 
     |
| I finally broke free... [from the Democrat's mental framework] (Page 2/6) |
|
BingB
|
AUG 02, 10:40 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
they PUSHED regulation that required banks to sell sub-prime mortgages, and in effect de-regulated their loan policies... |
|
They did not FORCE anyone. Lenders wnated to make more loans.
And even you admit this was DEREGULATION.
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
AUG 02, 10:40 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ray b:
(snip)
poor people did not crash the markets
they did not invent the fake derivatives default swaps
(snip)
|
|
You're correct, it was the Democrats.
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
AUG 02, 10:58 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
You're correct, it was the Democrats. |
|
it never ever even could be the Gop ?
what a screwed up one sided only very very limit view
eazy to see why the cult got you
btw the bankers and the flippers were Gop biased
and they caused the crash with Gop dereg ideas
jail the rump NOW
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
AUG 02, 11:03 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
They did not FORCE anyone. Lenders wnated to make more loans.
And even you admit this was DEREGULATION.
|
|
The CRA required that for banks that met a certain requirement, they HAD to sell a certain number of sub-prime mortgages for every credit-backed mortgage they sold.
PERIOD.
|
|
|
|
BingB
|
AUG 02, 02:14 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
The CRA required that for banks that met a certain requirement, they HAD to sell a certain number of sub-prime mortgages for every credit-backed mortgage they sold.
PERIOD. |
|
I don't think that is true. Got a citation? By "certain requirement" do you mean the threshold levels for OTS supervision?
I think you must be "misunderstanding" again.
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
AUG 02, 03:05 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
I don't think that is true. Got a citation? By "certain requirement" do you mean the threshold levels for OTS supervision?
I think you must be "misunderstanding" again.
|
|
This is your monkey... not my cage. I am definitely not wasting my time to do research for you when you're going to ignore it. I just proved you wrong on the "Trump Tax Cuts led to deficits," and you're already spinning it.
Here's the direct link to the "Named Law" (Community Reinvestment Act): https://www.ecfr.gov/curren...ubchapter-B/part-345
Feel free to read through it. You'll want to go to Westlaw if you can and look up history, as well as the FRs to identify rules that have been updated and subsequently changed. Have fun...
EDIT: This will get you started... what's still in there, banks get "credits" for backing low income housing / mortgages, go to 12 CFR 345.13(b)(5). That's barely scratching the surface...[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 08-02-2024).]
|
|
|
|
BingB
|
AUG 02, 05:35 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
. I just proved you wrong on the "Trump Tax Cuts led to deficits," and you're already spinning it.
|
|
No you did not.
You made a claim with nothing to back it up. Record revenue is meaningless if you have even higher record spending.
The yearly deficits went UP under Trump, not DOWN.
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
AUG 02, 05:51 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
No you did not.
You made a claim with nothing to back it up. Record revenue is meaningless if you have even higher record spending.
The yearly deficits went UP under Trump, not DOWN.
|
|
You said the Trump Tax Cuts resulted in higher deficits. You were wrong, now... of course, like everything else, you're trying to change what you meant, change the rules, change the game... because you're wrong. I stopped talking to you because I knew better than to have a conversation with a sociopath (or at least someone with extreme Asperger's), who ... even after being banned twice, came on here and created yet another fake account, with another fake background. You are unbelievably pathetic.
|
|
|
|
BingB
|
AUG 02, 09:06 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
This is your monkey... not my cage. I am definitely not wasting my time to do research for you when you're going to ignore it. I just proved you wrong on the "Trump Tax Cuts led to deficits," and you're already spinning it.
Here's the direct link to the "Named Law" (Community Reinvestment Act): https://www.ecfr.gov/curren...ubchapter-B/part-345
Feel free to read through it. You'll want to go to Westlaw if you can and look up history, as well as the FRs to identify rules that have been updated and subsequently changed. Have fun...
EDIT: This will get you started... what's still in there, banks get "credits" for backing low income housing / mortgages, go to 12 CFR 345.13(b)(5). That's barely scratching the surface...
|
|
You don't understand any of this. Let me explain.
There are special funds available to lenders who qualify as Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI). A CDFI is a financial institution that provides credit and financial services to underserved markets and populations. No lender is required to be a CDFI. But if they want to qualify as a CDFI then they have to meet certain requirements. So obviously an institution that wants to qualify as a CDFI will have to provide access to more sub prime loans.
But you keep missing the point that caused all the problem. The lenders loved writing sub prime loans because they had higher interest rates. And it was an easing of regulation that allowed them to write more sub prime loans. In a properly regulated financial market lenders would have to worry about high default rates that could cut into their profits. But because of lack of government regulation Investments bankers (not lending banks) were able to bundle the risky mortgages as backing for investment securities so the original lenders were no longer on the hook for defaults. Most big fund investors (like retirement account managers) were not allowed to buy these risky investment without insurance against their default. This insurance was "credit default swaps" that were written by investment banks with no funds to back them (because they were not regulated). So when the housing bubble burst hundreds of thousands of workers were at risk of losing retirement money that they had considered "guaranteed" like 401Ks or government retirement plans.
I will admit that I was one of the people who felt that home ownership was a life changing event, and if more people had access to home ownership it would make them more stable and financially independent. Ownership instills pride. And the reduction in regulations that allowed more sub prime loans would never have set off such a conflagration in lenders had not been able to sell off the risk.
We have to have a capitalist economy. But to work correctly it has to be properly regulated by the government.
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
AUG 02, 09:07 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
You don't understand any of this. Let me explain.
There are special funds available to lenders who qualify as Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI). A CDFI is a financial institution that provides credit and financial services to underserved markets and populations. No lender is required to be a CDFI. But if they want to qualify as a CDFI then they have to meet certain requirements. So obviously an institution that wants to qualify as a CDFI will have to provide access to more sub prime loans.
But you keep missing the point that caused all the problem. The lenders loved writing sub prime loans because they had higher interest rates. And it was an easing of regulation that allowed them to write more sub prime loans. In a properly regulated financial market lenders would have to worry about high default rates that could cut into their profits. But because of lack of government regulation Investments bankers (not lending banks) were able to bundle the risky mortgages as backing for investment securities so the original lenders were no longer on the hook for defaults. Most big fund investors (like retirement account managers) were not allowed to buy these risky investment without insurance against their default. This insurance was "credit default swaps" that were written by investment banks with no funds to back them (because they were not regulated). So when the housing bubble burst hundreds of thousands of workers were at risk of losing retirement money that they had considered "guaranteed" like 401Ks or government retirement plans.
I will admit that I was one of the people who felt that home ownership was a life changing event, and if more people had access to home ownership it would make them more stable and financially independent. Ownership instills pride. And the reduction in regulations that allowed more sub prime loans would never have set off such a conflagration in lenders had not been able to sell off the risk.
We have to have a capitalist economy. But to work correctly it has to be properly regulated by the government. |
|
Sorry, I'm not reading this nonsense.
|
|
|
