PDA

View Full Version : Home Values See Largest Drop Since 2008



SoonerNate
5/9/2011, 11:50 PM
How's that Hope and Change working for ya?

Times are so great aren't they? (http://www.cnbc.com/id/42955097)

His election was "historical" alright.


.S. home values fell in the first quarter at the fastest rate since late 2008, real estate data firm Zillow said on Monday, suggesting that a bottom will not be seen until 2012 at the earliest.

SoCaliSooner
5/9/2011, 11:55 PM
I've read somewhere that something like 70% of all the people under Obamas loan remodification are back delinquent and headed to foreclosure.

StoopTroup
5/10/2011, 12:20 AM
I've read somewhere that something like 70% of all the people under Obamas loan remodification are back delinquent and headed to foreclosure.

The damn loans were given out in the Bush Administration. Obama tried to give folks a chance of saving their homes. I know a good number of folks who have lost their Family Homes. Two of them is because their Spouse isn't paying child support. Another is because her husband didn't get paroled and she's been working two jobs to try and keep it for some time. She was counting on him getting out so he could help he with the kids and the mortgage.

2121Sooner
5/10/2011, 12:27 AM
Part of the drop can also be the housing market coming back to itself after the insane appreciation levels between 2004-2007 or so.

Lots of corrections on the sins of the past .......

SoCaliSooner
5/10/2011, 12:28 AM
Damn george bush making people buy homes they can't afford.

GKeeper316
5/10/2011, 12:29 AM
real estate values dropping is all the presidents fault. got it.

StoopTroup
5/10/2011, 12:31 AM
Damn george bush making people buy homes they can't afford.

It was hard for some to not take advantage of the 100% Refi when it was a really bad idea considering their risk.

Many of them shouldn't have been offered.

GKeeper316
5/10/2011, 12:32 AM
Damn george bush making people buy homes they can't afford.

it was actually president clinton that forced banks to relax the lending standards so that more minorities would become home owners.

but it was the republicans that snuck the bill through that removed all the banking restrictions that had been in place since the great depression... and 10 years later look what's happened. it isn't a coincidence.

Blue
5/10/2011, 12:46 AM
It was hard for some to not take advantage of the 100% Refi when it was a really bad idea considering their risk.

Many of them shouldn't have been offered.

It's not the American peoples fault and its not one particular presidents fault.

Who could blame people when for 20 years homes were huge piggybanks? Just buy one and double your money in 5 years.

It got ridiculous, the market smacked it down, and many people were left holding the bag.

Simple.

SoonerNate
5/10/2011, 12:47 AM
The damn loans were given out in the Bush Administration. Obama tried to give folks a chance of saving their homes. I know a good number of folks who have lost their Family Homes. Two of them is because their Spouse isn't paying child support. Another is because her husband didn't get paroled and she's been working two jobs to try and keep it for some time. She was counting on him getting out so he could help he with the kids and the mortgage.

Negative.

Bush tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie and the left cried foul.

SoonerNate
5/10/2011, 12:49 AM
real estate values dropping is all the presidents fault. got it.

roUTdnL0ZSI

SoCaliSooner
5/10/2011, 12:53 AM
Two of them is because their Spouse isn't paying child support. Another is because her husband didn't get paroled and she's been working two jobs to try and keep it for some time. She was counting on him getting out so he could help he with the kids and the mortgage.

There is quite a bit of bad decision making in there apart from and probably long before anything real estate related took place.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
5/10/2011, 01:20 AM
The damn loans were given out in the Bush Administration.Haha, like it was Bush's or any of the republicans idea to make unsound loans. GET REAL, and pls PULL YOUR HEAD OUT.

GKeeper316
5/10/2011, 02:18 AM
Haha, like it was Bush's or any of the republicans idea to make unsound loans. GET REAL, and pls PULL YOUR HEAD OUT.

no it was the republicans who made it possible for high risk mortgages to be bundled up by the hundreds of thousands and sold on the market as investments, while at the same time offering unbacked insurance policies betting against the people's ability to repay the mortgages in the first place.

the banks are out of control. republican sponsored deregulation is the fault.

nobody can fix it because every time the democrats try anything, the pubs just start screaming "socialism" and "big government" until they get what they want, which is usually more money for the people (and now corporations) that finance their campaigns.

Blue
5/10/2011, 03:48 AM
no it was the republicans who made it possible for high risk mortgages to be bundled up by the hundreds of thousands and sold on the market as investments, while at the same time offering unbacked insurance policies betting against the people's ability to repay the mortgages in the first place.

the banks are out of control. republican sponsored deregulation is the fault.

nobody can fix it because every time the democrats try anything, the pubs just start screaming "socialism" and "big government" until they get what they want, which is usually more money for the people (and now corporations) that finance their campaigns.

When are we gonna get past this two-party BS? The govt and the market knows what they are doing. The rich get richer and you bitch at the other brokedick sitting across the table.

We're getting played.

yermom
5/10/2011, 04:16 AM
When are we gonna get past this two-party BS? The govt and the market knows what they are doing. The rich get richer and you bitch at the other brokedick sitting across the table.

We're getting played.

I think that's in the fine print of the constitution

XingTheRubicon
5/10/2011, 07:18 AM
I never knew Barney Frank was a Republican.

JohnnyMack
5/10/2011, 07:27 AM
When are we gonna get past this two-party BS? The govt and the market knows what they are doing. The rich get richer and you bitch at the other brokedick sitting across the table.

We're getting played.

Yup.

lexsooner
5/10/2011, 08:35 AM
When are we gonna get past this two-party BS? The govt and the market knows what they are doing. The rich get richer and you bitch at the other brokedick sitting across the table.

We're getting played.
^^^^^^^^^
That's a BINGO!

Midtowner
5/10/2011, 09:51 AM
roUTdnL0ZSI

Wow.

That is the logical equivalent of the following:

http://blogout.justout.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/obrady.jpg

^ Typical Republican voters.

The Maestro
5/10/2011, 10:01 AM
Personal accountability anyone?

You know how much money you make. You know what it costs to buy a house and keep it.

I rent a very nice house in a very nice neighborhood cause the housing market is nuts and I don't want to get involved in it right now.

Cause that is the smart thing for to do and all...at this point.

Midtowner
5/10/2011, 10:16 AM
Personal accountability anyone?

You know how much money you make. You know what it costs to buy a house and keep it.

I rent a very nice house in a very nice neighborhood cause the housing market is nuts and I don't want to get involved in it right now.

Cause that is the smart thing for to do and all...at this point.

Personal accountability works at the level of the individual, but when you're in D.C., and in charge of regulating the whole system, it is pretty likely that if you set up a system so it can be used irresponsibly, folks are going to exploit it on a pretty massive scale just about as irresponsibly as possible.

From the mortgage brokers who put together mortgages they knew couldn't be repaid, to the idjits that signed deals with big 'ol balloon payments, or for payments they just could not afford, none of those people would have been able to do any of that if the system had been properly regulated.

And as far as assigning blame for political purposes? If you think that either the Republicans or Democrats or some certain President is to blame, you are an idiot.

It is the entire system, both parties are screwing us from different sides and no one is standing up for what is in the voter's best interest. The banks are the only folks who have representation in this deal, and despite being complicit in this whole scheme, they are being rewarded for taking risks they knew or should have known would leave them with nothing but a house to foreclose to show for their trouble.

Everyone has a little responsibility here, but who do you think was in the better position to stop this? The banks who got our politicos to remove regulations so the banks could game the system? Or the individuals who were offered loans they probably couldn't pay off, but probably told any number of lies to comfort them, e.g., when the balloon payment comes due, your house will be worth at least 20% more than it is now based on recent history, etc.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
5/10/2011, 12:45 PM
I never knew Barney Frank was a Republican.GKeeper, it's that easy. You must be PURPOSEFULLY ignorant to come up with your convoluted blame. If the lenders weren't forced to make those bad loans in the first place, our downward spiral wouldn't have happened.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
5/10/2011, 01:01 PM
Personal accountability works at the level of the individual, but when you're in D.C., and in charge of regulating the whole system, it is pretty likely that IF YOU SET UP A SYSTEM SO THAT IT CAN BE USED IRRESPONSIVELY, folks are going to exploit it on a pretty massive scale just about as irresponsibly as possible.

From the mortgage brokers who put together mortgages they knew couldn't be repaid, to the idjits that signed deals with big 'ol balloon payments, or for payments they just could not afford, none of those people would have been able to do any of that if the system had been PROPERLY REGULATED.

And as far as assigning blame for political purposes? If you think that either the Republicans or Democrats or some certain President is to blame, you are an idiot.

It is the entire system, both parties are screwing us from different sides and no one is standing up for what is in the voter's best interest. The banks are the only folks who have representation in this deal, and despite being complicit in this whole scheme, they are being rewarded for taking risks they knew or should have known would leave them with nothing but a house to foreclose to show for their trouble.

Everyone has a little responsibility here, but who do you think was in the better position to stop this? The BANKS WHO GOT OUR POLITICOS TO REMOVE REGULATIONS so the banks could game the system? Or the individuals who were offered loans they probably couldn't pay off, but probably told any number of lies to comfort them, e.g., when the balloon payment comes due, your house will be worth at least 20% more than it is now based on recent history, etc.IF you are correct that "banks" got our politicos to remove regulations, you need to realize that it was the democrats are those politicos who were behind the relaxing of lending requirements, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Those banks that you claim were behind it all got the democrats to help them out.

It looked to many folks that those democrats wanted to give their broke voters have another reason to vote democrat. Not to mention that hurting a republican president at the same time was a bonus. It's on the democrats!

What evidence do you have that the banks started all this crap, and not the democrat politicians?

Gandalf_The_Grey
5/10/2011, 01:08 PM
roUTdnL0ZSI

I love this video, because technically you can use it as a response for anything instead of actually thinking and typing a thought yourself!!!

soonercruiser
5/10/2011, 01:35 PM
There is quite a bit of bad decision making in there apart from and probably long before anything real estate related took place.

This is the bottom line.
People (some of them dumb for many reasons) making stupid decisions!

Here's another example....:rolleyes:


The damn loans were given out in the Bush Administration. Obama tried to give folks a chance of saving their homes. I know a good number of folks who have lost their Family Homes. Two of them is because their Spouse isn't paying child support. Another is because her husband didn't get paroled and she's been working two jobs to try and keep it for some time. She was counting on him getting out so he could help he with the kids and the mortgage.

Some people make dumb decisions, when they should be simplifying their lives, and concentrating on what is important at the time.....like the kids!

OutlandTrophy
5/10/2011, 01:38 PM
This is the bottom line.
People (some of them dimb for many reasons) making stupid decisions!

Here's another example....:rolleyes:

I thought you were going to post a picture of your car :confused:

Midtowner
5/10/2011, 03:31 PM
IF you are correct that "banks" got our politicos to remove regulations, you need to realize that it was the democrats are those politicos who were behind the relaxing of lending requirements, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Those banks that you claim were behind it all got the democrats to help them out.

Who cares? The Dems deregulated and so did the 'pubs, and now, are the 'pubs calling for more regulation? Even better regulation? Nope. Both parties are to blame, quit trying to spin this into some sort of political victory. Only someone suffering from an acute case of cognitive dissonance (after being apprised of the facts) could possibly conclude that either party is blameless in the state of the banking industry with regard to the consequences of lax regulation.


What evidence do you have that the banks started all this crap, and not the democrat politicians?

A reasonable inference can be drawn that if banks are spending billions on lobbying for fewer regulations, they are looking for some sort of ROI on that investment, yes?

JDMT
5/10/2011, 03:33 PM
Another is because her husband didn't get paroled and she's been working two jobs to try and keep it for some time. She was counting on him getting out so he could help he with the kids and the mortgage.

Is she hot?

SoonerNate
5/10/2011, 03:41 PM
I love this video, because technically you can use it as a response for anything instead of actually thinking and typing a thought yourself!!!

I love it too. It describes the Obama voter to a tee.

soonercoop1
5/10/2011, 04:08 PM
How's that Hope and Change working for ya?

Times are so great aren't they? (http://www.cnbc.com/id/42955097)

His election was "historical" alright.

Did you notice on the same page that AIG stock has plummetted 35% since Jan....we (federal government) own 92% of AIG....

GKeeper316
5/10/2011, 04:32 PM
IF you are correct that "banks" got our politicos to remove regulations, you need to realize that it was the democrats are those politicos who were behind the relaxing of lending requirements, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Those banks that you claim were behind it all got the democrats to help them out.

It looked to many folks that those democrats wanted to give their broke voters have another reason to vote democrat. Not to mention that hurting a republican president at the same time was a bonus. It's on the democrats!

What evidence do you have that the banks started all this crap, and not the democrat politicians?

no it was phil gramm, not barney frank, that is mostly responsible for the financial mess we're all in... phil gramm. the champion of republican economic theory who once called the working class a bunch of whiners...

just look up gramm-leach-bliley

cccasooner2
5/10/2011, 04:43 PM
Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, JPM, Goldman Sachs, BAC, WFC, C, Merrill Lynch, Countrywide, Fannie, Freddie, and all the rest planned the meltdown. Ya sure, yebetcha. Not my fault, .......tippie toe away.....

soonercruiser
5/10/2011, 04:47 PM
Wow.

That is the logical equivalent of the following:

http://blogout.justout.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/obrady.jpg

^ Typical Republican voters.

"LOGICAL"????
You really need help. Professional help!

**(And, quit posting pictures of The Posse!)

soonercruiser
5/10/2011, 04:49 PM
I thought you were going to post a picture of your car :confused:

YOU are questioning someone turning their car into a SOONER SHRINE????!!!!
Now that is dumb!
:D

soonercruiser
5/10/2011, 04:50 PM
Is she hot?

If serving time for murder, you may want to delete that post!
:D

Midtowner
5/10/2011, 05:38 PM
"LOGICAL"????
You really need help. Professional help!

**(And, quit posting pictures of The Posse!)

How is it inaccurate? The Obama voter is just one person with her own attitudes and beliefs and she voted for Obama. I highly doubt the guys in my photo voted for Obama.

soonercruiser
5/10/2011, 08:48 PM
Probably most of the guys in the picture are dead by now; and were Democrats at the time of the picture!
:rolleyes:

Midtowner
5/10/2011, 10:25 PM
That's your reply, really?

So current KKK members are Obama voters then? Or does the KKK not exist? We're just looking at you to admit that a single individual does not represent every single person who votes for a presidential candidate. That shouldn't be hard to admit.

StoopTroup
5/10/2011, 10:58 PM
"LOGICAL"????
You really need help. Professional help!

**(And, quit posting pictures of The Posse!)

http://blogout.justout.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/obrady.jpg

The short guy at the bottom.....

That's SicEm (Cradle Republican).

Y'all might say a little prayer for him. Word is he's not doing to good.

Boarder
5/10/2011, 11:47 PM
Actual question on my American Presidency final:

The president has the least influence over ____________.
a. The way other countries view the US.
b. Housing prices.
c. Taxes
d. Healthcare costs
e. The federal budget deficit.

The answer was b.

StoopTroup
5/10/2011, 11:50 PM
What about f)?

Who cares?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
5/11/2011, 12:58 AM
Who cares? The Dems deregulated and so did the 'pubs, and now, are the 'pubs calling for more regulation? Even better regulation? Nope. Both parties are to blame, quit trying to spin this into some sort of political victory. Only someone suffering from an acute case of cognitive dissonance (after being apprised of the facts) could possibly conclude that either party is blameless in the state of the banking industry with regard to the consequences of lax regulation.



A reasonable inference can be drawn that if banks are spending billions on lobbying for fewer regulations, they are looking for some sort of ROI on that investment, yes?Look thilly guy, the effing democrats in congress started the unsound loans and began the crippling of the economy. You know this of course, but that apparently doesn't bother you much, and you endeavor to equate those fools(at best) with those who didn't do that. Talk about illogical.

StoopTroup
5/11/2011, 01:11 AM
Look thilly guy, the effing democrats in congress started the unsound loans and began the crippling of the economy. You know this of course, but that apparently doesn't bother you much, and you endeavor to equate those fools(at best) with those who didn't do that. Talk about illogical.

The Republicans have been in charge since 1776....

What the hell happened?

Gandalf_The_Grey
5/11/2011, 03:04 AM
I love it too. It describes the Obama voter to a tee.


So you are willing to say that 64,385,746 people in America are that way?

Midtowner
5/11/2011, 05:15 AM
Look thilly guy, the effing democrats in congress started the unsound loans and began the crippling of the economy. You know this of course, but that apparently doesn't bother you much, and you endeavor to equate those fools(at best) with those who didn't do that. Talk about illogical.

Who authored and proposed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act?

Phil Gramm (R) of the Senate.

Jim Leach (R) of the House.

Clinton (D) signed it into law.

This Bill allowed consumer banks to operate like investment banks. This allowed Citigroup, formerly a consumer bank, which was formerly prohibited from doing what I'm about to describe, to underwrite things like mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and to buy those securities from others. This flood of new instruments is what is largely credited with the rise in sub-prime mortgage lending. There are a number of other factors, but none of those would have probably come into play without the glut of money coming from consumer banks.

Don't let facts get in the way of your partisan nonsense though. Both parties are to blame.

Sooner5030
5/11/2011, 06:18 AM
pubs and dems did not make anyone borrow or lend money that they shouldn't have.

this thread really shows what's wrong with our society. Always looking for a politician to better your life or to blame for the bad things that happen. In a free society stupid people are allowed to do stupid things. You have to be aware of this and the 2nd & 3rd order effects it will have on you.

Midtowner
5/11/2011, 06:23 AM
pubs and dems did not make anyone borrow or lend money that they shouldn't have.

this thread really shows what's wrong with our society. Always looking for a politician to better your life or to blame for the bad things that happen. In a free society stupid people are allowed to do stupid things. You have to be aware of this and the 2nd & 3rd order effects it will have on you.

Nope, they just created a climate where there was money available to people who couldn't pay it back, which resulted in a bunch of defaults, and an eventual economic black hole, which a lot of innocent people were sucked into.

Without the repeal of Glass Steagall, none of this happens.

King Barry's Back
5/11/2011, 07:18 AM
The damn loans were given out in the Bush Administration. Obama tried to give folks a chance of saving their homes. I know a good number of folks who have lost their Family Homes. Two of them is because their Spouse isn't paying child support. Another is because her husband didn't get paroled and she's been working two jobs to try and keep it for some time. She was counting on him getting out so he could help he with the kids and the mortgage.

Her husband didn't get paroled? I guess the bank counted on the guy getting out and getting a job when they made the loan. Guess Wall Street looks foolish again.

What'll happen if he gets out and still can't get a job?:eek:

soonercruiser
5/11/2011, 09:52 AM
That's your reply, really?

So current KKK members are Obama voters then? Or does the KKK not exist? We're just looking at you to admit that a single individual does not represent every single person who votes for a presidential candidate. That shouldn't be hard to admit.

OK!
I will admit that I've probably seen only 20-30 similar videos on the web.
Is that like one bad sign at a Tea Party Rally?
Be honest! It worked for YOU!
:rolleyes:

diverdog
5/11/2011, 11:54 AM
GKeeper, it's that easy. You must be PURPOSEFULLY ignorant to come up with your convoluted blame. If the lenders weren't forced to make those bad loans in the first place, our downward spiral wouldn't have happened.

No lender was forced to make a loan. If you think CRA lending caused the housing bust then you would be wrong.

diverdog
5/11/2011, 11:55 AM
Nope, they just created a climate where there was money available to people who couldn't pay it back, which resulted in a bunch of defaults, and an eventual economic black hole, which a lot of innocent people were sucked into.

Without the repeal of Glass Steagall, none of this happens.

Bingo

Midtowner
5/11/2011, 12:31 PM
OK!
I will admit that I've probably seen only 20-30 similar videos on the web.
Is that like one bad sign at a Tea Party Rally?
Be honest! It worked for YOU!
:rolleyes:

Wow. What sort of statistical analysis are you employing that tells you that 20-30 "similar videos" somewhere on the internet proves anything? A bad sign at a Tea Party rally proves nothing either.

I do have it on good advise that the KKK went pretty solid for McCain-Palin though, as did most of the groups listed by the SPLC.

sooner28
5/11/2011, 12:51 PM
The damn loans were given out in the Bush Administration. Obama tried to give folks a chance of saving their homes. I know a good number of folks who have lost their Family Homes. Two of them is because their Spouse isn't paying child support. Another is because her husband didn't get paroled and she's been working two jobs to try and keep it for some time. She was counting on him getting out so he could help he with the kids and the mortgage.

Hoping your husband gets paroled doesn't seem like a sound financial strategy..... Maybe that's just me though.....

badger
5/11/2011, 12:55 PM
this thread really shows what's wrong with our society. Always looking for a politician to better your life or to blame for the bad things that happen. In a free society stupid people are allowed to do stupid things.

When the sooners win, we win. When the Sooners lose, fire Chuck "Third and" Long and/or Brent Vulnerables. :D

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
5/11/2011, 01:07 PM
Who authored and proposed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act?

Phil Gramm (R) of the Senate.

Jim Leach (R) of the House.

Clinton (D) signed it into law.

This Bill allowed consumer banks to operate like investment banks. This allowed Citigroup, formerly a consumer bank, which was formerly prohibited from doing what I'm about to describe, to underwrite things like mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and to buy those securities from others. This flood of new instruments is what is largely credited with the rise in sub-prime mortgage lending. There are a number of other factors, but none of those would have probably come into play without the glut of money coming from consumer banks.

Don't let facts get in the way of your partisan nonsense though. Both parties are to blame.This is what YOU want to credit for the rise in sub-prime lending. It didn't authorize the creation of unwise, unsound loans. You know who did that.

oudavid1
5/11/2011, 01:30 PM
I really dont think one person (president) is at fault.

Midtowner
5/11/2011, 01:39 PM
This is what YOU want to credit for the rise in sub-prime lending. It didn't authorize the creation of unwise, unsound loans. You know who did that.

Those wouldn't have happened without the repeal of Glass Steagall.

Prior to Glass Steagull, subprime lending made up about 5% of lending. The Act passed in 2000. By 2008, before the collapse of housing, they were approaching 30% of all lending.

If a stone is dropped into a pond, what do you blame for upsetting the pond's tranquility? The stone or the ripples? I'm talking about the stone, you're complaining about ripples.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
5/11/2011, 02:21 PM
Those wouldn't have happened without the repeal of Glass Steagall.

Prior to Glass Steagull, subprime lending made up about 5% of lending. The Act passed in 2000. By 2008, before the collapse of housing, they were approaching 30% of all lending.

If a stone is dropped into a pond, what do you blame for upsetting the pond's tranquility? The stone or the ripples? I'm talking about the stone, you're complaining about ripples.The stupid loans were mandated by democrats in congress, and caused our economic collapse. They are apparently GETTING READY TO DO IT AGAIN, to complete the assault on our economy. Glass Seagall allowed greater competition among financial industries. Dodd and Frank started requiring that bad loans be made. see the difference? Don't answer. I know you don't understand.

Midtowner
5/11/2011, 02:41 PM
The stupid loans were mandated by democrats in congress, and caused our economic collapse. They are apparently GETTING READY TO DO IT AGAIN, to complete the assault on our economy. Glass Seagall allowed greater competition among financial industries. Dodd and Frank started requiring that bad loans be made. see the difference? Don't answer. I know you don't understand.

Frank-Dodd's damage doesn't happen without Glass Steagall being repealed. Or at least it doesn't happen on the sort of scale which resulted in the aforementioned economic black hole.

As far as banks offering loans they shouldn't have, did a push to get lower qualified people mortgages have an effect? Sure. Is it the sole cause of the collapse? Absolutely not. There are MANY causes which created a sort of perfect storm.

We had predatory lending being done by banks where they'd get the customers to closing using one set of terms, then via classic bait and switch, change the paperwork.

There were extremely unfavorable terms written which were sure to result in negative amortization.

Essentially, the banks started writing bad deals at such a rate (no one forced them to) that the rate of defaults started to outpace the rate at which new mortgages could be written.

That kicked in all of the credit default swaps and other mortgage backed securities. The ensuing black hole killed Lehman Bros. and Behr-Stearns and a multitude of other banks. The lucky big, well heeled banks got bailed out, so they were rewarded for tanking the economy. The homeowners? Foreclosed, credit ruined, etc.

Now, why are Dodd and Frank being singled out here? Could it have anything to do with the big banking reform bill they sponsored and got passed into law in 2010 where we're putting into place a decent consumer protection regulatory scheme? Nah. Crazy talk!

Did Glass Steagall allow greater competition? Oh yeah. And the result of that greater competition? A glut of money that needed to be lent or securitized ASAP, and to hell with the consequences! And look what we got. Every major collapse we've had has been preceded by lack of regulation or deregulation. Following every collapse, we end up with more regulation. You'd think we'd learn from our mistakes.

diverdog
5/11/2011, 02:44 PM
The stupid loans were mandated by democrats in congress, and caused our economic collapse. They are apparently GETTING READY TO DO IT AGAIN, to complete the assault on our economy. Glass Seagall allowed greater competition among financial industries. Dodd and Frank started requiring that bad loans be made. see the difference? Don't answer. I know you don't understand.

Clone:



Midtown is dead on in his assessment of the lending crisis. There is simply not enough CRA lending to collapse the housing market. If it all went bad we still would be fine.

Read this from the Dallas Federal Reserve:

http://www.dallasfed.org/ca/bcp/2009/bcp0901.cfm

or this from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve:

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4136

Bourbon St Sooner
5/11/2011, 02:54 PM
Who authored and proposed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act?

Phil Gramm (R) of the Senate.

Jim Leach (R) of the House.

Clinton (D) signed it into law.

This Bill allowed consumer banks to operate like investment banks. This allowed Citigroup, formerly a consumer bank, which was formerly prohibited from doing what I'm about to describe, to underwrite things like mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and to buy those securities from others. This flood of new instruments is what is largely credited with the rise in sub-prime mortgage lending. There are a number of other factors, but none of those would have probably come into play without the glut of money coming from consumer banks.

Don't let facts get in the way of your partisan nonsense though. Both parties are to blame.

Actually, I don't think Glass Steagall had as much to do with the risky loans as the decoupling of loan appraisal and loan risk created by the quasi-gov't corporations fannie and freddie. Goldman Sachs was the largest creator of these exotic derivatives and they don't have retail operations. The repeal of Glass Steagall however did allow those retail banks to take huge risks in the derivative casino which threatened the solvency of said banks when the tangled web was about to come crashing down.

There's plenty of complicity out there that goes well beyond one or two policy decisions. Let's not forget the credit reporting agencies that were rating all of these derivatives as AAA when they underlying assets were junk. Nobody seemed to be worried with the conflict of interest they had at the time and people still don't.

diverdog
5/11/2011, 03:28 PM
Actually, I don't think Glass Steagall had as much to do with the risky loans as the decoupling of loan appraisal and loan risk created by the quasi-gov't corporations fannie and freddie. Goldman Sachs was the largest creator of these exotic derivatives and they don't have retail operations. The repeal of Glass Steagall however did allow those retail banks to take huge risks in the derivative casino which threatened the solvency of said banks when the tangled web was about to come crashing down.

There's plenty of complicity out there that goes well beyond one or two policy decisions. Let's not forget the credit reporting agencies that were rating all of these derivatives as AAA when they underlying assets were junk. Nobody seemed to be worried with the conflict of interest they had at the time and people still don't.

Here is the problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_world_wealth_vs_total_world_derivatives _1998-2007.gif

Midtowner
5/11/2011, 03:54 PM
Actually, I don't think Glass Steagall had as much to do with the risky loans as the decoupling of loan appraisal and loan risk created by the quasi-gov't corporations fannie and freddie. Goldman Sachs was the largest creator of these exotic derivatives and they don't have retail operations. The repeal of Glass Steagall however did allow those retail banks to take huge risks in the derivative casino which threatened the solvency of said banks when the tangled web was about to come crashing down.

I disagree. DD pretty much said all that needs to be said. Without the glut of new money, there simply isn't enough fuel for the fire to be quite as bad as it was. The system could have absorbed the shock.


There's plenty of complicity out there that goes well beyond one or two policy decisions. Let's not forget the credit reporting agencies that were rating all of these derivatives as AAA when they underlying assets were junk. Nobody seemed to be worried with the conflict of interest they had at the time and people still don't.

I definitely don't discount that either. That certainly made it easier for these things to sell. As far as being worried, I still am, but what the heck am I going to do about it? These guys have invested billions of dollars in making sure the government doesn't hold them really accountable, and folks like Clone, who think the economic collapse of 2008 can be described in one word: "Democrats" are why we will never have enough public support to force the change that is needed.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
5/11/2011, 08:40 PM
I disagree. DD pretty much said all that needs to be said. Without the glut of new money, there simply isn't enough fuel for the fire to be quite as bad as it was. The system could have absorbed the shock.



I definitely don't discount that either. That certainly made it easier for these things to sell. As far as being worried, I still am, but what the heck am I going to do about it? These guys have invested billions of dollars in making sure the government doesn't hold them really accountable, and folks like Clone, who think the economic collapse of 2008 can be described in one word: "Democrats" are why we will never have enough public support to force the change that is needed.RLIMC, and you know if you vote for democrats, you're going to get more of the same foolish(at best) crap we have been getting from them. There is talk of a new round of subprime lending, you know?

Midtowner
5/11/2011, 08:52 PM
RLIMC, and you know if you vote for democrats, you're going to get more of the same foolish(at best) crap we have been getting from them. There is talk of a new round of subprime lending, you know?

I typically vote for Republicans. I'm just intellectually honest, and that apparently upsets you.

Both parties have members who are to blame here.

As far as this rumor of possible, but not confirmed, but OMG, still possible, might happen subprime lending, which Glen Beck might have mentioned on his chalkboard, THIS IS SO SERIOUS U GUYZ! Rumor and speculation aren't evidence of anything.

GKeeper316
5/11/2011, 09:04 PM
Rumor and speculation aren't evidence of anything.

that never stopped rush's parrot before.... why would it start now?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
5/11/2011, 09:04 PM
I typically vote for Republicans. haha Don't be terribly upset if I say I don't believe you.

Midtowner
5/11/2011, 09:25 PM
haha Don't be terribly upset if I say I don't believe you.

If the best you have is that you don't believe I vote for Republicans, it seems you've conceded the point :)

diverdog
5/11/2011, 09:53 PM
RLIMC, and you know if you vote for democrats, you're going to get more of the same foolish(at best) crap we have been getting from them. There is talk of a new round of subprime lending, you know?

Do you have a link?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
5/12/2011, 12:52 AM
If the best you have is that you don't believe I vote for Republicans, it seems you've conceded the point :)When businesses get stuck with having to make stupid, unsound loans, I don't blame them for sending them on down the line if they can, since they can't avoid having to make them. Some wonderful, responsible congress we have, on the democrat side.

In your mind the escape from disaster is worse than having to get stuck with a successful government attempt to target certain businesses for financial ruin, even if out of sheer ineptitude(not malice). And yes, all signs point to your disingenuousness about voting republican.

GKeeper316
5/12/2011, 02:06 AM
When businesses get stuck with having to make stupid, unsound loans, I don't blame them for sending them on down the line if they can, since they can't avoid having to make them. Some wonderful, responsible congress we have, on the democrat side.


banks aren't like other businesses. they are members of the federal reserve, a government agency.

Blue
5/12/2011, 02:11 AM
banks aren't like other businesses. they are members of the federal reserve, a government agency.

nm

Midtowner
5/12/2011, 06:48 AM
When businesses get stuck with having to make stupid, unsound loans, I don't blame them for sending them on down the line if they can, since they can't avoid having to make them. Some wonderful, responsible congress we have, on the democrat side.

In your mind the escape from disaster is worse than having to get stuck with a successful government attempt to target certain businesses for financial ruin, even if out of sheer ineptitude(not malice). And yes, all signs point to your disingenuousness about voting republican.

First, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977. The subprime lending explosion didn't happen until a lot later. In 2004 (under Bush), things really go going when a wave of deregulation removed most regs from small and midsized banks. Then, things went to hell.

But even then, the CRA only affected a minority of the loans which led to the collapse of the system. Only about 1:4 subprime loans were made by institutions governed by the Community Reinvestment Act.

The bottom line is that while yes, many banks did have to make loans under the CRA, only the ones which made subprime loans were burned. Low to moderate income mortgages with reasonable rates are still good business.

So would the crisis have been smaller without the CRA? Probably. Would it have still happened? Definitely. Was the culprit the CRA? There is no way to make that case. Was the culprit high priced subprime loans which people couldn't afford to pay back? In large part.

This crisis doesn't happen without a multitude of things happening. You want to make political hay off of just one thing because it seems to jive with your belief that the welfare state is dragging us all down. Unfortunately, your political conclusions don't match up well with reality.

Gandalf_The_Grey
5/12/2011, 07:00 AM
Typical liberal response..using words and ****!!

sappstuf
5/12/2011, 07:45 AM
First, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977. The subprime lending explosion didn't happen until a lot later. In 2004 (under Bush), things really go going when a wave of deregulation removed most regs from small and midsized banks. Then, things went to hell.

But even then, the CRA only affected a minority of the loans which led to the collapse of the system. Only about 1:4 subprime loans were made by institutions governed by the Community Reinvestment Act.

The bottom line is that while yes, many banks did have to make loans under the CRA, only the ones which made subprime loans were burned. Low to moderate income mortgages with reasonable rates are still good business.

So would the crisis have been smaller without the CRA? Probably. Would it have still happened? Definitely. Was the culprit the CRA? There is no way to make that case. Was the culprit high priced subprime loans which people couldn't afford to pay back? In large part.

This crisis doesn't happen without a multitude of things happening. You want to make political hay off of just one thing because it seems to jive with your belief that the welfare state is dragging us all down. Unfortunately, your political conclusions don't match up well with reality.

There were signs way before 2004 and everything had been set up.


"Our approach to our lenders is `CRA Your Way'," Gorelick said. "Fannie Mae will buy CRA loans from lenders' portfolios; we'll package them into securities; we'll purchase CRA mortgages at the point of origination; and we'll create customized CRA-targeted securities. This expanded approach has improved liquidity in the secondary market for CRA product, and has helped our lenders leverage even more CRA lending. Lenders now have the flexibility to use their own, customized loan products," Gorelick said.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_May_7/ai_74223918/


What she is saying is, we are the government, and we will buy anything... That was in 2001. It is no wonder that banks jumped on everything.

Midtowner
5/12/2011, 08:12 AM
There were signs way before 2004 and everything had been set up.

What she is saying is, we are the government, and we will buy anything... That was in 2001. It is no wonder that banks jumped on everything.

No one is denying CRA was a factor. But it is also indisputable that CRA alone isn't to blame. As to CRA only, it was the way many, if not most of the loans were written--there was no way the mortgagee could ever pay them back, in many cases, they resulted in negative amortization.

But CRA, as was said before, played a substantial role, but was certainly not even more than about 25% of the mortgages that defaulted.

The money would have never been there to loan without the repeal of Glass-Steagall. The money could have been loaned responsibly, but regulation was lax and banks focused on signing up as many people as possible on what on paper looked like very favorable terms to the banks, and damn the consequences, because the whole system was built on the assumption that property values would continue to climb at the same rate they had been climbing.

I'm not saying that CRA should be ignored, just that it should be understood as only one of many factors here, and a substantial one, but not nearly the biggest.

StoopTroup
5/12/2011, 10:55 AM
Her husband didn't get paroled? I guess the bank counted on the guy getting out and getting a job when they made the loan. Guess Wall Street looks foolish again.

What'll happen if he gets out and still can't get a job?:eek:

The Husband is a dead beat Dad. The guy she's waiting on his her brother. She's raising her kids and and her brothers kids. She's a heck of a Woman IMO. Her kids are all having a hard time watching the family Home go back to the bank. She's been holding on for a long time. I feel badly for the kids as they are the ones suffering for her brother and her ex-husbands
mistakes.

I don't know how long she tried to hold on and the story about her Brother could have just been a story to cover up how embarrassing it must be to have someone you looked up to when you were 4 years old let you down, the Brother might not get out for a long time, add the fact that Dad is a loser too and I think it's pretty tough on Mom and the kids. She does an incredible job as, so far the kids are really trying to avoid a life like this in their future.

Matter of fact. I think they could use some prayers.

The Profit
5/12/2011, 11:06 AM
Do you have a link?





No he doesn't have a link. He pulled it straight out of his azz.

diverdog
5/12/2011, 02:05 PM
No one is denying CRA was a factor. But it is also indisputable that CRA alone isn't to blame. As to CRA only, it was the way many, if not most of the loans were written--there was no way the mortgagee could ever pay them back, in many cases, they resulted in negative amortization.

But CRA, as was said before, played a substantial role, but was certainly not even more than about 25% of the mortgages that defaulted.

The money would have never been there to loan without the repeal of Glass-Steagall. The money could have been loaned responsibly, but regulation was lax and banks focused on signing up as many people as possible on what on paper looked like very favorable terms to the banks, and damn the consequences, because the whole system was built on the assumption that property values would continue to climb at the same rate they had been climbing.

I'm not saying that CRA should be ignored, just that it should be understood as only one of many factors here, and a substantial one, but not nearly the biggest.

I think there is a lot of confusion about CRA and what it actually does. As you stated a well managed CRA portfolio is a good risk and the default on this type of loan is not much higher than a non CRA portfolio.