Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-02-2017, 11:11 AM
 
12,883 posts, read 13,999,463 times
Reputation: 18452

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by floridanative10 View Post
The funny thing is trump won college educated white males by a very large margin. Rural voters made up only 17 percent of this year’s electorate and most rural voters from california to maine usually vote Republican. Most trump voters were better educated and more wealthy than the typical voter?
The most ironic thing to me about the "thanks rural, uneducated America" comments is that it is ignorant and uneducated to assume that everyone who voted for Trump in rural America, or everyone in rural America at all, is uneducated. The irony is lost on the idiots, though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-02-2017, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles (Native)
25,303 posts, read 21,472,117 times
Reputation: 12318
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
The most ironic thing to me about the "thanks rural, uneducated America" comments is that it is ignorant and uneducated to assume that everyone who voted for Trump in rural America, or everyone in rural America at all, is uneducated. The irony is lost on the idiots, though.
Yes and some Hillary voters might be "educated " but it's more like they overpaid for liberal brainwashing from social justice warrior professors . I speak from experience.
They have a degree but many lack common sense .
This is why they believe so many of the left lies. Detached from reality .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2017, 12:49 PM
 
28,164 posts, read 25,318,510 times
Reputation: 16665
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
You backed yourself into a corner on this, and can't figure your way out.
No, I don't think he did. He's simply saying the states had a choice. Which they did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2017, 01:17 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,061 posts, read 44,866,510 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25 View Post
No, I don't think he did. He's simply saying the states had a choice. Which they did.
Then it wasn't a regulation; it was an option. Fannie and Freddie had no choice. The Clinton/Cuomo-era HUD regulation required that 50+% of the loans they bought had to have been made to poor and/or credit compromised borrowers. So that's what the GSEs did, bundled those loans into MBS, and sold trillions of dollars worth of them to governments, banks, and investors worldwide. And it all ended up with US taxpayers having to take on another $2 trillion in national debt plus the annual interest on that to bail out Fannie and Freddie to avoid a global financial crash.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2017, 01:22 AM
 
10,829 posts, read 5,440,332 times
Reputation: 4710
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
If lending to poor American people caused the financial crisis, why was it a global crisis?
Any major financial crsis in the United States will have a major impact on the world economy.

You didn't know that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
HUD didn't have a penny to loan out and it has absolutely nothing to do with what I've said.
HUD was in charge of Fannie and Freddy and ordered them to buy $2.4 trillion worth of subprime loans (over a ten-year period starting in 1999) during the Clinton Administration.

HUD Press Release, HUD No. 99-131, July 29, 1999

Your "HUD not having a penny" statement is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
The Godfather gave the instructions. He didn't carry them out. It's not an excuse for those that did.
Fannie and Freddy take their orders from HUD.

Your suggestion that it was more their fault than HUD's is without merit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25 View Post
No, I don't think he did. He's simply saying the states had a choice. Which they did.
States might have a choice, but Fannie and Freddy do not -- they are controlled by HUD.

Lending to the poor WAS the cause of the financial crisis, and that lending was ordered by the government when Democrats were in control.

The Democrats caused the financial crisis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2017, 01:25 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,231,797 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet View Post
HUD was in charge of Fannie and Freddy and ordered them to buy $2.4 trillion worth of subprime loans during the Clinton Administration.

HUD Press Release, HUD No. 99-131, July 29, 1999

Your "HUD not having a penny" statement is irrelevant.
F&F got in trouble for buying bad loans from the banks. The argument was that the banks were forced to write bad loans. They were not. Even at that, it wasn't until late in the game that F&F got loaded down with these loans. Before that the banks were rolling in the cash with these bundled investments.

Quote:
Fannie and Freddy take their orders from HUD.

Your suggestion that it was more their fault than HUD's is without merit.

States might have a choice, but Fannie and Freddy do not -- they are controlled by HUD.
My argument is that everyone was at fault.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2017, 01:34 AM
 
10,829 posts, read 5,440,332 times
Reputation: 4710
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
F&F got in trouble for buying bad loans from the banks. The argument was that the banks were forced to write bad loans. They were not.
Yes, they were.

If they wanted to keep their FDIC insurance and expand, they had to make subprime loans.

Of course, once Fannie and Freddy bought the loans, the banks didn't have to care about whether or not the borrowers paid back what they owed. Now it was Fannie and Freddy's problem -- meaning our (the taxpayers') problem.

So the banks were perfectly happy to do what they were forced to do by the government.

Quote:
Even at that, it wasn't until late in the game that F&F got loaded down with these loans[
So what?

Quote:
My argument is that everyone was at fault.
That's a cop-out argument.

The government was at fault.

Specifically, the government as it was run by Democrats.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2017, 01:49 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,231,797 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet View Post
Yes, they were.

If they wanted to keep their FDIC insurance and expand, they had to make subprime loans.
I always get a chuckle at one including specific words...yours of course would be "expand". Yes, there was an agreement that the regulations would be dropped and in return the banks would make low qualified loans. No one was forced to do anything. It was a quid pro quo.

Quote:
Of course, once Fannie and Freddy bought the loans, the banks didn't have to care about whether or not the borrowers paid back what they owed. Now it was Fannie and Freddy's problem -- meaning our (the taxpayers') problem.
They didn't have to worry anyway as part of that quid pro quo was that the government would guarantee these loans.

Quote:
So the banks were perfectly happy to do what they were forced to do by the government.
They weren't forced to do anything.

Quote:
So what?

That's a cop-out argument.

The government was at fault.

Specifically, the government as it was run by Democrats.
It was very, very, bi-partisan. This all chugged along under Bush with Bush's support.

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archi...0020617-2.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2017, 02:27 AM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,902,340 times
Reputation: 7399
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrganicSmallHome View Post
No liberal I know "mocks" or "treats with contempt" working class America. ."
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrganicSmallHome View Post
Nope. No contempt at all. Just pretty sick and tired of this nation being dragged into the sewer by America's working class stupidity. How do I know? Because I grew up working class. Yep. Sorry to let you down, but I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about here. For the most part, America's working class are a bunch of angry, bitter, uneducated, and yep, often racist, people who think that by voting for rich, white, Wall Street thieves, life will somehow get better. Instead, they keep making things worse for themselves. Look at the Deep South: not one of those states actually works. They've been voting the GOP into office for decades, and they still have the worst educational rates, the worst pay, the worst . . . everything. Yet, somehow, this makes sense to them. Give me a break about "liberals" and "contempt for the working class." I grew up working class, and I know very, very well how they think and how they behave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrganicSmallHome View Post
Who said I was talking about you? Although your response was pretty standard for the Trailer Park crowd.
LOL.... Liberals can never hide who they really are for very long.




.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrganicSmallHome View Post
First of all, I don't "loathe" the working class. Like I said in my first post, not all working-class folks are ignorant or stupid.
...Just the ones who disagree with you, right?....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2017, 05:43 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,061 posts, read 44,866,510 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
F&F got in trouble for buying bad loans from the banks. The argument was that the banks were forced to write bad loans. They were not.
Actually, they were. Look at the "Affordable Lending" partnership Fannie was in with Countrywide. It specifically created loans for those with low incomes and/or compromised or no established credit. Who does that? Who thought that was a good idea? Cuomo. When he was the head of Clinton's HUD.
Quote:
"Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo today announced a policy to require the nation's two largest housing finance companies to buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages over the next 10 years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low- and moderate-income families...

"This action will transform the lives of millions of families across our country by giving them new opportunities to buy homes or move into apartments with rents they can afford," Cuomo said. "It will strengthen our economy and create jobs by stimulating more home construction, it will help ease the terrible shortage of affordable housing plaguing far too many communities, and it will help reduce the huge homeownership gap dividing whites from minorities and suburbs from cities."

The mortgage purchase requirement for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - known as the Affordable Housing Goals - was last set by HUD in 1995, under a requirement mandated by Congress. The goals came up for renewal this year, and HUD had the choice of leaving them unchanged, lowering them, or raising them. In addition to helping low- and moderate-income families, the new initiative will also increase the affordable housing goals for loans made to underserved areas and will raise the goal for mortgages to benefit families with very low incomes"
https://archives.hud.gov/news/1999/pr99-131.html

And we know the rest of the story... Fannie and Freddie got stuck owning, bundling, and selling (as MBS) too many of those defaulting higher-risk loans so the Federal Reserve had to create $2 trillion in additional national debt to buy $2 trillion worth of GSE MBS to bail them out. There's still $1.75 trillion worth of those MBS on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. They'll roll off as they mature, paid or not, and US taxpayers are on the hook for that $2 trillion plus interest.

I have not seen one single plan that stipulates how the Federal Reserve is going to pay off any of that $2 trillion in public debt with whatever little proceeds they'll get from holding those MBS.

Why are you so eager to blame the banks and Wall Street when the federal government (specifically Clinton, Cisneros, and Cuomo who created and modified the GSEs' $2.4 trillion high risk mortgage purchase program in 1995-1999) was at fault? The banks gave the federal government exactly what they regulated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:35 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top