Democrats Revolt Against 'Wall Street Giveaway' In Deal To Stop Government Shutdown

You got that backwards.

 

How did they run "roughshod" of the entire housing market? They were required by government mandate to make loans that should not have been made and when they didn't make lawyers like Barak Obama sued them in court to make them threatening to remove their charters if they didn't.

The were perhaps the most regulated industry in our country and you claim more regulation was needed, how absurd.

 

Oh please. Try it on someone who was born yesterday.

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

I watched this happen to friends of mine who are quite well-off. They are now trapped in negative equity situations probably forever, unless they walk away.

During the housing bubble, lots of my friends urged me to buy. I said, no way in hell. This was just like the web bubble. I'm not stupid. I still rent to this day for a fraction of a mortgage in Chicago. But a lot of people I know got fooled and screwed. Every single one of them said, "You made the right choice. If I had it to do all over again..."

I watched lack of oversight bleed my friends. They'll be OK, but they will never get back what they paid for their places. So guess who went to the bank? Their lenders.

 

Quote Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
How did they run "roughshod" of the entire housing market? They were required by government mandate to make loans that should not have been made and when they didn't make lawyers like Barak Obama sued them in court to make them threatening to remove their charters if they didn't.

The were perhaps the most regulated industry in our country and you claim more regulation was needed, how absurd.

Insults refute nothing. Are you denying the fact that Obama representing ACORN and low income people sued the big banks to force them to issues loans they otherwise would not have issued?



http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

And what drove up those housing prices? I shopped for new houses twice during that period and saw how the prices were being inflated and walked away from it. That price pressure was from the bottom up as the CRA brought in low income people without down payments into houses they could not afford driving all housing prices up. My house went from $130K to $180K on paper. But we just kept paying our mortage and waited it out.

And you were smart and now is a great time to buy.

Your friends needed oversight? It was the oversight that force banks to make those loans that caused the bubble, that caused the upside loans, that caused people in houses with no equity to have their loans called. The government should have kept their noses out of the market.

Oh eventually they will, in another 10 years perhaps.

 

Another hilarious thing, sorry if it has already been mentioned, further research uncovers that this very bill that Fauxcahontas is making a row over passed the financial services committee by a vote of 53-6 in 2013... 27 Democrats are on the committee, lol. Obviously this is all just smoke signals and mirrors from ignorant Fauxca.

https://www.congress.gov/113/crpt/hrpt229/CRPT-113hrpt229-pt1.pdf

Despite all the whooping and hollering, this is simply not a big deal other than in Fauxca's tipi.

 

It's about perpetuating a govt-edu-union-contractor-grantee-MSM complex lie narrative on the mortgage collapse of 2008 and rabble rousing with that lie narrative, nothing more. Proprietary trading, derivatives, credit rating agencies, securitization, replacement of Glass Steagall by Gramm Leech Bliley, greedy Wall Street itself... none of these were material factors in the mortgage collapse of 2008 ("MC"). So what -were- the causes?

My opinions and factual analysis on this issue come from being a stockbroker with the most prestigious firm in the country selling various mortgage based securities in the mid 80s-mid 90s, a banker at one of the largest banks in the country mid-late 90s, and a financial lawyer working for an elite Wall Street firm in the early 2000s that was the top securitization law firm at the time, in solo practice in business and transactional law today. The actual causes of the MC are:

1. Government meddling in the mortgage markets for decades, most of the 20th century, by way of insurance, interest deductions, other policy and loan programs, FHA, HUD, quasi federal entities FNMA, FMAC, etc. The government has NO PLACE AT ALL in the mortgage market, but politicians, like flies to honey, can't help themselves. The window dressing is "everyone should own a home, it's the American Dream! so we will make it easier." The actuality is "False stimulus of the housing market, which ties into almost every consumer market in the US, gives the illusion of a naturally growing economy that keeps ME in office." This factor alone would have dictated a blowoff top and crash in the mortgage markets. This happens whenever a market is falsely stimulated and bolstered over time, severe crash is inevitable. History is replete with examples. The government was like a crack dealer for 80 years and the economy the addict. It took decades for the crash to come, but when it did, it was big. EVERY OTHER FACTOR IN THE MC WAS A MINOR, TANGENTIAL ONE, oily rags to this factor's gasoline and matches. This one is the biggie.

2. Unwise consolidation of the financial industry at all levels during the Reagan through Obama administrations, but MOSTLY in the Clinton Administration, the flouting of our basic antitrust laws. As an aside here to all the lefties who think regulations are panaceas, they AREN'T, and have ANY EFFECT only to the extent that they are ENFORCED. These are the laws that break up monopolies, oversee mergers, penalize unfair trade practices due to being big. THESE ARE THE LAWS THAT WARREN SAYS SHOULD BREAK UP CITIGROUP, yet the memory is so short SHE DOESN'T KNOW WHY CITIGROUP IS SO LARGE, and how HER party and HER government allowed that to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

Yet these are the laws that were FLOUTED by Clinton and others, allowed the unwise consolidation of banks in the late 80s-2000s. Guess what? The Clintons are stinking rich today. Guess why? speaking fees and book sales. Guess who pays most of those? THE F-ING FINANCIAL INDUSTRY. Quid Pro Quo? Who knows? The "Complex" doesn't seem to care much about brown bags like that, wonder why? As those banks consolidated into megabanks, several things occured, for our purposes the centralization of credit committees as opposed to local, becoming too big to fail, and the conversion of many FIDUCIARY type local banks into parts of a PROFIT DRIVEN behemoth are most important. Young, freshly minted MBAs replaced old local grayhairs. The MBAs were profit driven, the old gray hairs knew they shouldn't loan to Lester despite his high credit score because he's a degenerate gambler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Union_Corporation (80-90 Mergers?!?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NationsBank (I don't see a number here, but likely not much less than First Union, so 150+ mergers?! Just in these two banks?)

Let's be crystal, crystal clear here. The REGULATIONS that could have prevented this unwise consolidation WEREN'T "DEREGULATED," THEY SIMPLY WEREN'T ENFORCED as a function of executive branch discretion, not the GOP or Democrats, but OUR GOVERNMENT selling graft and suspending perfectly good regulations. LOOKING THE OTHER WAY. Also, don't believe any partisan spin on this either. It did happen mostly in the Clinton Admin, but Govt at large at all levels was benefitting and in on it.

Also of note is that at this time, a meaningful tangent for this thread topic, but not the MC, Brooksley Born almost BEGGED to regulate the derivatives market under the CFTC. SHE WAS DENIED:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooksley_Born (use this link to get the facts only, as many wiki pages are, this one is highly left biased in several ways... it was GOVT making shady money off of being lax on regulations, not the GOP or Democrats, free marketeers v keynesians, but Government at large) The upshot on this aside is that while the left is always talking about utterly irrelevant Glass Steagall, it's own administrations were getting RICH by not putting regulations in place WHEN THEY MIGHT HAVE HELPED SOME.

3. The government began expanding prior legislation into bully pulpits and threats on "equality in lending" during the Clinton Administration. The EEOC was in its irrational, overbearing heyday, and the Clinton Administration began brandishing CRA like a club. "Here's your CRA quota or you will be investigated, prevented from any further mergers, SHUT DOWN, FINED IN THE BILLIONS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act (once again, use wiki articles for the facts and facts alone, there is lots of slant in them, usually leftist, sometimes RW).

Now, to preempt, the rate of default of CRA loans, or other outcome statistics of CRA itself, have NOTHING to do with how CRA affected the mortgage markets and credit policies, nothing whatsoever. (some lefty will probably post a bunch of irrelevant union label hogwash on this anyway) In combination with factor 2, unwise banking consolidation above, a) CRA + b) centralized profit driven, inexperienced credit committees + c) federal insurance and FNMAFMAC quotas on CRA loans + d) threats and out and out jawboning = a diminished credit quality climate throughout ALL consumer banking, banks, mortgage companies, etc. In essence, "loan to anyone, it's federally insured, THAT'S the new credit standard, not the careful fiduciary standards of the past." AND LO AND BEHOLD... the SUBPRIME INDUSTRY EMERGETH.

4. Lots of greedy street level Americans borrowed more than they could repay, there is fault on the banks here for lending it ( as explained in factors 2 and 3), but we have become such a nanny state that this factor is always ignored. IF YOU BORROWED MORE THAN YOU COULD AFFORD TO REPAY JUST BECAUSE YOU COULD GET IT, YOU ARE PART AND BLAMEWORTHY OF THE MC.

5. SO, there it is, government meddling in mortgages for 80+ years, unwise banking consolidation allowed by government in graft-flouting of antitrust laws leading to central consumer banking and more profit driven behemoth banks, resulting weakened credit standards across the board created by government jawboning, government quotas, bald government threats. THOSE are the primary causes of the MC. Everything else was just tangential oily rags. Not "derivatives," not "credit rating agencies," not "proprietary trading," not "Wall Street," not "securitizations," but GOVERNMENT generally.

Why MUST they preach and propagate this lie narrative? BECAUSE HALF THE GOVERNMENT, including ALL members of the finance and banking related committees, the Clinton and other administrations, and lots of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-MSM complex should be IN JAIL over the mortgage collapse, and if the American people ever figure out the real truth, there will be a MASSIVE taxpayer revolt. They LINED THEIR POCKETS with YOUR losses, with YOUR savings, and the whole complex is DESPERATE that you never understand what really occured.

So with that long prelude, how does that affect this topic? The repeal of the duplicative amendment to Dodd Frank? It's just another piece of the lie narrative, getting you to believe that things you don't understand like derivatives and sophisticated trading caused that crash, and that regulating that will prevent another one. It won't:

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

That's right, the collapse was caused by easy to see RISKY LENDING, and GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN THAT, which is NOT addressed by Dodd Frank, and has been curiously allowed to proceed BUSINESS AS USUAL since the crash. The crash didn't come from derivatives, or all the other hard to understand boogey men the COMPLEX preaches to you, it came from BAD loans, jawboned and mandated by GOVERNMENT, that allowed the UNWISE CONSOLIDATION of our financial industry QUID PRO QUO. NOTHING is being done on that, and while Fauxcahontas rails about Citigroup and "rolling the dice," the REAL DICE ARE BEING ROLLED right under your nose, just like they were pre 2008.

As previously cited, the Finance Committee, including all but 6 of 50 something members, including 21 Democrats voted OVERWHELMINGLY to repeal the Lincoln Amendment because it is BAD LAW... LAST YEAR. Read the analysis in the Bipartisan Report and the BILL ITSELF previously linked. This isn't something that Citigroup "slid into" the budget, it is a reasonable policy initiative aimed at a BAD REGULATION. Don't let Warren, Pelosi and others LIE to you in perpetuation of a gigantic blame-deflecting FRAUD on you by government. And don't take my word for it. READ the Bipartisan Report, read the actual linked bill, especially read the Forbes article by Ms. Coppola linked above. Then read these and whatever other educated sources you care to that aren't pure partisan rabble-rousing bullsh-t:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgel...-to-others-the-housing-bubble-and-dodd-frank/

http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2013_11_Imprimis.pdf

http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploa...h&utm_medium=paramount&utm_campaign=fha-watch

Read SOMETHING, but whatever you do, don't allow the latest leftist sewer pipe distortions du jour to frighten, manipulate or fool you. The repeal of the Lincoln Amendment to Dodd Frank is simply not a big deal, and has 0 chance of allowing banks to shuffle risking trading losses onto the taxpayer via bailout or otherwise. Stop being gullible and engaging in "regulation fallacies" and ignorant knee-jerk responses.