Just so you know more Americans wanted Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton

[IrezumiKiss]

Why do people argue about this popular vote bullshit? The popular vote doesn't matter. Like, at all.

Trump won the popular vote. He won what counted.

http://www.awesomelyluvvie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/OprahSideEye.gif

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Mark-Wahlberg-Confused-In-The-Happening.gif

http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2015-09/4/5/enhanced/webdr02/anigif_original-grid-image-19772-1441359394-1.gif

 

[neci]

crack does a body good.

 

[ifrtbttrflys]

Here's what the poster actually wrote:

And it doesn't matter if, after all the dead people or whatever are removed from the voting pool, Trump won the popular vote. He won what counted.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Cue the typical response of "It recovered despite Obama and the Democrats, not because of them!"

Ignoring completely that it was eight years under Bush and Republican economic theory that drove the country(and the world) into the ditch. It's Obama's fault for not digging us out faster.

Yeah, because it's President Bush's fault that in November 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which repealed provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies. The repeal effectively removed the separation that previously existed between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks.

And it's also Bush's fault that as early as 1997, Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan fought to keep the derivatives market unregulated. With the advice of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, the U.S. Congress and President Bill Clinton allowed the self-regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market when they enacted the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Derivatives such as credit default swaps (CDS) can be used to hedge or speculate against particular credit risks without necessarily owning the underlying debt instruments. The volume of CDS outstanding increased 100-fold from 1998 to 2008, with estimates of the debt covered by CDS contracts, as of November 2008, ranging from US$33 to $47 trillion. Total over-the-counter (OTC) derivative notional value rose to $683 trillion by June 2008.

And it is also Bush's fault that a major element of the subprime mortgage crisis was fueled by "shadow banking" institutions -- non-bank financial intermediaries that provide services similar to traditional commercial banks but outside normal financial regulatory control.

And, finally, it was clearly Bush's fault that he didn't see ANY of this coming since the DJIA rose fairly steadily from a low of 10,482 in September of 2002 to a high of 16,117 in October of 2007, a mere year away from his leaving office. And while the Dow had fallen to just above 14,400 in April of 2008, it had not yet entered a free-fall, and the crisis had jet to be fully realized.

The first major financial institution - Indy Mac - did not fail until July of 2008.

And the most significant alarm bell did not occur until September 2008. In that month there was the equivalent of a bank run on the money market funds, which frequently invest in commercial paper issued by corporations to fund short term operations and payrolls. Withdrawal from money markets increased over 20-fold in a single week soaring from $7.1 billion to $144.5 billion.

"Ignoring completely" every one of these facts, huh, you disingenuous fuck.

 

[Lord Pmann]

Here's what the poster actually wrote:

http://www.awesomelyluvvie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/OprahSideEye.gif

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Mark-Wahlberg-Confused-In-The-Happening.gif

http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2015-09/4/5/enhanced/webdr02/anigif_original-grid-image-19772-1441359394-1.gif

My apologies. I meant to say, "he won the electoral votes". I'll edit.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And you wonder why we think you're dumb fucks . . .

We don't wonder at all.

It is because you are driven by motivations like a false sense of superiority, envy and hate.

But you keep that up!

We are all hoping and praying that you do because of how well it served the nation during this election...

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Yeah, because it's President Bush's fault that in November 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which repealed provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies. The repeal effectively removed the separation that previously existed between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks.

And it's also Bush's fault that as early as 1997, Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan fought to keep the derivatives market unregulated. With the advice of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, the U.S. Congress and President Bill Clinton allowed the self-regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market when they enacted the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Derivatives such as credit default swaps (CDS) can be used to hedge or speculate against particular credit risks without necessarily owning the underlying debt instruments. The volume of CDS outstanding increased 100-fold from 1998 to 2008, with estimates of the debt covered by CDS contracts, as of November 2008, ranging from US$33 to $47 trillion. Total over-the-counter (OTC) derivative notional value rose to $683 trillion by June 2008.

And it is also Bush's fault that a major element of the subprime mortgage crisis was fueled by "shadow banking" institutions -- non-bank financial intermediaries that provide services similar to traditional commercial banks but outside normal financial regulatory control.

And, finally, it was clearly Bush's fault that he didn't see ANY of this coming since the DJIA rose fairly steadily from a low of 10,482 in September of 2002 to a high of 16,117 in October of 2007, a mere year away from his leaving office. And while the Dow had fallen to just above 14,400 in April of 2008, it had not yet entered a free-fall, and the crisis had jet to be fully realized.

The first major financial institution - Indy Mac - did not fail until July of 2008.

And the most significant alarm bell did not occur until September 2008. In that month there was the equivalent of a bank run on the money market funds, which frequently invest in commercial paper issued by corporations to fund short term operations and payrolls. Withdrawal from money markets increased over 20-fold in a single week soaring from $7.1 billion to $144.5 billion.

"Ignoring completely" every one of these facts, huh, you disingenuous fuck.

Typical "conservative" Blame Bush, it's all you have. Bush is to blame for everything! I placed the blame exactly where it belonged, Republican economic theory (deregulate everything!) which we're hearing from Dumbass Donald now, "For every new regulation two will have to be eliminated."

Clinton signing that bill was undoubtedly the worst thing he did as President. But who were Gramm, Leach, and Bliley? Republicans all and the bill had more than enough Republican support that it wouldn't have mattered had Clinton vetoed the bill, they would have pushed it through anyway. The bill was pushed through in order to remove the temporary waiver given to CitiGroup after it's illegal under the Glass-Steagall Act merger less than a year earlier.

Greenspan was a Reagan appointee originally and always down with Republican deregulation efforts.

B-b-b-but the first major alarm bell... rang in late 2007, well before indymac failed. "Conservatives were just in denial and refused to listen.

At least you did admit, although tangentially, that Republican deregulation of the banking industry was a major factor (read the single most important factor) in the collapse that affected banking institutions worldwide. Disingenuous fuck indeed.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

We don't wonder at all.

It is because you are driven by motivations like a false sense of superiority, envy and hate.

But you keep that up!

We are all hoping and praying that you do because of how well it served the nation during this election...

That's cute, Cap'n Hypocrite thinks that someone envies him.

 

[Conager]

Typical "conservative" Blame Bush, it's all you have. Bush is to blame for everything! I placed the blame exactly where it belonged, Republican economic theory (deregulate everything!) which we're hearing from Dumbass Donald now, "For every new regulation two will have to be eliminated."

Clinton signing that bill was undoubtedly the worst thing he did as President. But who were Gramm, Leach, and Bliley? Republicans all and the bill had more than enough Republican support that it wouldn't have mattered had Clinton vetoed the bill, they would have pushed it through anyway. The bill was pushed through in order to remove the temporary waiver given to CitiGroup after it's illegal under the Glass-Steagall Act merger less than a year earlier.

Greenspan was a Reagan appointee originally and always down with Republican deregulation efforts.

B-b-b-but the first major alarm bell... rang in late 2007, well before indymac failed. "Conservatives were just in denial and refused to listen.

At least you did admit, although tangentially, that Republican deregulation of the banking industry was a major factor (read the single most important factor) in the collapse that affected banking institutions worldwide. Disingenuous fuck indeed.

When "the alarm bell rang" and the oversight committees refused to look into it that Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd were Republicans?

Not to mention the fact the only reason the Grade B paper loans even exists is because the Community Reinvestment Act without that there would have been no impetus to loan money to people that couldn't afford it nor would there been any government backstop for making what are obviously going to be bad loans. That's all Democrat and it's all about bumping up the percentage of minority home ownership whether or not they have made the choices necessary to be able to have appropriate debt to income ratios. Along with unqualified minorities which was the entire point of the program, obviously anyone unqualified, black white or brown took advantage of the program, as did loan officers, Realtors and Home Builders.

Good job parroting bullshit that you read in a slate piece some time ago. Your ability to recall and parrot bullshit is admirable but you don't know a thing about what you were talking about I actually worked in the industry and had a front-row seat on these loans.

Derivatives and who owns which derivatives and who had exposure because of derivatives has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the underlying loans for which the derivatives were based were bad.

The only thing that could possibly have changed with more government regulation of banks and securities firms would have been who was left holding the bag, but that flimsy paper bag full of bad loans was created entirely by federal government pressure on banks to loan money to people that can't afford it.

I have pointed this out on numerous occasions here and it is irrefutably true. The partisan hacks like yourself that want to pretend that it had nothing to do with Community Reinvestment Act continue to peddle that bullshit above.

Well you are distancing yourself from Clinton's failures why don't you go ahead and be honest about the fact that everything good in the Clinton Administration was because of Newt gingrich's Congress twisting his arm. Ending welfare as we know it was certainly not a Clinton idea. The only reason that the lie that he had a balanced budget is even slightly believable is because he signed a budget sent to him by Newt Gingrich, and had the benefit of having to preside over the dot-com bubble which crashed shortly thereafter leaving the remnants for Bush to pick up. Bush didn't whine about driving a fucking car into a ditch.

Trump is going to be president when the stock market crashes. The stock market is where it is exactly because of bad monetary policy: Negative interest rates and 80 billion dollars a month of phony money being pumped into banks and then into securities firms which kept the stock market on the continual increase. It is unsustainable; it will crash and it won't have a damn thing to do with Republican policies.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"When "the alarm bell rang" and the oversight committees refused to look into it that Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd were Republicans?"


Was Chris also sleeping with a Freddie executive?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"Trump is going to be president when the stock market crashes. The stock market is where it is exactly because of bad monetary policy: Negative interest rates and 80 billion dollars a month of phony money being pumped into banks and then into securities firms which kept the stock market on the continual increase. It is unsustainable; it will crash and it won't have a damn thing to do with Republican policies."

Exactly.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I see Query and Cap'n Hypocrite are on board with the Republican mantra that deregulation of the banking industry didn't nearly kill the economy, it was that pesky CRA (which had been operating since 1977). Surely not the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's repeal of major portions of the Glass-Steagall Act (which had been in place since shortly after the market crash of 1929).

Let's see, it took the CRA over 30 years to crash the economy or less than ten for Gramm-Leach-Bliley to cause a worldwide crash the likes of which hadn't been seen since 1929.

Yup! It had to be the CRA!

As for Query's insistence that banks had no reason to make grade B loans.. The Sub-Prime fiasco was the banking industry betting that housing prices (which were being artificially inflated by them) would continue to increase year over year. So, make a loan for a home with a low fixed teaser rate and watch as property values increase as investment/mortgage banks inflate the value of the surrounding area. Then blammo that fixed teaser rate goes adjustable and drives the mortgagee into default. The bank forecloses on the property that's worth MUCH more, on paper... Rinse and repeat. Sell that massively inflted mortgage as an investment to another bank, hopefully overseas.

For example, I purchased a single family home in Florida for $70K in the mid 90's. Around 2002 it was appraised at just over $200K by a investment/mortgage bank who offered a refinance "deal" with a super low "introductory" Sub-Prime rate. Not being an idiot I turned down the refinance "deal" and stuck with my VA backed fixed rate mortgage. My neighbor wasn't so smart. He refinanced, took a $50K cash payout and bought a nice new boat with the "equity" loan. two and a half years later his introductory rate skyrocketed and kept going up up up until he could no longer afford the payments. My new neighbor bought the house out of foreclosure with a sub-prime loan for the amount owed to the bank by the previous now homeless owner. Three years later I had an abandoned house next door when his mortage rate also went out of control. So the bank refinanced the house the first time for at least 50K more than it was worth, collected interest on that inflated amount for three years. Sold the house again for the inflated value of the home, collected interest for another three years from the new buyer until he too could not keep pace with the adjustable rate increases in monthly payments.

So the bank collected five years of interest and then the investment bank wrote the house off as a loss at the end when the bubble finally burst. Nah.. they had absolutely no motivation to keep right on writing sub-prime loans to people they knew would default when the teaser rate went away.

Nobody fucking forced a bank to write these loans. they didn't have to. They were more than happy to package property with severely inflated values as investments.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

We'll see, won't we?

I predict:

those jobs aren't coming back, only now you won't have healthcare and you won't have access to a public education. The only thing you'll have is the false sense of superiority that you fucked Hillary Clinton four years ago. You can cuddle up to that. And your gun.

We don't wonder at all.

It is because you are driven by motivations like a false sense of superiority, envy and hate.

But you keep that up!

We are all hoping and praying that you do because of how well it served the nation during this election...

 

[water505]

We'll see, won't we?

I predict:

those jobs aren't coming back, only now you won't have healthcare and you won't have access to a public education. The only thing you'll have is the false sense of superiority that you fucked Hillary Clinton four years ago. You can cuddle up to that. And your gun.

You suffer from some type of delusional disorder. No healthcare? No education? You left out no electricity, running water, or food.

Since you have a crystal ball I'm sure you can pinpoint exactly when these Trump caused disasters will occur.

You're nuts.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

I wonder if you noticed before you voted for him that he said the Department of Education was basically useless, and a waste of taxpayers' money. Did you catch that?

Have you been keeping up with his cabinet picks?

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15219653_1271355676240787_7672559276642268841_n.jpg?oh=22a5a7ea2c21aa471efb6aa9e6c0b228&oe=58D08D4D

Shrug. Dumb fucks never learn.

You suffer from some type of delusional disorder. No healthcare? No education? You left out no electricity, running water, or food.

Since you have a crystal ball I'm sure you can pinpoint exactly when these Trump caused disasters will occur.

You're nuts.

 

[Conager]

I wonder if you noticed before you voted for him that he said the Department of Education was basically useless, and a waste of taxpayers' money. Did you catch that?

Right...and?

 

[Conager]

I see Query and Cap'n Hypocrite are on board with the Republican mantra that deregulation of the banking industry didn't nearly kill the economy, it was that pesky CRA (which had been operating since 1977). Surely not the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's repeal of major portions of the Glass-Steagall Act (which had been in place since shortly after the market crash of 1929).

Let's see, it took the CRA over 30 years to crash the economy or less than ten for Gramm-Leach-Bliley to cause a worldwide crash the likes of which hadn't been seen since 1929.

Yup! It had to be the CRA!

As for Query's insistence that banks had no reason to make grade B loans.. The Sub-Prime fiasco was the banking industry betting that housing prices (which were being artificially inflated by them) would continue to increase year over year. So, make a loan for a home with a low fixed teaser rate and watch as property values increase as investment/mortgage banks inflate the value of the surrounding area. Then blammo that fixed teaser rate goes adjustable and drives the mortgagee into default. The bank forecloses on the property that's worth MUCH more, on paper... Rinse and repeat. Sell that massively inflted mortgage as an investment to another bank, hopefully overseas.

For example, I purchased a single family home in Florida for $70K in the mid 90's. Around 2002 it was appraised at just over $200K by a investment/mortgage bank who offered a refinance "deal" with a super low "introductory" Sub-Prime rate. Not being an idiot I turned down the refinance "deal" and stuck with my VA backed fixed rate mortgage. My neighbor wasn't so smart. He refinanced, took a $50K cash payout and bought a nice new boat with the "equity" loan. two and a half years later his introductory rate skyrocketed and kept going up up up until he could no longer afford the payments. My new neighbor bought the house out of foreclosure with a sub-prime loan for the amount owed to the bank by the previous now homeless owner. Three years later I had an abandoned house next door when his mortage rate also went out of control. So the bank refinanced the house the first time for at least 50K more than it was worth, collected interest on that inflated amount for three years. Sold the house again for the inflated value of the home, collected interest for another three years from the new buyer until he too could not keep pace with the adjustable rate increases in monthly payments.

So the bank collected five years of interest and then the investment bank wrote the house off as a loss at the end when the bubble finally burst. Nah.. they had absolutely no motivation to keep right on writing sub-prime loans to people they knew would default when the teaser rate went away.

Nobody fucking forced a bank to write these loans. they didn't have to. They were more than happy to package property with severely inflated values as investments.

You are so ill-informed. This year it was started in 1977 under Carter. All it did at that point was become a thorn in the side of all the major Banks who are constantly having to explain two banking Regulators why it is that no they were not actually redlining they weren't getting any applicants who could possibly pay for the homes in the areas that they were being accused of redlining. Those areas have blight because most of the homes in the area are rentals there mostly rentals because the people who live there don't stay out of debt purchase a home and grow some equity. Large swaths of rental properties does not make Furniture active wealth-building community. That's not caused by Banks redlining that's caused by the residents of a given area not making the sacrifices necessary to save up what used to be a minimum 3% for an FHA loan or a minimum 5% for a conventional loan through an actual bank. Bill Clinton's HUD doubled down on it during the Clinton administration. Clinton's Regulators further harassed the banks who then complained and pointed out what the problem was so the government removed the problem of such things as debt-to-income ratios and other factors that go into making a sound credit decision. They increase the money going to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and ignore and losses as they occurred continuing to fund what was obviously becoming a big sinkhole.

It did such a fabulous job of increasing minority homeownership that even Bush was bragging about it.

You don't read for context very well do you? Of course the banks loved it. The banks loved it if, and only if, the government was not only allowing them to do it but back stopping them. Which is what I said. If the banks had to do it on their own dime there's no way in hell they would have money on Grade B paper. It was a government program. What finally was the last straw was when you could buy a house with a conventional loan we're not even talking an FHA loan but an actual conventional loan that taditionally never was less than 5% down with no money down. In fact, the Selller could actually get back to you the amount of the down payment which used to be illegal. Ameridream and NEIMIAH loans burst the bubble.

This was not a banking industry program this was a government program.

It was the carrot and the stick. Ether you get with the program and develop loan programs, according to the ever decreasing standards set by Fannie and Freddie Mae for packaging those loans that they take off your hands, or answer to banking Regulators as to why it is you can't seem to find any minorities too loan to.

 

[water505]

I wonder if you noticed before you voted for him that he said the Department of Education was basically useless, and a waste of taxpayers' money. Did you catch that?

Have you been keeping up with his cabinet picks?

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15219653_1271355676240787_7672559276642268841_n.jpg?oh=22a5a7ea2c21aa471efb6aa9e6c0b228&oe=58D08D4D

Shrug. Dumb fucks never learn.

So that's your evidence to back up your nutcase predictions...got it.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You are so ill-informed. This year it was started in 1977 under Carter. All it did at that point was become a thorn in the side of all the major Banks who are constantly having to explain two banking Regulators why it is that no they were not actually redlining they weren't getting any applicants who could possibly pay for the homes in the areas that they were being accused of redlining. Those areas have blight because most of the homes in the area are rentals there mostly rentals because the people who live there don't stay out of debt purchase a home and grow some equity. Large swaths of rental properties does not make Furniture active wealth-building community. That's not caused by Banks redlining that's caused by the residents of a given area not making the sacrifices necessary to save up what used to be a minimum 3% for an FHA loan or a minimum 5% for a conventional loan through an actual bank. Bill Clinton's HUD doubled down on it during the Clinton administration. Clinton's Regulators further harassed the banks who then complained and pointed out what the problem was so the government removed the problem of such things as debt-to-income ratios and other factors that go into making a sound credit decision. They increase the money going to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and ignore and losses as they occurred continuing to fund what was obviously becoming a big sinkhole.

It did such a fabulous job of increasing minority homeownership that even Bush was bragging about it.

You don't read for context very well do you? Of course the banks loved it. The banks loved it if, and only if, the government was not only allowing them to do it but back stopping them. Which is what I said. If the banks had to do it on their own dime there's no way in hell they would have money on Grade B paper. It was a government program. What finally was the last straw was when you could buy a house with a conventional loan we're not even talking an FHA loan but an actual conventional loan that taditionally never was less than 5% down with no money down. In fact, the Selller could actually get back to you the amount of the down payment which used to be illegal. Ameridream and NEIMIAH loans burst the bubble.

This was not a banking industry program this was a government program.

It was the carrot and the stick. Ether you get with the program and develop loan programs, according to the ever decreasing standards set by Fannie and Freddie Mae for packaging those loans that they take off your hands, or answer to banking Regulators as to why it is you can't seem to find any minorities too loan to.

I'm ill-informed? 2007 -1997 is 30 years dumbshit. The CRA chugged right along for over 20 years until Glass-Steagall was repealed by Republicans at the behest of big banks like Citigroup. Less than 10 years after that you (and other useful idiots) were blaming the collapse on the CRA, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae (both of which had been around even longer than the CRA) rather than the deregulation of the banking industry that made the whole thing possible.

Nah, the fact that Fannie and Freddie and the CRA hadn't caused anything close to a massive crash in the decades they had been operating is ignored by those actually responsible. Republicans who were heavily lobbied by the banking industry to deregulate and those banks themselves.

It's "Fannie and Freddie's fault!" falls apart when you look at the fact that the majority of failed loans that were held by private investment institutions were sold to them by private banking institutions and a scant minority came from Fannie and Freddie (which had been around even longer than the CRA).

"It's the government's fault" is horse shit. Nobody forced a single bank to make a loan, nobody forced them to inflate their worth and sell them to other investment banks. That was pure greed and deregulation.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Shrug. You get what you vote for. Good luck.

Right...and?

 

[Conager]

Shrug. You get what you vote for. Good luck.

Are you the under the impression that there was no education before there was a Department of Education? What would change if there were no Department of Education?

 

[Conager]

I'm ill-informed? 2007 -1997 is 30 years dumbshit. The CRA chugged right along for over 20 years until Glass-Steagall was repealed by Republicans at the behest of big banks like Citigroup. Less than 10 years after that you (and other useful idiots) were blaming the collapse on the CRA, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae (both of which had been around even longer than the CRA) rather than the deregulation of the banking industry that made the whole thing possible.

Nah, the fact that Fannie and Freddie and the CRA hadn't caused anything close to a massive crash in the decades they had been operating is ignored by those actually responsible. Republicans who were heavily lobbied by the banking industry to deregulate and those banks themselves.

It's "Fannie and Freddie's fault!" falls apart when you look at the fact that the majority of failed loans that were held by private investment institutions were sold to them by private banking institutions and a scant minority came from Fannie and Freddie (which had been around even longer than the CRA).

"It's the government's fault" is horse shit. Nobody forced a single bank to make a loan, nobody forced them to inflate their worth and sell them to other investment banks. That was pure greed and deregulation.

It "chugged along" until Executives at Fannie and Freddie were given obscenely large bonuses (that your kind would hate if it was Private Industry) based on the increase the number of loans.

Explain how the ever-diminishing requirements from underwriting as handed down by Franny and Freddie Mac had anything to do with glass-steagall.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

It "chugged along" until Executives at Fannie and Freddie were given obscenely large bonuses (that your kind would hate if it was Private Industry) based on the increase the number of loans.

Explain how the ever-diminishing requirements from underwriting as handed down by Franny and Freddie Mac had anything to do with glass-steagall.

Typical of you to assign a position to me so that you can then attack it , all the while ignoring the points made.

The fact remains that Fannie and Freddie had been working just fine (as had the CRA) until Wall Street figured out in the late 90's how to purchase and securitize mortgages without needing Fannie and Freddie as intermediaries, leading to a fundamental shift in the U.S. mortgage market. The repeal of Glass Steagall at the behest of Wall Street bankers started a shift in market away from Fannie and Freddie who backed roughly half of all home-loan originations in 2002 but just 30 percent in 2005 and 2006.

During the housing bubble, loan originators backed by Wall Street capital began operating far beyond the Fannie and Freddie system that had been working for decades passing off large quantities of high-risk subprime mortgages with terms and features that drastically increased the chance of default to investment firms who passed them along to investors, who were often unaware or misinformed of the underlying risks. It was the poor performance of the loans in these “private-label” securities—those not owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie—that led to the financial meltdown.

As the housing bubble grew, fueled by predatory lending practices (such as hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages with balloon payments that required serial refinancing, or negative amortization) by firms such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns , Fannie and Freddie lost market share. Their problems started when they started to adopt some of the same practices as the private banks had in an attempt to reclaim that lost market share. They increased their leverage and began investing in certain subprime securities that credit agencies incorrectly deemed low-risk (at the request of wall Street again). The lowering of their underwriting standards was an effect of the Wall Street fueled bubble, not a cause. But all of this happened far too late in the game to have been the cause, just another effect of wall Streeet fucking over the housing market.

 

[Conager]

Typical of you to assign a position to me so that you can then attack it , all the while ignoring the points made.

The fact remains that Fannie and Freddie had been working just fine until Wall Street figured out in the late 90's how to purchase and securitize mortgages without needing Fannie and Freddie as intermediaries, leading to a fundamental shift in the U.S. mortgage market. The repeal of Glass Steagall at the behest of Wall Street bankers started a shift in market away from Fannie and Freddie who backed roughly half of all home-loan originations in 2002 but just 30 percent in 2005 and 2006.

During the housing bubble, loan originators backed by Wall Street capital began operating beyond the Fannie and Freddie system that had been working for decades by peddling large quantities of high-risk subprime mortgages with terms and features that drastically increased the chance of default. As the housing bubble grew, fueled by predatory lending practices (such as hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages with balloon payments that required serial refinancing, or negative amortization) by firms such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns , Fannie and Freddie lost market share. Their problems started when they started to adopt some of the same practices as the private banks had in an attempt to reclaim that lost market share. They increased their leverage and began investing in certain subprime securities that credit agencies incorrectly deemed low-risk (at the request of wall Street again). THe lowering of their underwriting standards was an effect of the Wall Street fueled bubble, not a cause. But all of this happened far too late in the game to have been the cause, just another effect of wall Streeet fucking over the housing market.

You still have not addressed the most basic question: Why did the derivatives market fail?

It failed because the underlying loans were bad.

WHY were the loans bad?

They were bad because underwriting standards were lowered. The standards of 1977 were not the standard 2007. The people for whom these various products were invented would never have been able to buy a home under the earlier standards therefore they never would have defaulted. Your little anecdote which by the way pales by comparison the anecdotes I have which number in the thousands is about what is known as a three-to-one by down they start low so that you can qualify at the lower rate Fannie and Freddie said that was okay the theory being that you're going to have an increase in income to cover that in the future. And I'm not even getting into such things slow. And no doc loans because clearly you don't know anything about this but the bottom line is people who could not buy a home previously given approval to buy a home that they could not afford. Those standards are set by Fannie and Freddie those standards were not static; those standards were steadily lowered.

The next question is why were those standards lowered. I've already addressed that but the reason for that is because Banks were having difficulty meeting wihat Regulators required of them under the Community reinvestment Act. To incentivize the leadership of Fannie and Freddie to get on the ball and come up with Innovative products that we're going to somehow make people that couldn't afford homes able to afford homes they offered millions of dollars in bonuses so Fannie and Freddie kept lowering standards until they got their bonuses that's exactly why we have the crash and if you want to ignore the underlying cause of the crash go right ahead and keep repeating the bullshit that the Obama Administration has been peddling.

 

[phrodeau]

The subprime mortgage crisis falls squarely on the Bush admin, and Alan Greenspan's advancing senility.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/opinion/04burry.html