Jump to content

Build Wall or Shut Down the Border


Hagar

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

I don’t know. Ask a postal worker.

You do realize that the Postal Service operates at a deficit of billions and billions of dollars every year?  Does this not bother you?  Private companies do a much better job.  If it was eliminated, then postal workers can go to work for the private companies.  You know, deal with the real world for a change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, UT alum said:

That’s the best example of how irresponsible the banking system became during the frenzy. 

at the behest of the fed and the guidelines they instituted 

The expansion in risky mortgages to underqualified borrowers was encouraged by the federal government. The growth of "creative" nonprime lending followed Congress's strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act, the Federal Housing Administration's loosening of down-payment standards, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's pressuring of lenders to extend mortgages to borrowers who previously would not have qualified.

Meanwhile, the government-supported mortgage lenders, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, grew to own or guarantee about half of the United States' $12 trillion mortgage market. Congressional leaders pointedly refused to moderate the distortions created by the government's implicit guarantee that the firms would not be allowed to fail, which was the catalyst for their rapid expansion. Instead, Congress pushed them to promote "affordable housing" through expanded purchases of nonprime loans to low-income applicants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Reagan said:

You do realize that the Postal Service operates at a deficit of billions and billions of dollars every year?  Does this not bother you?  Private companies do a much better job.  If it was eliminated, then postal workers can go to work for the private companies.  You know, deal with he real world for a change.

Postal service has been effectively bankrupt for years and continues only because uncle sam can write a check to cover a check.  Just think how many of these situations we would have if the government had more involvement in business.  By the way, in Norway, the govt is the largest shareholder in the 10 largest industries in the country.  Wouldn't it be great if Nancy Pelosi and/or Pocahontas had more say in what went on in the business world?  Please, give me a break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, stevenash said:

at the behest of the fed and the guidelines they instituted 

The expansion in risky mortgages to underqualified borrowers was encouraged by the federal government. The growth of "creative" nonprime lending followed Congress's strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act, the Federal Housing Administration's loosening of down-payment standards, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's pressuring of lenders to extend mortgages to borrowers who previously would not have qualified.

Meanwhile, the government-supported mortgage lenders, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, grew to own or guarantee about half of the United States' $12 trillion mortgage market. Congressional leaders pointedly refused to moderate the distortions created by the government's implicit guarantee that the firms would not be allowed to fail, which was the catalyst for their rapid expansion. Instead, Congress pushed them to promote "affordable housing" through expanded purchases of nonprime loans to low-income applicants.

That’s one point of view. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Reagan said:

You do realize that the Postal Service operates at a deficit of billions and billions of dollars every year?  Does this not bother you?  Private companies do a much better job.  If it was eliminated, then postal workers can go to work for the private companies.  You know, deal with he real world for a change.

That’s real easy to say when you’re talking about someone else’s job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, UT alum said:

So the feds put a gun to the mortgage lenders’ heads and made them follow unsound business practices?

My coworker was a credit analyst for one of the largest lending companies in Houston during that time. He says they lied on documents and knew people couldn't afford it. But the government was throwing so much money to get these people hooked in. That it was crazy not to take advantage of the situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

My coworker was a credit analyst for one of the largest lending companies in Houston during that time. He says they lied on documents and knew people couldn't afford it. But the government was throwing so much money to get these people hooked in. That it was crazy not to take advantage of the situation. 

Of thee top 300 mortgage lenders who crashed, none participated in the CRA program. The vast majority of foreclosures occurred in geographic areas not eligible for CRA participation. I think that the derivatives market and the rise of credit default swaps which arose in an unregulated financial environment brought in a lot more capital ( money) to throw aroundthan the fed government did. That’s another point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please point me toward an article regarding your 300 mortgage lenders who crashed.  Even before I look into it, I am strongly convinced that many of those lenders made those loans based on FHA guarantees.

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

So the feds put a gun to the mortgage lenders’ heads and made them follow unsound business practices?

The expansion in risky mortgages to underqualified borrowers was encouraged by the federal government. The growth of "creative" nonprime lending followed Congress's strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act, the Federal Housing Administration's loosening of down-payment standards, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's pressuring of lenders to extend mortgages to borrowers who previously would not have qualified   Please do me a favor and read " Hidden in Plain Sight" by Peter Wallison.  Fannie Mae and Freddie mac owned 76% of ALL SUBPRIME debt.  And, by the way, the Community Reinvestment Act was a federal law, not a program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UT Alum- in regard to  your question about unsound business practices and  elected "responsible" representatives-  Is the US Postal service being operated responsibly?  Was Solyndra a sound business practice?  Is paying for the sex change of prisoners a prudent financial decision?  Was it sound business practice when GM defaulted to its bondholders and , shortly thereafter, the Unions were given 17.5% of all GM  common stock, and $6.5 billion of preferred stock as part of the reorganization?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Please point me toward an article regarding your 300 mortgage lenders who crashed.  Even before I look into it, I am strongly convinced that many of those lenders made those loans based on FHA guarantees.

The expansion in risky mortgages to underqualified borrowers was encouraged by the federal government. The growth of "creative" nonprime lending followed Congress's strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act, the Federal Housing Administration's loosening of down-payment standards, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's pressuring of lenders to extend mortgages to borrowers who previously would not have qualified   Please do me a favor and read " Hidden in Plain Sight" by Peter Wallison.  Fannie Mae and Freddie mac owned 76% of ALL SUBPRIME debt

Sloan School of Management at MIT. 

The reduced down payments and other incentives by the fed applied only to properties in the community reinvestment zones - a small percentage of total foreclosures.  The derivatives market provided the prime vehicle to fuel the greed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Sloan School of Management at MIT. 

The reduced down payments and other incentives by the fed applied only to properties in the community reinvestment zones - a small percentage of total foreclosures.  The derivatives market provided the prime vehicle to fuel the greed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Sloan School of Management at MIT. 

The reduced down payments and other incentives by the fed applied only to properties in the community reinvestment zones - a small percentage of total foreclosures.  The derivatives market provided the prime vehicle to fuel the greed.

Reduced down payments and lessening qualifications are not the same.  The banks should have been responsible, but the Democratic govt policies allowed it to happen.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, stevenash said:

And I want to know how the derivatives caused the mortgagees to not honor their obligations?

 

44 minutes ago, stevenash said:

And I want to know how the derivatives caused the mortgagees to not honor their obligations?

Securitization of mortgages through derivative devices fueled a bubble that wound up driving housing prices to unsustainable levels.  Add the Great Recession and voila.  What I don't like is way that the role Community Reinvestment Act was distorted.  That only gives conservative pundits I've heard their "cred" to blame the poor - their favorite targets. As for "Hidden in Plain Sight", I would prefer something a little more objective than what a shill for the American Enterprise Institute writes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happen to have access to a leading economist and I sent him an email enclosing a copy/paste of this comment by you

-  Sloan School of Management- The reduced down payments and other incentives by the fed applied only to properties in the community reinvestment zones.- a small percentage of total foreclosures.  The derivatives market provide the prime vehicle to fuel the greed. 

 

this individual speaks  on CNBC multiple times each month and is a member of the Academic Advisory Council to the Federal Reserve.  Upon reading the copy/paste statement regarding your Sloan School of Business claim, he responded as follows.

 

"Totally disagree.  It’s a long answer and it would be great if the individual read Wallison’s book.  He was on the Crisis investigation committee.   Can’t remember the actual name of it, but it was put together by the government.  I haven’t seen the Sloan piece.  "

 

I suspect he "hasn't seen the Sloan piece because there probably is no piece but rather a comment from someone affiliated with Sloan that you cherry picked.  Am I right?  If not, please send me the link and I will forward to him.

 

I will say once more that securitization of mortgages through derivative devices is not what caused people to default on their loans .  If the loans performed, the associated securities performed.

 

I have also emailed a close personal friend who has been a business professor at Stern School of Business at NYU for over 40 years and will pass on his response if an when I receive it.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

I happen to have access to a leading economist and I sent him an email enclosing a copy/paste of this comment by you

-  Sloan School of Management- The reduced down payments and other incentives by the fed applied only to properties in the community reinvestment zones.- a small percentage of total foreclosures.  The derivatives market provide the prime vehicle to fuel the greed. 

 

this individual speaks  on CNBC multiple times each month and is a member of the Academic Advisory Council to the Federal Reserve.  Upon reading the copy/paste statement regarding your Sloan School of Business claim, he responded as follows.

 

"Totally disagree.  It’s a long answer and it would be great if the individual read Wallison’s book.  He was on the Crisis investigation committee.   Can’t remember the actual name of it, but it was put together by the government.  I haven’t seen the Sloan piece.  "

 

I suspect he "hasn't seen the Sloan piece because there probably is no piece but rather a comment from someone affiliated with Sloan that you cherry picked.  Am I right?  If not, please send me the link and I will forward to him.

 

I will say once more that securitization of mortgages through derivative devices is not what caused people to default on their loans .  If the loans performed, the associated securities performed.

 

I have also emailed a close personal friend who has been a business professor at Stern School of Business at NYU for over 40 years and will pass on his response if an when I receive it.

 

 

 

 

 

Wow. Didn't know I was going to be held up to scholarly evaluation.  Paul Krugman is a Nobel winning economist, and I'll bet you wouldn't agree to much of anything he had to say about economics. So, expert schmexpert.

I couldn't find reference to the 300 lender statement other than by quote.  If you want to read the research piece by the MIT school of management, however, it's right here:

This is the hidden content, please
.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

I happen to have access to a leading economist and I sent him an email enclosing a copy/paste of this comment by you

-  Sloan School of Management- The reduced down payments and other incentives by the fed applied only to properties in the community reinvestment zones.- a small percentage of total foreclosures.  The derivatives market provide the prime vehicle to fuel the greed. 

 

this individual speaks  on CNBC multiple times each month and is a member of the Academic Advisory Council to the Federal Reserve.  Upon reading the copy/paste statement regarding your Sloan School of Business claim, he responded as follows.

 

"Totally disagree.  It’s a long answer and it would be great if the individual read Wallison’s book.  He was on the Crisis investigation committee.   Can’t remember the actual name of it, but it was put together by the government.  I haven’t seen the Sloan piece.  "

 

I suspect he "hasn't seen the Sloan piece because there probably is no piece but rather a comment from someone affiliated with Sloan that you cherry picked.  Am I right?  If not, please send me the link and I will forward to him.

 

I will say once more that securitization of mortgages through derivative devices is not what caused people to default on their loans .  If the loans performed, the associated securities performed.

 

I have also emailed a close personal friend who has been a business professor at Stern School of Business at NYU for over 40 years and will pass on his response if an when I receive it.

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't address down payment and lessening of regs, but it does make a convincing argument that the upper and middle class earners drove the default crisis, not the lower income people whom the Community Reinvestment Act was meant to help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

Wow. Didn't know I was going to be held up to scholarly evaluation.  Paul Krugman is a Nobel winning economist, and I'll bet you wouldn't agree to much of anything he had to say about economics. So, expert schmexpert.

I couldn't find reference to the 300 lender statement other than by quote.  If you want to read the research piece by the MIT school of management, however, it's right here:

This is the hidden content, please
.

I am very familiar with Krugman.  I guess this is where you would say "that's one point of view".  I also know that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize but we can discuss that another day.  Please go back to your scholarly efforts and explain to me, in laymans terms, how a bank/.mortgage company gives a loan to someone with insufficient income and down payment, the customer later defaults, and then we blame that on someone or something other than the FACT that the borrower did not live up to his contract.  I would also like to know why you would accept the words of a group of academics over the words of a man who was a member of the crisis committee?  Is it safe to assume that you  have declared the economist with whom I was in contact, to be unworthy of consideration along with Peter Wallison  and, on the other side of the coin, Mr. Krugman is fully credible and beyond question?  Does the FACT that he is a columnist for the New York Times impact his credibility?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

I am very familiar with Krugman.  I guess this is where you would say "that's one point of view".  I also know that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize but we can discuss that another day.  Please go back to your scholarly efforts and explain to me, in laymans terms, how a bank/.mortgage company gives a loan to someone with insufficient income and down payment, the customer later defaults, and then we blame that on someone or something other than the FACT that the borrower did not live up to his contract.  I would also like to know why you would accept the words of a group of academics over the words of a man who was a member of the crisis committee?  Is it safe to assume that you  have declared the economist with whom I was in contact, to be unworthy of consideration along with Peter Wallison  and, on the other side of the coin, Mr. Krugman is fully credible and beyond question?  Does the FACT that he is a columnist for the New York Times impact his credibility?

first off, I make no claims to be a scholar, just an average Joe who tries his best to make sense of the world around me.  As for the defaults, predatory lending practices are one way people are enticed (it does take a bit of a sense of greed on the borrower, as well).  When the money people push the value over the edge of what's reasonable and the market crashes, what are people to do? Unemployment at 13%, house worth half what you paid, what you think's gonna happen.  That does not absolve the mortgagee of their responsibilities.  I reckon many a good credit score was ruined.  The main point I wanted to make was, don't blame it all on government policy or poor people trying to game the system to live beyond their means.  Middle and upper income groups amassed most of that foreclosure debt, greed being a motivator there as there were people buying and flipping like crazy riding that wave.

A for my opinion of economists, I look to them for sources of information, opinions, and ideas. I might just look up Mr. Wallison's book and give it a go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,994
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    janaxad4
    Newest Member
    janaxad4
    Joined



  • Posts

    • Read it all - good info - thanks
    • Two political opponents pointing to each other and calling each other a liar…..  Is like two roosters fighting  and then pointing to the other and calling him a chicken. 
    • Trump was indicted for his activities on January 6. He appealed the indictment to the District Court (trial court) and the way I read it, they pretty much said he has no immunity, period. So he appealed to the Circuit Court which is not a trial court, but is a constitutional court one step below the US Supreme Court. Both the District Court and the Circuit Court denied even reviewing the case. I believe they simply said that a former president has no such immunity. The US Supreme Court then took up the case on a constitutional basis. Remember at this point there has been no trial so no facts of the case have come out. It has been only appeals on the constitutionality of immunity. The Supreme Court ruling today said that the president has absolute immunity for constitutional authority (conclusive and preclusive).  What that means to me is, if it’s something the Constitution gives him the authority to do, he absolutely cannot have charges filed against him. An easy example that I can think of is the Constitution makes him the commander-in-chief of the military. So if a president authorizes the military to do something such as Reagan authorizing the bombing of Libya in retaliation for terrorist attacks, the president cannot be sued or held to criminal charges because some civilians in Libya got killed. That is his authority as commander-in-chief and protection of the country. The Supreme Court then ruled that the president has presumed official acts immunity. A presumption under law in a case such as this means that it is assumed that the person accused, such as a president, is not guilty. The presumption is that he followed the law. The presumption does allow however for the prosecution to try and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the presumption does not exist. The person accused does not have to prove anything. The president does not have to prove that he had immunity. The prosecution has to prove that more likely yes than no that he didn’t have immunity. So technically there’s an opening to prosecute but you start out with the presumption that the person accused is not guilty with nothing to prove. As an example, the president has wide authority in many areas including issuing some executive orders. Those are authorities as official acts. If the president was to do something like order the unjustified jailing of a political opponent in an upcoming election and order the opponent held in Gitmo to keep from campaigning, that would not be included under an official act immunity. So it is possible to overcome the presumption of immunity but it will take quite a bit of work.  The president has no immunity whatsoever that is outside of constitutional authority or an official act. As an example of the president gets drunk and manages to sneak past his Secret Service bodyguard. He gets in the car and drives DWI and kills someone. That is not covered under an official act so he could be held accountable for a homicide. So…. For constitutional authorities, the president has absolute immunity. For an official act, he has presumed immunity. Anything outside of a constitutional or official act, such as driving DWI, has no immunity. In this ruling the Supreme Court vacated the indictment because the District Court, and the Circuit Court did not even consider immunity. The Supreme Court did not clear Trump because at this point they have not even heard the evidence. All they issued was a constitutional ruling that the lower courts have to at least consider immunity under the rule that they just established. Therefore the case goes back to the prosecution to bring a case at the trial court level and try to prove that whatever Trump is accused of, it was not an official act. Certainly the DOJ could read this Supreme Court ruling and drop the case, saying that they cannot overcome immunity. I’m not going to hold my breath, waiting for the DOJ to come to that conclusion. Simply disagreeing with a president actions does not disprove immunity. I disagreed with some of the things that Biden did such as ordering vaccines for some workers. Some of that was appealed and the courts threw out some of those mandates, especially under OSHSA. I don’t think Biden could be prosecuted however for issuing an executive order to one of his federal agencies because that is probably covered under an official act immunity. Not liking it does not automatically qualified as a crime. Therefore…. Can the DOJ try to again get an indictment against Trump and try to prove in court that he is not covered by one of the immunities listed? Yes. The Supreme Court  has stated that under their ruling absolute immunity must be taken into consideration for a constitutional act and presumed immunity must be taken into consideration for an official act. Let’s just say that the DOJ pushed this case again and convince the trial court and the appeals court that Trump has no immunity and they get a criminal conviction. At their discretion, the Supreme Court can take this case up again since the trial would have been held and the Supreme Court could see how the lower courts came to their conclusion. The Supreme Court could agree that with the lower courts that there was no immunity and a conviction stands or they could say, y'all weren't paying attention to our ruling and they can throw the whole case out. If you don’t want to read all of that……  To date the ruling is, yes a former president has immunity from what he did in office and by law that must be taken into consideration under the rules that the Supreme Court just set. The rest will play out in the future. 
    • I bet he has woodville in the top 2 in the region
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...