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

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

  1. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ALL of my analysis in that regard, was clearly and plainly structured, in a way that a chimp could understand, to address the efficacy of Dodd Frank (the lack of it) in addressing the real problems in US mortgage markets. Sorry that eluded you. Keep twisting my very clear posts out of context.

    So 1. Do you support Dodd Frank or not? 2. Why?

    Do you have ANYTHING to say about the actual thread topic? Apparently not. Oh well.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Did YOU make any claim with respect to the topic? No, you didn't. Nother swing, nother miss. Getting amusing at this point.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Dodd Frank? Dodd Frank? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone? Swing... miss. Totally empty partisan blather? Check.

    1. Do you support Dodd Frank or not? 2. Why or why not?

    Hey, here's the wiki link again. Do tell us -specifically- why you agree with Warren and OP that Dodd Frank is a good law. Perhaps summarize it for us... that'll be good.

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

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So the thread was about Elizabeth Warren right, where folks remind other folks about going off topic, but continue to go off topic, and yet, cannot really address your off topic links with any credible link of their own, suggesting yours are wrong other than presenting an opinion? :roflol: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html Just for fun's and giggles, since the guy who went off topic, who continues to go off topic, and reminds everyone else of that, wouldn't you just love to see those who continue to go off topic while reminding others of going off topic, to debunk the 84% figure of sub prime private loans to those of FF, and give some relevant explanation as to why FF is even relevant as a conversational piece with that kind of a percentage? I kind of doubt that is going to happen, but we will see.
     
  3. dad2three

    dad2three New Member

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


    Sure IF you believe in myths and fairy tales. Us in the real world don't think decades of Gov't involvement all of a sudden caused Banksters to create the subprime bubble under Dubya. Of course YOU have repeatedly ignored this through MANY threads to point to Gov't being the problem versus those in Gov't at the time ALLOWING THE BANKSTERS TO HOSE US. I'm shocked you are a long term Bankster, seriously, I am, lol

    Dodd/Frank which conservatives/GOP have worked to weaken and undermine from day one? That D/F? lol


    D/F is too weak, we should've just broke up "to big to fail" but since the GOP fights ANY regulations placed on ANY "job creator' or industry, it was the best we could get through. Whine all you want, regulations weren't the missing piece under Ronnie's S&L collapse or Dubya's subprime bubble, but the regulator on the beat in the Executive Branch, just like the next Bankster created credit bubble will happen, with someone who "believes in" the "free market" self regulating BS!!!
     
  4. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Amen to that!

    They will milk that free market/self-regulating nonsense until the last cow comes home, while the rest of the march in step, take their propaganda medicine, band of right-wing clones, will just keep carrying their buckets for them.
     
  5. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dodd Frank? Nope. Swing... miss.

    Well finally, a brilliant, incisive, comprehensive analysis and advocacy position for Dodd Frank, "Dodd Frank is too weak," after how many posts? We are so enlightened now. "Dodd Frank is too weak." Here's your trophy...

    We already knew leftism is a religion, but thanks for confirming that yet again. Annnnnd. Dodd Frank? Dodd Frank? Bueller? Anyone? Bueller? Dodd Frank? Nope. Swing...miss.
     
  6. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lol! Dodd Frank is not relevant to anyone because FF was never the problem and Dodd Frank was signed into law in 2010. Way after the financial collapse. Dodd Frank addressed a real problem of abuse in that 84% of private bank lending of sub prime loans was directly handled by the private banks, not FF. So your questions about Dodd Frank are hilarious because they have no meaning except for people like you. You cling to Dodd Frank as if it had some relevance before the collapse.
     
  7. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    From the OP:

    So Dodd Frank is not relevant to the thread. Can't make this stuff up, folks.

    So Dodd Frank -is- relevant to the thread. Once more, PF never fails to entertain.

    It's not my posts in this thread that are hilarious.

    I "cling to Dodd Frank" because it is, whether you like it or not, one of the primary topics of this thread. What I know, as a matter of professional knowledge that I possess as part of work that I earn a living doing, and that you and the other cutpaster have likely found out by now in frantic googling escapades, is that other than rabble-rousers like Warren who toss it around ignorantly like an inept word-salad (which is OK because her constituency doesn't know any better), there's not much support anywhere for Dodd Frank. This explains why you and cutpaster #1 keep trying to bring in irrelevant claptrap instead of actually discussing the topic. You don't -know- anything, and you can't -google- anything to help you out. You aren't fooling anyone.
     
  8. Rainbow Crow

    Rainbow Crow New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    4,924
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd be lying if I said I'm comfortable around rich bankers or wall street types, based upon my limited experiences with them (I know they have very stressful jobs), but the switch from "it's racist to not give loans" to "predatory [racist] lending" was pretty ridiculous. I'm not sure if they could have gotten away with it if we had the internet back when Clinton started that snafu. The Clintons are clearly poorly adjusted to the internet age in general though.
     
  9. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wall St and ALL the major banks should simply halt all political donations to Democrats.
     
  10. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    15,406
    Likes Received:
    4,321
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay. Regardless of Dodd Frank or what it does or does not do. Any company, corporation, firm, bank, whatever that gets too big to fail. That has to be rescued by the taxpayer needs to be broke up. The government did this with AT&T and made small baby Bells. If the government can do it to AT&T, it can do it to some of the banks.

    I was against the bailouts. I would have let them fail.
     
  11. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Negative! You just can't make this up. The thread is about Warren and her hostility to the banks and how the banks want to get back at her and the Democrats. That's the nuts and bolts of the thread. She is just referencing about how she should have used Dodd Frank. The thread was never about Dodd Frank itself. You went off about Dodd Frank when the thread was about the banks getting back at Democrats through donations. Got to love the typical lawyer dodge.
     
  12. dad2three

    dad2three New Member

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


    According to one narrative, people with lousy jobs, low incomes, and poor credit ratings have an uncanny ability to overwhelm the better judgement of banks and mortgage brokers, and dupe them into approving risky mortgages. I must have been sleeping that day in Econ 101 when they explained how that works.



    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/

    CLINTON HUH? LOL


    [​IMG]
     
  13. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    23,568
    Likes Received:
    6,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So I assume you're a Warren supporter?
     
  14. dad2three

    dad2three New Member

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

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



    OOPS


    POST #1 AGAIN PAL

    IMO: Elizabeth Warren is a strong woman that tells it like it is, and will not be stopped by any threats by the Wall Street Gang, the most corrupt entity of our time. Since the 2008 financial melt down and resulting bailouts in which Wall Street emerged unscathed., they have been acting like it wasn't their fault, but Senator Warren and others, including the American public understands that the banks should have been broken up by the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Law.

    In a December 12 speech Senator Warren mentioned Citigroup several time as a bank that needed to be broken apart, and in January she angered Wall Street when she successfully blocked the nomination of a banker Antonio Weiss to a top post at the Treasury Department arguing that he would apt to be 'too deferential to his former Wall Street colleagues.'

    Senator Warren has accused big banks and other financial firms of unfair dealings that harm the middle class and help the rich grow richer, which is certainly true; their greed is insurmountable and their preying on the middle class for bailouts, unfair and burdensome interest rates, and making the American citizens liable for all their risky business ventures.

    The Dodd-Frank Reform Law would have divested Wall Street of much of it's power and the American people would be free from liability of any of Wall Street's risky and sometimes illegal adventures.


    WEIRD YOU LIKE TO DODGE SO MUCH? OH RIGHT WHEN YOU ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY SOOOOO OFTEN YOU GET LOTS OF PRACTICE!
     
  15. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's the other topic of the thread... as I myself have pointed out in post after post... and addressed substantively in my posts, the points of which were entirely ignored..that you and the other off-topic derailer don't seem to want to discuss either in favor of introducing stale, off-topic, irrelevant cutpastes... as the posts to the thread in black and white prove clearly for all to see ... in post after post after post after post of yours and his... concerning neither i) banks threatening to withdraw campaign finance from Democrats, nor ii) Dodd Frank, what it does, what it should do (break up banks or not), and how it stands currently. This whole thread has become GARBAGE due to dad2three and your insistence on posting over and over without ADDRESSING THE F-ING TOPIC. This one's toast, but do this in the next thread, and I'm going to report every single one of the applicable posts as trolling.

    Wrong, the thread is very clearly about Dodd Frank, as my prior post proves... again in black and white... with direct quotes from the OP referencing Dodd Frank three times.

    ...and yet another post from you with no content about either of the actual thread topics, both of which I have addressed over and over in many posts to the thread, and you have not.

    Swing... miss.

    And I've had my say here. Not feeding either of you any more in this thread.
     
  16. dad2three

    dad2three New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Talk about trolling, lol
     
  17. Rainbow Crow

    Rainbow Crow New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    4,924
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why weren't the subject to federal laws? Since the laws had cleared it anyway and contributed to the problem I think we can still blame whoever originated those laws.
     
  18. dad2three

    dad2three New Member

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

    Don't know what wall street did in the housiung bubble huh? I'm not shocked

    Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up

    The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.


    Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom. Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.



    •Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006

    These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.

    Consider a study by McClatchy: It found that more than 84 percent of the subprime 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. And McClatchy found that out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.

    A 2008 analysis found that 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.

    A study by the Federal Reserve shows that more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. The study found that the government-sponsored enterprises were concerned with the loss of market share to these private lenders — Fannie and Freddie were chasing profits, not trying to meet low-income lending goals.

    Beyond the overwhelming data that private lenders made the bulk of the subprime loans to low-income borrowers, we still have the proximate cause issue. If we cannot blame housing policies from the 1930s or mortgage tax deductibility from even before that, then what else can we blame? Mass consumerism? Incessant advertising? The post-World War II suburban automobile culture? MTV’s “Cribs”? Just how attenuated must a factor be before fair-minded people are willing to eliminate it as a prime cause?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...sis-stack-up/2011/11/16/gIQA7G23cN_story.html
     
  19. Rainbow Crow

    Rainbow Crow New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    4,924
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You answered your own question there, not mine. Characterizing it as chasing profits doesn't actually explain how existing requirements for low-income lending may have impacted the whole thing.
     
  20. dad2three

    dad2three New Member

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

    Laws around for DECADES caused this:

    [​IMG]


    OR THIS:

    Jun 16, 2005

    The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops

    NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?

    According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history.



    http://www.economist.com/node/4079027


    OH RIGHT:



    The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

    Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed. In March of 2008, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blamed loans “to the minorities, to the poor, to the young” as causing foreclosures. Not long after, conservative commentator Michele Malkin went so far as to claim that illegal immigration caused the crisis.

    This tendency to shift blame to minorities and poor people for the financial crisis soon developed into a well-honed narrative on the right.

    https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2010/12/21/8832/politics-most-blatant/
     
  21. dad2three

    dad2three New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along.

    Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money. Big government is not always behind bubbles historically; they happen because people get caught up in herd thinking.


    Given CEOs' proclivity for government bashing, any lenders being driven to write bad loans by the CRA would have been on CNBC screaming at the top of their lungs.

    But that dog that didn't bark
     
  22. EverRespect

    EverRespect New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2015
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    She's no Ted Cruz, but I'd prefer her over Hillary or Jeb. The establishment needs to be overthrown, and while I disagree with 99.999999% of her positions, she is not an establishment puppet.
     
  23. Rainbow Crow

    Rainbow Crow New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    4,924
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You may not realize that bolding random things and quoting sources that talk about "conservatives" blaming "boogeymen" makes you seem less convincing. I'm left with no desire to engage you on any of this or to even read it closely because of how hostile you are.
     
  24. dad2three

    dad2three New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your dodge noted Pal, I'm shocked
     
  25. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wouldn't that be a brassier?
     

Share This Page