The true record of The Decider

[ieatcrayonz]

"are they as serious a problem as people think?"

 

 

Specify "they..."

Dude, you can have your fun and all, but do not start messing around and stirring up they.

[3rdnlng]

Dude, you can have your fun and all, but do not start messing around and stirring up they.

 

He's been stirring up whey for a long time. It's the Curds in northern Iraq that he needs to stay away from.

[....lybob]

 

Don't forget, I'm a Wall Street apologist, too.

 

How can anyone forget, you remind us everyday.

Edited March 15, 2011 by ....lybob

[DC Tom]

How can anyone forget, you remind us everyday.

 

As though it's in any way MY fault that Wall Street was defrauded by the federal government and low-income homeowners.

[....lybob]

As though it's in any way MY fault that Wall Street was defrauded by the federal government and low-income homeowners.

It is always the treasonous liars fault- that being you.

[DC Tom]

It is always the treasonous liars fault- that being you.

 

Low-income buyers borrowed more money than they could pay back, under government programs that required the lenders to loan them the money.

 

Refute that simple fact.

[....lybob]

Low-income buyers borrowed more money than they could pay back, under government programs that required the lenders to loan them the money.

 

Refute that simple fact.

The first assumption made about the CRA’s effect on the housing market is that banks were forced to make bad loans to people who could not afford them. This assumption goes against the very edict of the CRA to banks to find ways to offer credit to LMI neighborhoods according “safe and sound” practices. Analysis indicates that CRA-regulated institutions actually surpassed non-regulated institutions in providing prime, conventional residential mortgage loans to LMI income borrowers and continued to through the 2000’s (Apgar and Duda). Federal Reserve analysis also indicates that about 60% of higher-priced, or subprime, loans went to middle-or-higher income borrowers whom are not the focus of the CRA. As a matter of fact, Thomas Sowell agrees that the housing crisis was not necessarily a national problem, but house value inflation was concentrated in specific areas such as Miami, coastal California, Phoenix, and other areas of prime real estate with values of nearly $1 million and up, which were definitely not the focus of CRA. On top of that, independent institutions not regulated by the CRA granted more than 20% of higher-priced loans offered to low-to-moderate income borrowers (Kroszner). In fact, CRA-regulated institutions granted only 6% of all higher-priced loans (Duke).

 

Another assumption that has been proposed is that CRA-regulated loans have higher default rates then non CRA-regulated loans. Studies again beg to differ. Firstly, the default rates on subprime and Alt-A loans are nearly the same across all income levels (Kroszner). But to attempt to single out CRA regulated loans, the Fed conducted a study by comparing the default rates in neighborhoods just above and just below the CRA income eligibility threshold and found that there is no significant difference between the two. According to that same study, examinations on foreclosure activity across neighborhoods grouped by income exhibit that most foreclosure filings have occurred in middle-to-higher income neighborhoods, and have actually increased at a faster pace then lower income areas, which are the focus of the CRA.

link

 

 

 

 

and there are hundreds articles and videos that how these different schemes took place

[DC Tom]

link

 

 

 

youtube.com/watch?v=agHp_ZKiLYE

 

and there are hundreds articles and videos that how these different schemes took place

 

Did I say "Prove you're just an apologist for the irresponsible theiving borrowers?" We already know that. I asked you to refute the simple fact that the American homeowner stole shamelessly from the lending industry, with government aquiescence and support (via Fannie and Freddie, for example).

[3rdnlng]

Did I say "Prove you're just an apologist for the irresponsible theiving borrowers?" We already know that. I asked you to refute the simple fact that the American homeowner stole shamelessly from the lending industry, with government aquiescence and support (via Fannie and Freddie, for example).

 

But your honor, I'm not guilty. He freely gave me his wallet when I stuck a pistol in his face!

[....lybob]

Did I say "Prove you're just an apologist for the irresponsible theiving borrowers?" We already know that. I asked you to refute the simple fact that the American homeowner stole shamelessly from the lending industry, with government aquiescence and support (via Fannie and Freddie, for example).

Tom you are a soulless emotionally stunted prick and if the American Homeowner was really stealing from the lending agencies, then money would be flowing into the bottom 90% not concentrating into the top .01%.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3JTPzW3xmg

[DC Tom]

Tom you are a soulless emotionally stunted prick and if the American Homeowner was really stealing from the lending agencies, then money would be flowing into the bottom 90% not concentrating into the top .01%.

 

And you're a brainless, intellectually stunted prick. The money that was stolen was used to buy real estate. And who bought the vast majority of the houses during the housing boom? The 90%, with the money they stole from the financial industry.

[Joe Miner]

Tom you are a soulless emotionally stunted prick and if the American Homeowner was really stealing from the lending agencies, then money would be flowing into the bottom 90% not concentrating into the top .01%.

 

youtube.com/watch?v=O3JTPzW3xmg

 

Keep it up. Tom will eventually succumb to the intellectual powers of Youtube.

 

Why worry about formulating your own brand of stupidity any more?

 

If you were twice as smart you would be half as lazy, but still an idiot.

[3rdnlng]

Keep it up. Tom will eventually succumb to the intellectual powers of Youtube.

 

Why worry about formulating your own brand of stupidity any more?

 

If you were twice as smart you would be half as lazy, but still an idiot.

 

Yes, intellectually lybob does tend to bring a pocket knife to a gunfight.

Edited March 15, 2011 by 3rdnlng

[....lybob]

And you're a brainless, intellectually stunted prick. The money that was stolen was used to buy real estate. And who bought the vast majority of the houses during the housing boom? The 90%, with the money they stole from the financial industry.

yeah people off the streets were bamboozling loan officers time and time again, so they could have the privilege of a house until they miss a couple of payments their credit is destroyed and they are on the streets - yeah the guys off the street forced the loan officers to give interest only loans or teaser rate loans to give the illusion of affordable mortgage payments- I guess they Jedi mind tricked all those financial professionals, took advantage all the weak minded fuzzy headed do-gooders at the banks. Is that your story? you disingenuous gelatinous blob of malice.

[DC Tom]

yeah people off the streets were bamboozling loan officers time and time again, so they could have the privilege of a house until they miss a couple of payments their credit is destroyed and they are on the streets - yeah the guys off the street forced the loan officers to give interest only loans or teaser rate loans to give the illusion of affordable mortgage payments- I guess they Jedi mind tricked all those financial professionals, took advantage all the weak minded fuzzy headed do-gooders at the banks. Is that your story? you disingenuous gelatinous blob of malice.

 

And the government. Buying $800k houses on $30k of annual income, [i[knowingly[/i] falsifying their income on the loan applications, with the government calling it discriminatory if they're NOT given the loan and "promising" to insure lenders against loss?

 

But of course, are such a moron that it's fault of the lenders who were defrauded. How does one develop a value system as screwed-up as yours?

[Bronc24]

I get the impression lybob is typing his comments from the back of his van.

[....lybob]

And the government. Buying $800k houses on $30k of annual income, [i[knowingly[/i] falsifying their income on the loan applications, with the government calling it discriminatory if they're NOT given the loan and "promising" to insure lenders against loss?

 

But of course, are such a moron that it's fault of the lenders who were defrauded. How does one develop a value system as screwed-up as yours?

The first assumption made about the CRA’s effect on the housing market is that banks were forced to make bad loans to people who could not afford them. This assumption goes against the very edict of the CRA to banks to find ways to offer credit to LMI neighborhoods according “safe and sound” practices. Analysis indicates that CRA-regulated institutions actually surpassed non-regulated institutions in providing prime, conventional residential mortgage loans to LMI income borrowers and continued to through the 2000’s (Apgar and Duda). Federal Reserve analysis also indicates that about 60% of higher-priced, or subprime, loans went to middle-or-higher income borrowers whom are not the focus of the CRA.

 

Learn to read, and the leaders didn't care about the quality of the loans because they were making RMBSs and selling the crap as AAA rated securities and of course this was because the rating agencies are so trusting and easily fooled not because they found it in their financial self interest to do so.

[DC Tom]

Learn to read, and the leaders didn't care about the quality of the loans because they were making RMBSs and selling the crap as AAA rated securities and of course this was because the rating agencies are so trusting and easily fooled not because they found it in their financial self interest to do so.

 

And because the they were backed by the federal government, thus facilitating the homebuyer's theft.

 

I mean, you don't honestly think the BANKS relaxed standards at Fannie and Freddie in order to put low income people in McMansions, do you? It was the federal government playing Robin Hood again and enabling the mass theft by the American homeowner.

[....lybob]

And because the they were backed by the federal government, thus facilitating the homebuyer's theft.

 

I mean, you don't honestly think the BANKS relaxed standards at Fannie and Freddie in order to put low income people in McMansions, do you? It was the federal government playing Robin Hood again and enabling the mass theft by the American homeowner.

Why don't you prove your point, provide a link, give a quote instead of spewing your syphilitic demented opinion.

[GG]

Tom you are a soulless emotionally stunted prick and if the American Homeowner was really stealing from the lending agencies, then money would be flowing into the bottom 90% not concentrating into the top .01%.

 

youtube.com/watch?v=O3JTPzW3xmg

 

Uhm, the money did flow to that 90% when they were buying the houses. It was called home equity in a rising real estate market. Guess what happens to equity in a down market, where the loan value is greater than the home value?