1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Sub-prime meltdown: More evidence where it came from.

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Andy, Mar 12, 2009.

  1. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Another nifty video showing exactly where the sub-prime melt down came from, and who is to blame for it.



    This is Andrew Coumo, in charge at HUD during Clinton's second term.
    In the first two minutes, it goes over a lawsuit settlement with a bank, to force it to lend $2.1 Billion dollars in sub-prime loans.

    At the two minute mark, he admits that the people getting these loans would not have qualified (a prime loan) except by affirmative action of the bank, mainly due to this law suit.

    At three minutes, he openly states that he expects a higher default rate on these higher risk mortgages.

    At 5:30, Overspend Obama himself, says he as an attorney represented affordable housing.

    Once again, clear cut evidence on how we got into this situation is presented to you. What answer do you democrats have?
     
  2. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    Is that part of the problem? of course...but is it the main reason for the problem? no I doubt it. Also care to post info on what the actul case was and why it was done, rather then a cut and spliced clip of one guy giving the basics of what I would guess was a very complicated issue.

    Also does not change the fact that over 8 years Bush did not do much to fix this or other issues.

    And I am no a Dem or a Clinton supporter so no I don't have to Defend them.
     
  3. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Of course not.

    The main reason for the problem, was politicians who wanted to buy the votes of people by "giving" them something they couldn't otherwise get, namely mortgages for houses they couldn't afford. They dressed it up by pretending the reason those people couldn't get mortgages previously, was some kind of racial discrimination instead of the real reason (they couldn't pay back the loans).

    The lawsuit described in the video, is just one of the instruments they used to push that farce, and eventually half-destroy the mortgage market.
     
    2 people like this.
  4. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    had nothing to do with companies who made lots of profits off those for some time, nooooo .
     
  5. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Then why are you defending them? I'm always amused when you say that right after trying to claim "it wasn't the main reason".

    But I'll bite. Here's a clip from Wiki about the 1995 legislative changes to the CRA. It was based on these changes, that ACORN, with Bailout Barack, sued and pushed banks to make sub-prime loans. Amazingly, this prediction was made back in 1995, and we only realized it 13 years later.


    Of course the average Americans, sadly, are too stupid to get the idea of "long-term effects". In 1997, the government happily announced that sub-prime loans were just as profitable as regular loans, and the default rate wasn't that much higher!

    So instead, the raising sub-prime loans, and related defaults, didn't cause a massive crash until 2007, so clearly it couldn't be because of this 1995 CRA push for sub-prime loans.
     
  6. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Between the 1970s and late 1990s, the sub-prime market was very small, and logically so. After all, who wants to make a loan, the loanee isn't likely to pay back? I'm broke and have no job, can you give me money? Err.. no.

    What the CRA did was push banks to make the loans. When banks start make such loans, it legitimizes the action to other banks. Hey, Bear Stearns is make tons of sub-prime loans, and they are still in business! (Bear Stearns btw, was the first bank to take up Fannie Mae on marketing sub-prime loans)

    More over, the cost of litigation with ACORN and other liberal nut case organizations, is very high. To make a few million sub-prime loans to keep the idiots off the law suit fence, is worth it in many cases.

    Finely, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were both forced by HUD to purchase more sub-prime loans. This is a big big deal. If Bank of America is going to be sued if they don't offer sub-prime loans, but if they do, can sell them off to Fannie Mae, that's a darn good deal.

    Both of these situations, validated the sub-prime market, and caused the risky loans to seem safe.

    This isn't to excuse the banks from growing a spine, standing up to the government, and realizing the dangers of their actions. But we are trying to find the origin of the problem. If the CRA had not pushed banks to make these loans, they never would have happened. The market would never have been validated. The companies would never have made risky loans with such a low chance of being repaid.
     
  7. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Those companies (and many others) have been trying to do exactly that, for decades if not centuries. It's the purpose of their business, in fact: to make profits. Why would they bother to run the business at all, if they couldn't?

    But we never had this kind of sub-prime mortgage meltdown, until the politicians I mentioned and their supporters, got into the act, and began threatening lenders with lawsuits etc. if they didn't lend to proportionate numbers of minorities and others who couldn't pay their loans back.

    Tell me, are you one of those people who simply oppose profits, and who snarl and hiss reflexively whenever any company is shown to actually earn money?
     
  8. chestnut

    chestnut New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Simply put, the more government involvement in our lives, the worse our lives will be.
     
    4 people like this.
  9. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    yes I hate profits, :rolleyes:

    I hate profits when they are done threw unethical practices, and profits that are made with fancy book keeping ( aka illegal or semi illegal) or profits that do not get passed down the company line ( Top in comany make billions , main workers, min wage...) Companies made loans to people they should not becuse they are profitable , late fees, high interest....its all great so long as you can string them along and keep up the fees...only cost them when they go to far and bleed them dry...They profit on hooking people wiht great sounding deals, but hidden tricks and fees that no common person will understand...or notice. and then all the sudden that loan for 8% interest , its now 33% or 39%...


    As for Andy, where was I Defending anyone? I am not here deffending Clinton, and yes I will attack Bush...he was president for 8 years while this whole thing fell apart and what did he do about it? nothing. If this was a problem from the CLintons...then he had 8 years to fix it, he failed, and I will put that on him.
     
  10. chestnut

    chestnut New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Profits are how business especially chemical / pharmaceutical / energy companies do research & development.

    Those profits are necessary if products are going to advance. Look at all the products you use every day Pocket and tell me how they would be without R&D.


    As for people and loans, no one forces them to take money. People have just forgotten how to live within their means.
     
  11. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    that is part of it yes, pushed by the goverment and media...after all what did Bush tell us to do after sept 11? the nation was ready to sacrifice...he said go shop and spend...

    And of course I am all for that, I am in commison sales, so please spend...but I also dont try trick people into spending more and getting them to sign a contract they dont fully understand with hidden loopholes in it to rape them later like many banks and credit cards.
     
  12. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Laugh at Bush all you want, but at least he understood we are a consumer based economy, and spending is critical to its survival.

    Bush saying "go spend" did not trick anyone into doing anything. Further, if you sign a contract you do not understand, it is your own fault.
     
    3 people like this.
  13. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ....As-a-matter-of-fact, he did the complete-OPPOSITE!
     
  14. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    The fact is that both sides to a great extent were for opening up the housing market.

    The Democrats were big on the idea that owners that had an actual ownership stake in a community would take better care of it. Which is true but you do have to have the income to make the payments and stay an owner.

    Many Republicans liked the idea of more business for the banks, Realtors etc. But once again if the lending institutions get too carried away and get into predatory lending territory that's a recipe for disaster as well.

    So on this one it amazes me when either side points fingers... hell they were both well intentioned (how often does that happen at the same time?) in many instances the outcome simply just not turn out as they had hoped or expected.

    But here's the other part of the reality. Only 12% of the mortgage meltdown was attributed to these kinds of loans anyway. That means 88% were not low income incentive loans at all... 88%!

    So on this one I go back to the big picture and what was missing was better and stricter regulation across the board... low income... middle income... high income... had regulations on lending been tighter all across the board when the economy slowed the mortgage problem would have not been nearly as big a deal.

    Lesson: Better regulation, more money down or more collateral, looking for adequate income for after an ARM adjusts not just at loan inception... these kinds of things.

    This isn't a blame a Party thing. If we're going to go that route because the Dems wanted more home ownership then we also would have to look at the Republicans overall policy of pushing for deregulation on all businesses including banks.

    This is something that needed fixed granted but it's disingenuous to point fingers on this one.
     
  15. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ....So, when you read:​

    ......you don't consider WHERE THE HELL WAS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL??!!!

    We're NOT (exactly) talkin'-about some ROOKIE, here!!!
     
Loading...

Share This Page