[MiNe 109]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Oct 9, 5:28*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
*Exactly what "deregulation" law allowed
banks to originate loans to non credit worthy customers?

The problem is deregulation that allowed banks/financial institutions to
create financial instruments based on mortgages and insure them with
derivatives.

Please point to specific legislature. I think you'll find the
regulations
you seek never existed.

Sure, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.

http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/mi...me-mess-and-ph
il-gramm-an-experiment-in-deregulation.aspx?googleid=242468

"The essence of the act was the deregulation of derivatives trading
(financial instruments whose value changes in response to the changes in
underlying variables; the main use of derivatives is to reduce risk for
one party)."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/busin...ime_08-30.html

"KARL CASE: Deregulation happened without anybody doing it, because a
lot of this stuff moved into an unregulated sector."

The "unregulated sector" was the financial services industry created
after deregulation.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...egulation-2008
-10-05.html

"The report does put some of the blame on the federal regulatory
structure, but says the fractured regulatory structure was too blame,
not a lack of regulation. "The problem is a lack of coherent
regulation," the report states.

"The words regulation and deregulation are not absolute goods and
evils, nor are they meaningful policy prescriptions."

If you want to go back to the beginning of mortgage backed
securities...you'll have to peer a little farther back than Bush.

In 1938, a governmental agency named the National Mortgage Association
of Washington was formed and soon was renamed Federal National
Mortgage Association (FNMA or Fannie Mae). It was chartered by the US
government as a corporation which buys Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) and Veterans Administration (VA) mortgages on the secondary
market, pools them, and sells them as "mortgage-backed securities" to
investors on the open market. FNMA was later privatized.

Additionally, in 1970 the Emergency Home Finance Act created a new
secondary mortgage market participant, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation (FHLMC or Freddie Mac), which had as its stated objective
providing secondary mortgage support for conventional mortgages
originated by thrift institutions. The Act also allowed FNMA to buy
conventional mortgages in addition to FHA & VA.

Freddie Mac was created to provide competition in the secondary
market, where Fannie Mae had continued to have a monopoly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_security

I think you'll also find that if you completely eliminated the ability
of banks to create mortgage backed securities the ability of banks to
originate loans would be limited to a fraction of their deposits on
hand. Have you considered the consequences of limiting home mortgages
to US savings rates?

No one has suggested that.

I suggest you examine the impact of this legislation.
Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of
1992.

It didn't work in a vacuum. By the 2000s, mortgage-based instruments
were so profitable in a time of easy money from low interest rates that
the mortgage pool was expanded by increasingly shady operators.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...it-is-due-time
line.html


Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 9, 6:33*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:07*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Oct 9, 5:29*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 9 Oct, 16:23, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:59*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 9 Oct, 10:34, MiNe 109 * wrote:

In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 9 Oct, 06:38, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Oct, 15:53, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

It is the 25-30% of totally ignorant Americans that are slowly
destroying
this country through their voting choices. *Was it Franklin or
Jeffereson
who pointed out that if Democracy were to fail, it would be because
people
did not educate themselves?

true, voters should educate themselves about the Dem's
contributions to our economioc mess. (as well as the rep's
contributions)

The Democratic responsibility consists of agreeing to Republican
proposals.

boy are you blind, the whole sub prime binge
was a democratic push that some
reps like Bush, went along with,
others didn't. reps tried to reign it in.
in 2004-5 the regulators testified before
congress about the isks, thay were
lambasted by dems like Waters,
who said all was well with Freddie and Fannie.
Check the C Span archives.

Check out Phil Gramm's deregulation back in 2000 and Greenspan's
cheerleading that markets were sufficient to regulate derivatives.
I recognize both rep and dem mistakes
you are blinded to the ones on the dem side.
you can't fix the problem if you don't recognize waht
it is and what caused it, in totality

The core, basic, first problem was deregulation.

Everything that followed was a symptom of that fundamental mistake.-

the core mistake was sub prime loans
'deregulation' is a vaguery
there are all kiinds of regs, some good, some bad.
regs cover lots of areas, some are consumer protection based,
some are protectionsit, some are
anticompetitive and some are antifraud.
It bad to get rid of the anti fraud and consumer based ones, and
generally good to lessen the protectionist and anticompetitive ones.
and i say generally, cause all circumsatnces are different.

If you look at what 2pid posted in trying to blame the Dems, did you
note this?

**************************************
Gramm-Leach-Bliley expanded the impact of the problem by
consolidating
banking services under one roof.
The bubble of housing prices was fueled by a subprime frenzy which
was
at least encouraged by the CRA and other like minded legislation to
increase home ownership among the poor. *These efforts forced banks
to
lend money to non credit worthy customers. *Other banks not required
to comply with CRA could not pass up *the massive short term profits
subprime lending was offering as the cost of money dipped to near
zero
( the Fed overreacted to the recession of 2000-2002) and retain share
value when other banks were showing such huge profits and drawing
away
investors/shareholders.
**************************************

"At least encouraged". "Could not pass up the massive short-term
profits".

Removing the regulations concerning banking were, and are, a bad deal.
The market is all about greed.

So be specific for a change. *Exactly what "deregulation" law allowed
banks to originate loans to non credit worthy customers?

Already answered.

A deregulated market can only work if
things like short-term profit are not the only driving force.

*The market will work. The entitities in violation would
be bankrupt and disappear if it wasn't for government
intervention.

Look at what you just said, 2pid. What about the people who invest?
Yes, the market will take down all of those bad companies. Not
everybody has the seemingly unlimited amount of time that you do to
scan news, etc.

*But that takes time and requires economic turmoil
that the ponzi government cannot bear.

Not to mention that the economic turmoil takes down hockey moms and
joe sixpacks out there on Main Street.

No money for pork....how will Murtha keep his job?

I don't know. How would Palin keep hers?

The CEOs
lack integrity as a whole. Look up Tom Petters as a very recent
example.

*Of course they lack integrity.

So the people running the ship are not trustworthy. You are aware, I
presume, that the markets are driven by trust? What do you suppose
"consumer confidence" is, for example?

Sadly, government also lacks integrity and currently acts little
different than a corporation, it is acting in its own short term
self interest.

That's a whole different topic, 2pid. For a minute I thought you were
going to get through a whole post without shifting topics. Sadly, that
is not the case.

So has Palin got you all fired up, 2pid?

People also lack integrity. Homeowners are all crying about their
home equity disappearing yet most should rejoice that their children
might one day have an opportunity of home ownership that was
well beyond most of their wages at 2006 price levels.

You're a sick person, 2pid. For most people their home is their
largest investment. You're gleeful that they're getting killed on it.

You're a horrible person.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 9, 8:45*pm, avidlistener wrote:
On Oct 9, 7:34*am, MiNe 109 * wrote:





In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 9 Oct, 06:38, MiNe 109 * wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Oct, 15:53, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

It is the 25-30% of totally ignorant Americans that are slowly
destroying
this country through their voting choices. *Was it Franklin or
Jeffereson
who pointed out that if Democracy were to fail, it would be because
people
did not educate themselves?

true, voters should educate themselves about the Dem's
contributions to our economioc mess. (as well as the rep's
contributions)

The Democratic responsibility consists of agreeing to Republican
proposals.

boy are you blind, the whole sub prime binge
was a democratic push that some
reps like Bush, went along with,
others didn't. reps tried to reign it in.
in 2004-5 the regulators testified before
congress about the isks, thay were
lambasted by dems like Waters,
who said all was well with Freddie and Fannie.
Check the C Span archives.

Check out Phil Gramm's deregulation back in 2000 and Greenspan's
cheerleading that markets were sufficient to regulate derivatives.

Stephen

Whatever you do don't check factcheck.org and get a complete picture
of the mess. *You obviously don't want to know that there is blame
enough to go around on both sides and trying to single out just one
side or person is just plain nuts.

"But saying that Democrats killed the 2005 bill "while Mr. Obama was
notably silent" oversimplifies things considerably. The bill made it
out of committee in the Senate but was never brought up for
consideration. At that time, Republicans had a majority in the Senate
and controlled the agenda. Democrats never got the chance to vote
against it or to mount a filibuster to block it."

And other views:

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/20...s-blame-gramm/

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=607401

It was, and is, mainly the republicans who drove us into this ditch.
BTW, allowing only one website to do your thinking for you is just
plain nuts.

It's time for a regime change in DC. Fortunately, it appears that a
majority agrees with me.

So nob, does Palin have you all fired up?

[Harry Lavo]

"ScottW" wrote in message
...
On Oct 9, 7:34 am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:





On 9 Oct, 06:38, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Oct, 15:53, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

It is the 25-30% of totally ignorant Americans that are slowly
destroying
this country through their voting choices. Was it Franklin or
Jeffereson
who pointed out that if Democracy were to fail, it would be
because
people
did not educate themselves?

true, voters should educate themselves about the Dem's
contributions to our economioc mess. (as well as the rep's
contributions)

The Democratic responsibility consists of agreeing to Republican
proposals.

boy are you blind, the whole sub prime binge
was a democratic push that some
reps like Bush, went along with,
others didn't. reps tried to reign it in.
in 2004-5 the regulators testified before
congress about the isks, thay were
lambasted by dems like Waters,
who said all was well with Freddie and Fannie.
Check the C Span archives.

Check out Phil Gramm's deregulation back in 2000 and Greenspan's
cheerleading that markets were sufficient to regulate derivatives.

Good point.

"The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas)
and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The
bills passed the Senate on a 54-44 vote along party lines (53
Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[1] After
passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference
committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House
versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans
agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act and
address certain privacy concerns.[2] On November 4, the final bill
resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 [3] and by the
House 362-57.[4] This 'veto proof legislation' was signed into law by
President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services
Modernization Act," which repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act
prohibiting a bank from offering a full range of investment,
commercial banking, and insurance services. The bill was killed in
1998 because Senator Phil Gramm wanted the bill to expand the number
of banks which no longer would be covered by the CRA. He also demanded
full disclosure of any financial deals which community groups (LIKE
ACORN) had with banks, accusing such groups of "extortion." In 1999
Senators Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer broke another
deadlock by forcing a compromise between Gramm and the Clinton
administration which wanted to prevent banks from expanding into
insurance or securities unless they were compliant with the CRA. In
the final compromise, the CRA would cover bank expansions into new
lines of business, community groups would have to disclose certain
kinds of financial deals with banks, and smaller banks would be
reviewed less frequently for CRA compliance.[28][29][30] On signing
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, President Clinton said that it,
"establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we
will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...changes_199 9

The root of the problem was opening the door to subprime mortgages
which CRA certainly encouraged if not directly enabled.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley expanded the impact of the problem by consolidating
banking services under one roof.
The bubble of housing prices was fueled by a subprime frenzy which was
at least encouraged by the CRA and other like minded legislation to
increase home ownership among the poor. These efforts forced banks to
lend money to non credit worthy customers. Other banks not required
to comply with CRA could not pass up the massive short term profits
subprime lending was offering as the cost of money dipped to near zero
( the Fed overreacted to the recession of 2000-2002) and retain share
value when other banks were showing such huge profits and drawing away
investors/shareholders.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for example had no business in buying
subprime loans and contributing to the eventual collapse of morgage
backed securities.
But they started on that path with strong encouragement from their
democratic backers in the house and senate who had embarked on a
socialist program of home ownership

http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/80/fanny.html

"For the years 1993 and 1994, the GSE Act established a set of
escalating performance goals that measured, as a percentage of the
GSEs' total business, the availability of housing financing for low-
and moderate-income families; for very-low-income families; and for
families living in central cities, rural areas, and other underserved
areas. The Act directed HUD to examine these goals and the assumptions
upon which they are based and then develop new goals for 1995, 1996,
and beyond.

The proposed regulations set minimum acceptable activity in numerical
terms for housing goals in each of the three categories. Goals are set
in each category for both single family homeownership and multi-family
mortgages. In each case, the proposed rule increases from the previous
two years the level of affordable housing business each GSE must set.

The proposed regulations differ from the interim regulations in three
significant ways: the definition of an underserved area; a requirement
that the GSEs inform HUD of fair housing violations by lenders; and an
expanded interpretation of when the GSEs are required to take new
business activity for review and approval to the Secretary of HUD. "

Additionally the securitization of mortgages made the acceptance of
credit risk a game of musical chairs, who was left holding the
securities when the prices started to fall.
This is of course aggravated in the extreme by the simple fact that
mortgage backed securities aren't valued by how much money they will
make via mortgage interest minus defaults, but by how much they can be
sold on the security market at any point in time.
This is the "mark to market" issue often discussed of late.
When investors lost faith that credit rating agencies had any abilty
to estimate the number of loans in a package that will default nor the
debt to equity (value of the homes) ratio, the market values of the
securities plunged far below what they will ultimately earn from
mortgage interest income.

You may now return to your usual delusional ignorant rants.

ScottW

************************************************** ***

I notice in your reply that no mention is made of the people who actually
started pushing sub-primes (fradulently instead of honorably) like
Countrywide, or the Wall Street firms nee banks that decided to package and
then fraudulently rate and sell those derivatives.....which is what has
directly created this mess. Or the Fed Chairman and Treasury Secretary and
SEC Chairman who refused to regulate out of a misplaced Ann Rand mythology
that ignores human culpability. Last time I looked, those folks weren't
Democrats.

This is a classic case of "the devil made me do it" in the guise of "the
Democrats made us do it" or "our competitors" made us do it! Such Bull****!
You could start helping this country rediscover right and wrong by simply
owning up to your heros' roles in the problem.

[MINe109]

On Oct 10, 2:08*pm, ScottW wrote:

Lavo

Meanwhile I can only suspect that you want the taxpayers to pay
fools mortgages in the same manner you want your sons
suicide attempt covered by taxpayers while you sit idly
by failing to even inquire how much basic hospital insurance
might cost you.

I guess it saves time to trot out the 'A' material immediately, even
if it has nothing to do with the subject.

Say, now that his son has had a psychotic episode, what are the odds
of getting him covered by one of those $99/mo policies you found?

ScottW (fan of Underdog)

Then why act like a bully?

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 10, 2:08*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 10, 11:20*am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:



This is a classic case of "the devil made me do it" in the guise of "the
Democrats made us do it" or "our competitors" made us do it! *Such Bull****!
You could start helping this country rediscover right and wrong by simply
owning up to your heros' roles in the problem.

*LoL. *You could start by allowing me the freedom of choosing
my own hero.

So does Palin have you all fired up, 2pid?

ScottW *(fan of Underdog)

There's a difference: Underdog usually wins in the cartoon.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

Good research, if a bit surfacey.

When you use a 'word' like "surfacey", you're enabling Scottie's tendency
toward stupidizing. Wouldn't you use a real word (e.g. shallow,
superficial, cursory, sketchy) if you were talking to normal adults?

[MINe109]

On Oct 10, 3:10*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
MiNe 109 said:

Good research, if a bit surfacey.

When you use a 'word' like "surfacey", you're enabling Scottie's tendency
toward stupidizing. Wouldn't you use a real word (e.g. shallow,
superficial, cursory, sketchy) if you were talking to normal adults?

I did omit the "dawg" of "a bit surfacey, dawg."

Stephen

[MINe109]

On Oct 10, 4:06*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 10, 12:29*pm, MINe109 wrote:

On Oct 10, 2:08*pm, ScottW wrote:

Lavo

Meanwhile I can only suspect that you want the taxpayers to pay
fools mortgages in the same manner you want your sons
suicide attempt covered by taxpayers while you sit idly
by failing to even inquire how much basic hospital insurance
might cost you.

I guess it saves time to trot out the 'A' material immediately, even
if it has nothing to do with the subject.

*Sadly, Harry chose to make the subject his own presumptions.
It isn't a pretty subject.

That's the right, the merest hint of presumption and you're on the
warpath. That's an observation, BTW, not a presumption.

Say, now that his son has had a psychotic episode, what are the odds
of getting him covered by one of those $99/mo policies you found?

*The one I quoted included unspecified preexisting conditions.

Slim and none.

That issue is one I find Obama strong on.
Preexisting conditions.

There's another way to cover that and save billions on administrative
fees, but Obama isn't liberal enough to propose it.

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MINe109 said:

Good research, if a bit surfacey.

When you use a 'word' like "surfacey", you're enabling Scottie's tendency
toward stupidizing. Wouldn't you use a real word (e.g. shallow,
superficial, cursory, sketchy) if you were talking to normal adults?

I did omit the "dawg" of "a bit surfacey, dawg."

You sain it be ebonics? Shee-it.

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Oct, 14:20, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

*Or the Fed Chairman and Treasury Secretary and
SEC Chairman who refused to regulate out of a misplaced Ann Rand mythology
that ignores human culpability. *Last time I looked, those folks weren't
Democrats.


they don't impress me as being Ayn Rand fans.
An Ayn Rand fan would be somebody like duhMikey.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 10, 5:34*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 10 Oct, 14:20, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

*Or the Fed Chairman and Treasury Secretary and

SEC Chairman who refused to regulate out of a misplaced Ann Rand mythology
that ignores human culpability. *Last time I looked, those folks weren't
Democrats.

they don't impress me as being Ayn Rand fans.
An Ayn Rand fan would be somebody like duhMikey.

So 2pid isn't a "let the markets decide" type like nob is?

No wonder you think that 2pid is 'smart': you don't understand what he
says.

[MINe109]

On Oct 10, 4:48*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
MINe109 said:

Good research, if a bit surfacey.

When you use a 'word' like "surfacey", you're enabling Scottie's tendency
toward stupidizing. Wouldn't you use a real word (e.g. shallow,
superficial, cursory, sketchy) if you were talking to normal adults?

I did omit the "dawg" of *"a bit surfacey, dawg."

You sain it be ebonics? Shee-it.

Last time I heard talk like that was from white teen boys at ACL-fest.

Stephen

[MINe109]

On Oct 10, 5:34*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 10 Oct, 14:20, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

*Or the Fed Chairman and Treasury Secretary and

SEC Chairman who refused to regulate out of a misplaced Ann Rand mythology
that ignores human culpability. *Last time I looked, those folks weren't
Democrats.

they don't impress me as being Ayn Rand fans.
An Ayn Rand fan would be somebody like duhMikey.

Do you honestly not know that Greenspan is a long-time Rand follower?

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Oct, 18:47, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 10, 5:34*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 10 Oct, 14:20, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

*Or the Fed Chairman and Treasury Secretary and

SEC Chairman who refused to regulate out of a misplaced Ann Rand mythology
that ignores human culpability. *Last time I looked, those folks weren't
Democrats.

they don't impress me as being Ayn Rand fans.
An Ayn Rand fan would be somebody like duhMikey.

So 2pid isn't a "let the markets decide" type like nob is?


Just because one is a market person, that does not
make one an Ayn Rand follower. there is an entire
sparse, strict, and bleak philosophy/culture of complete
individualism involved in her exposition. duh Mikey fits that,
not Scott, in my opinion.



No wonder you think that 2pid is 'smart': you don't understand what he
says.


Nor do you, nor do you understand Ayn Rand.
I understand it, but I reject it completely.

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Oct, 21:08, MINe109 wrote:
On Oct 10, 5:34*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 10 Oct, 14:20, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

*Or the Fed Chairman and Treasury Secretary and

SEC Chairman who refused to regulate out of a misplaced Ann Rand mythology
that ignores human culpability. *Last time I looked, those folks weren't
Democrats.

they don't impress me as being Ayn Rand fans.
An Ayn Rand fan would be somebody like duhMikey.

Do you honestly not know that Greenspan is a long-time Rand follower?


yes, he was, but I thought Harry was talking about the current FED.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 10, 9:07*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 10 Oct, 18:47, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Oct 10, 5:34*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 10 Oct, 14:20, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

*Or the Fed Chairman and Treasury Secretary and

SEC Chairman who refused to regulate out of a misplaced Ann Rand mythology
that ignores human culpability. *Last time I looked, those folks weren't
Democrats.

they don't impress me as being Ayn Rand fans.
An Ayn Rand fan would be somebody like duhMikey.

So 2pid isn't a "let the markets decide" type like nob is?

Just because one is a market person, that does not
make one an Ayn Rand follower. there is an entire
sparse, strict, and bleak philosophy/culture of complete
individualism involved in her exposition. duh Mikey fits that,
not Scott, in my opinion.

No wonder you think that 2pid is 'smart': you don't understand what he
says.

Nor do you, nor do you understand Ayn Rand.
I understand it, but I reject it completely

You don't get a sense of a desire for complete individualism from
2pid? I do. He has no sense of community whatsoever.

[Harry Lavo]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
On 10 Oct, 14:20, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Or the Fed Chairman and Treasury Secretary and
SEC Chairman who refused to regulate out of a misplaced Ann Rand mythology
that ignores human culpability. Last time I looked, those folks weren't
Democrats.


they don't impress me as being Ayn Rand fans.
An Ayn Rand fan would be somebody like duhMikey.

Alan Greenspan, not Ben Bernake. He was and continues to this day to be a
champion of hers; he was a close personal friend and member of her inner
circle during her lifetime. I know this from a friend who was also a member
of the circle.