolution is not the best thesis we have for how humans developed. Those opposed to stimulus spending have gone so far as to claim that the infrastructure of the United States is just fine, Grade A (not D, as the we discussed last month), and needs little repair.

    Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.

    Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny. But that has not stopped people who should know better from repeating them.


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...goes-viral/2011/10/31/gIQAXlSOqM_story_1.html


    TO BAD DUBYA WAS IN CHARGE RIGHT, THOSE THAT DON'T "BELIEVE IN" GOV'T OR THE REGULATORS!

    Nobody 'forced' bankers to do anything they didn't want to do. Congress reduced regulation -- something bankers wanted

    Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."


    All told, the Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.



    One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.

    [​IMG]
     
  19. dad2three

    dad2three New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL, You report OTHERS making statements (like Clinton, Obama, etc) are actually reported as HuffPo lies? lol



    Your attempt to absolve the Banksters (AGAIN) AS Dubya cheered on their WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST, is noted Pal

    Yeah, your posit that social engineering was related to D/F bill, lol

    Keep trying Pal, you and your ilk are good for a laugh

    GOV'T HUH?

    Fannie, Freddie and the Right Wing Myth of a "Mortgage Meltdown"

    "At the end of the day what really matters is losses," said Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics. "Where are the losses?"



    But where are the losses?

    As the one Pinto-skeptic in the room, Zandi proceeded to answer his own question, "Where are the losses?" As of year-end 2013, approximately $1 trillion in credit losses on pre-crisis loans had been realized. But the realized loss rate among different sectors varied considerably. Best in class were Fannie and Freddie, with a realized loss rate of 3%. (EVEN WITH DUBYA HOSING F/F, LOL) Then came depository institutions, like banks, which had a realized loss rate of 6%. The strong outlier was private label mortgage securities, with a realized loss rate of 23%, seven times that of the GSEs.

    These numbers are in line with Laurie Goodman's 2010 projections, which showed a 24% overall loss rate on private 1st lien securities. And Zandi's 2013 numbers are consistent with his year-end 2012 numbers, which showed private label losses as 51% of the grand total, and GSE losses as 14% of the nationwide total.

    These lopsided disparities are confirmed over and over from data going back two decades. By any standard"--"delinquencies, defaults, loss severity"--"GSE mortgages perform exponentially better than the rest of the market, whereas private label mortgages perform exponentially worse. To state otherwise is to lie.


    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Fa...c_Housing_Insolvency_Meltdown-150207-203.html

    - - - Updated - - -
    MOD EDIT - Rule 3
     
  20. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You already linked all that same cutpaste crap, several times, in this and other threads. I didn't even bother reading it this time. I have linked the fair, nonpartisan Coppola post twice, accompanied by my own reasoning, DIRECTLY ADDRESSING DODD FRANK, where your source doesn't even begin to. I encourage readers to compare the partisan party-line cutpaste you repetitively bloat threads with to her reasoned, balanced analysis. Didn't read further, same stale repetition accompanied by NONE of your own analysis. Same topic avoidance, now trying to drag in that debunked, partisan WaPo blogger to boot.

    Do you have anything topical to say about DODD FRANK? You apparently support it, yet in all your endless cutpasting blather, haven't even bothered to make claim or statement one in support as to the law that is the TOPIC OF THIS THREAD. Here it is again, go right ahead DEFEND IT, ALL OF IT. I can't wait to hear how this Frankenstein's monster that can't even be fully implemented is such a sweet piece of legislation. Do be descriptive.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd–Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act
     
  21. dad2three

    dad2three New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Got it, YOU will go off topic and blame "Gov't policy over decades to socially engineer" as the cause of the Banksters crisis AND when called out for your misrepresentation, you get upset and want to swing back to the actual thread topic. Shocking Pal

    I guess the GOP will support the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) then? lol


    IF it weren't for false premises, distortions AND LIES what would the right wingers EVER have?



    Got it,. Debunked in right wing world must mean something different Pal.
     
  22. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Off topic, the topics of this thread are i) bank threats to withdraw campaign contributions, ii) the efficacy of Dodd Frank. I say Dodd Frank is bad, have posted mucho as to why. You say what? some cherrypick about the origination of bad loans? I see you can google at least. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY IN REGARD TO DODD FRANK AND EXACTLY HOW IT WILL WORK TO PREVENT ANOTHER MORTGAGE COLLAPSE?

    Apparently not.
     
  23. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  24. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope, nothing about Dodd Frank in that one either. Here, let's get out the crayons. 1. Do YOU support Dodd Frank? 2. Why or why not?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Anything about Dodd Frank in there? Nope. Swing and a miss... again.
     
  25. dad2three

    dad2three New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0

    ONLY thing to stop that is to stop electing conservatives/GOPers to the Prez as we've seen how they "believe in" markets self regulation miracle, in the 1920's, Ronnie's S&L crisis and Dubya's subprime ponzi scheme

    - - - Updated - - -

    Oh right, CFPB isn't part of D/F? lol
     

Share This Page