Re: The view from the center

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/10/2014 12:23 PM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:

> [far-left bullshit erased]

You are not at the center. You are a left-wing extremist - out on the
lunatic fringe.



And I *still* cannot get enough of mocking your malware company.

> --------------------------------------------------------
> Free Malware - Bugster Virusworks www.buggycode.com
> --------------------------------------------------------

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/11/2014 9:14 PM, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:26:55 -0800, Rob <me2f...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 20:23:19 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The Republicans opposition to extending unemployment insurance to about
>>> 1.3 million American families has been well vetted and well discussed.
>>
>> No, it was wrong to extend unemployment for more then13 weeks. It also is
>> wrong to expand food stamps to include millions of Americans with assets
>> in excess of $2k or single able bodied adults that can work.
>>
>> I can have empathy for the poor seniors or the bodily disabled, but able
>> bodied adults and people with mental illnesses should get no welfare or
>> entitlements.
>>
>> We also should discontinue SSDI for people that have a mental illness. The
>> only mental illness that prohibits work is Schizophrenia because the
>> delusions and hallucinations are so bad. People with PTSD, bipolar
>> disorder or the worst SSDI recipients are people with depression can all
>> work.
>
> Suicidal and psychotic people can work?

You are unable to work?

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/12/2014 3:15 PM, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 13:40:05 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> On 1/12/2014 12:12 PM, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 19:24:51 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes
>>> <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> GOP_Decline_and_Fall <D...@null.net> wrote in
>>>> news:kad4d9t1pa3713l24...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 22:14:41 -0800, Me <me21...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 22:25:16 -0700, deep wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is time to end gravy train and cut back all welfare programs by the
>>>>>>>> hundreds of billions of dollars to balance the budget.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In Christianity the bible says, Those that don't work should not eat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're a fucking immoral pig.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is immoral to leave our children with a $24T debt. Sink or swim.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rich People on Spending Sprees May Find One Day That Income Inequality
>>>>> Bites Them in the Wallet
>>>>
>>>> As usual, much verbiage none of which answers the question.
>>>>
>>>> You are leaving your children adn grandchildren a 24 trillion dollar debt
>>>> which ensures a lowering standard of living for them.
>>>
>>>
>>> A delusion
>>
>> No - fact.
>
> You know better.

You don't know a thing about it.

Who feeds you your bullshit? Who is paying you?

[Sancho Panza]

On 1/10/2014 4:18 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 1/10/2014 12:23 PM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>
>> [far-left bullshit erased]
>
> You are not at the center. You are a left-wing extremist - out on the
> lunatic fringe.
>

He is at the center of his one-person universe.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/12/2014 7:46 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
> On 1/10/2014 4:18 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 1/10/2014 12:23 PM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>>
>>> [far-left bullshit erased]
>>
>> You are not at the center. You are a left-wing extremist - out on the
>> lunatic fringe.
>>
> He is at the center of his one-person universe.

No, very sadly, there are lots of other crazed far-left extremists with
whom he keeps company. They are all extreme, and all wrong - on everything.

[Billy]

In article <88eea$52d36a3d$414e828e$25...@EVERESTKC.NET>,

CRud yanoza <LaLaLa...@phingersinhisears.con> wrote:

> On 1/12/2014 7:46 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:

> > On 1/10/2014 4:18 PM, CRud yanoza wrote:
> >> On 1/10/2014 12:23 PM, Bugster, wrote:
> >>
> >>> [far-left bullshit erased]

Too bad, that probably would have been the best part of your post, you
stupid little fool.

> >>
> >> You are not at the center. You are a left-wing extremist - out on the
> >> lunatic fringe.
> >>
> > He is at the center of his one-person universe.
>
> No, very sadly, there are lots of other crazed far-left extremists with
> whom he keeps company. They are all extreme, and all wrong - on everything.

So let's hear from a REAL conservative.

�Today�s so-called �conservatives� don�t even know what the word means.
They think I�ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to
an abortion. That�s a decision that�s up to the pregnant woman, not up
to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It�s not a
conservative issue at all.�
~Barry Goldwater


�While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that
it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to
live in a clean and pollution-free environment.�
~Barry Goldwater


�Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the
[Republican] party, and they�re sure trying to do so, it�s going to be a
terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and
governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are
acting in the name of God, so they can�t and won�t compromise. I know,
I�ve tried to deal with them.�
~Barry Goldwater









<http://alangraysonemails.tumblr.com/post/64719421164/the-tea-party-no-mo
re-popular-than-the-klan>

<http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans
-mostly-white.aspx>
Democrats Racially Diverse; Republicans Mostly White

Extinction isn't just for Dinosaurs anymore, join the "Guardians of
Privilege" on their Lemming's Run to Oblivion.

Tea,
the new Kool Aid


We now return you to the demented jabbering that is already in progress.
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/>

Welcome to the New America.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg>

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 22:05:33 -0800, Billy <wild...@withouta.net>
wrote:

>�While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that
>it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to
>live in a clean and pollution-free environment.�
>~Barry Goldwater

The wonders of the Tea Party dystopia unfold before us in West
Virginia.

Chemical spill a blow to W.Va. capital's economy

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/national/south/2014/01/chemical_spill_a_blow_to_wva_capitals_economy

CHARLESTON, W.Va. � On the third day without clean tap water, business
owners with empty dining rooms and quiet aisles of merchandise around
West Virginia's capital were left to wonder how much of an economic
hit they'll take from a chemical spill.

Most visitors have cleared out of Charleston while locals are either
staying home or driving out of the area to find somewhere they can get
a hot meal or a shower. Orders not to use tap water for much other
than flushing toilets mean that the spill is an emergency not just for
the environment but also for local businesses.

A water company executive said Saturday that it could be days before
uncontaminated water is flowing again for about 300,000 people in nine
West Virginia counties. The uncertainty means it's impossible to
estimate the economic impact of the spill yet, said the leader of the
local chamber of commerce.

Virtually every restaurant was closed Saturday, unable to use water to
prepare food, wash dishes or clean employees' hands. Meanwhile, hotels
had emptied and foot traffic was down at many retail stores.

"I haven't been able to cook anything at home and was hoping they were
open," Bill Rogers, 52, said outside a closed Tudor's Biscuit World in
Marmet, just east of Charleston. "It seems like every place is closed.
It's frustrating. Really frustrating."

In downtown Charleston, the Capitol Street row of restaurants and bars
were locked up. Amid them, The Consignment Company was open, but
business was miserable. The second-hand shop's owner said she relies
on customers who come downtown to eat and drink.

"It's like a ghost town," Tammy Krepshaw said. "I feel really bad for
all my neighbors. It's sad."

The person she doesn't feel bad for is Freedom Industries President
Gary Southern, who told reporters the day before that he was having a
long day and quickly wrapped up a news conference on the chemical
spill so he could fly out of the area.



According to Department of Environmental Protection officials, Freedom
Industries is exempt from DEP inspections and permitting since it
stores chemicals, and doesn't produce them.

Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin said he will work with his environmental agency
head to look into tighter regulation of chemical storage facilities in
the ongoing legislative session.

"There are certain reporting things that companies have to do,"
Tomblin said. "And I do think we have to look at them to make sure
this kind of incident does not happen again."


State ignored plan for tougher chemical oversight

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201401120021

Three years ago this month, a team of federal experts urged the state
of West Virginia to help the Kanawha Valley create a new program to
prevent hazardous chemical accidents.

The U.S. Chemical Safety Board recommended the step after its
extensive investigation of the August 2008 explosion and fire that
killed two workers at the Bayer CropScience plant in Institute.

Since then, the proposal has gone nowhere. The state Department of
Health and Human Resources hasn't stepped in to provide the legal
authority the Kanawha-Charleston Health Department needs to start such
a program. And Kanawha County officials never funded the plan, and
seldom mention that the CSB recommendation was even made.

Now, with more than 300,000 residents across the Kanawha Valley
without usable water following a chemical accident at Freedom
Industries on the Elk River, some local officials say it's time for
action.

"We'd had their recommendation on the books for several years now,"
said Dr. Rahul Gupta, director of the local health department. "This
gives us another opportunity to look at what they recommended."

During a press conference Saturday night, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin said
he would work with the state Department of Environmental Protection to
consider tighter regulation of chemical storage facilities in the
ongoing legislative session.

"There are certain reporting things that companies have to do," the
governor told reporters. "And I do think we have to look at them to
make sure this kind of incident does not happen again."

But so far, neither the governor's office nor the DHHR have responded
to a specific question from the Gazette about whether they would move
to implement the CSB's recommendation.

The CSB's proposal for a new "Hazardous Chemical Release Prevention
Program," was the central recommendation in the agency's lengthy
report on the Bayer explosion. Board members repeated the
recommendation again in September 2011, when they released a report on
a series of accidents that killed one worker at the DuPont Co. plant
in Belle.

The recommendation, modeled after a highly successful chemical safety
law in Contra Costa County, Calif., would require companies to submit
safety plans, require regular government safety audits of plans, and
give the public a greater say in monitoring safety performance at
local companies. Theoretically, the program would be funded by a fee
paid by companies that make, use and store dangerous chemicals.

"Like Contra Costa County, the Kanawha Valley has many facilities that
handle large quantities of hazardous materials, some of which are
acutely toxic," the CSB said in its 169-page report on the Bayer
explosion. "Furthermore, the valley contains environmentally sensitive
areas such as the Kanawha River, which is an important transportation
corridor.

"Yet, the local government does not have the authority to directly
participate in facility safety planning and oversight even though many
community stakeholders have long campaigned for such authority and
involvement," the report said. "The local government could adopt
regulations and implement a program similar to Contra Costa County
that would likely improve stakeholder awareness and improve emergency
planning and accident prevention."

Under the board's recommendation, the DHHR would use its existing
legal authority for rules governing "occupational and industrial
health hazards" to assist the Kanawha-Charleston health agency in
setting up the program - not just for the Kanawha Valley, but for
industry across the state.

After the board's recommendations, the Kanawha-Charleston Health
Department embraced the proposal, but worried other important parties
- the state and industry - would oppose it.

"I don't think it's going to be very difficult to develop a program,"
Gupta said in January 2011. "The real question is, are people going to
play."

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]

On 1/12/2014 6:43 PM, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight *shitbag*
bitch, lied:

> Lie #2 Examiners no longer had the discretion they once had. For
> banks, simply proving that they were looking for qualified
> buyers wasn�t enough.

Not a lie - it's the truth. And this is how Countrywide, which was not
subject to CRA as it wasn't a deposit taker, became a major part of the
corruption. Countrywide would make the CRA loans, then sell them to the
banks. Presto! the banks now had sufficient CRA loans on their books.

This is all beyond rational dispute. CRA, and the demolition of
underwriting standards as the GSEs, caused the collapse. This is fact.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/12/2014 10:05 PM, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight
*shitbag* bitch, lied:

> In article <88eea$52d36a3d$414e828e$25...@EVERESTKC.NET>,

> Rudy Canoza, the moral/intellectual/physical superior to "billy" bitch, wrote:
>
>> On 1/12/2014 7:46 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:

>>> On 1/10/2014 4:18 PM, Rudy Canoza, the moral/intellectual/physical superior to "billy" bitch, wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/2014 12:23 PM, Bugster, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [far-left bullshit erased]
>>>>

>>>> You are not at the center. You are a left-wing extremist - out on the
>>>> lunatic fringe.
>>>>
>>> He is at the center of his one-person universe.
>>
>> No, very sadly, there are lots of other crazed far-left extremists with
>> whom he keeps company. They are all extreme, and all wrong - on everything.
>
> So let's hear from a REAL conservative.

I'm not interested. I'm libertarian - the *only* ethical political
position.

You're a left-wing extremist, as well as an impotent squat-to-piss no
fight *shitbag* bitch.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/12/2014 10:33 PM, mackerel cunt, Sheila Bryant, lied:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 22:05:33 -0800, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight *shitbag* bitch, lied:

>
>> �While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that
>> it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to
>> live in a clean and pollution-free environment.�
>> ~Barry Goldwater
>
> The wonders of the Tea Party dystopia unfold before us in West
> Virginia.
>
> Chemical spill

Nothing to do with the Tea Party.

You are not at the center, mackerel cunt. You are on the far-left
lunatic fringe. You admit it.

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]

On 1/13/2014 7:31 AM, blue cunt oozed:
> In article <e5558$52d40545$414e828e$95...@EVERESTKC.NET>,

> How do

You're another.

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]

On 1/13/2014 7:36 AM, blue cunt oozed:
> In article <9f8e1$52d40706$414e828e$95...@EVERESTKC.NET>,

> When you

You're a left-wing extremist. Why lie about it, blue cunt? Just go
with it.

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>
> On 1/12/2014 6:43 PM, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight *shitbag*
> bitch, lied:
>
> > Lie #2 Examiners no longer had the discretion they once had. For
> > banks, simply proving that they were looking for qualified
> > buyers wasn¹t enough.
>
> Not a lie - it's the truth. And this is how Countrywide, which was not
> subject to CRA as it wasn't a deposit taker, became a major part of the
> corruption. Countrywide would make the CRA loans, then sell them to the
> banks. Presto! the banks now had sufficient CRA loans on their books.

The purpose of CRA is to compel Bank regulators to
evaluate whether banks are meeting the credit
needs of the geographic area where the bank branch or office
gets its deposits. The purpose of the law is to protect the
property interests of the depositors.

When a bank takes deposits in one community and makes
loans where the banker and his country club buddies live
the bank is transferring wealth away from the depositors
and into the pockets of the banker and his buddies. The
depositors community becomes poorer while the banker and
his buddies community becomes richer. This is a form of theft.

If regulators do not discourage the practice of lending
outside the area where the deposit money comes from, then
a bank charter becomes a license to steal.

There is no evidence that regulators ever took
a bank's buying Countrywide loans as being part of
meeting the credit needs of the bank's local
community. That is just another fictional story
based on supposition rather than fact.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/13/2014 2:03 PM, jim wrote:
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/12/2014 6:43 PM, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight *shitbag*
>> bitch, lied:
>>
>>> Lie #2 Examiners no longer had the discretion they once had. For
>>> banks, simply proving that they were looking for qualified
>>> buyers wasn�t enough.
>>
>> Not a lie - it's the truth. And this is how Countrywide, which was not
>> subject to CRA as it wasn't a deposit taker, became a major part of the
>> corruption. Countrywide would make the CRA loans, then sell them to the
>> banks. Presto! the banks now had sufficient CRA loans on their books.
>
>
>
> The purpose of CRA is to compel

lending to deadbeats who have bad or no credit, bad or no employment
history, and little ability to pay back the loans.

Yes.

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> On 1/13/2014 2:03 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/12/2014 6:43 PM, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight *shitbag*
> >> bitch, lied:
> >>
> >>> Lie #2 Examiners no longer had the discretion they once had. For
> >>> banks, simply proving that they were looking for qualified
> >>> buyers wasn¹t enough.
> >>
> >> Not a lie - it's the truth. And this is how Countrywide, which was not
> >> subject to CRA as it wasn't a deposit taker, became a major part of the
> >> corruption. Countrywide would make the CRA loans, then sell them to the
> >> banks. Presto! the banks now had sufficient CRA loans on their books.
> >
> >
> >

> > The purpose of CRA is to compel Bank regulators to
> > evaluate whether banks are meeting the credit
> > needs of the geographic area where the bank branch or office
> > gets its deposits. The purpose of the law is to protect the
> > property interests of the depositors.
>

>

> lending to deadbeats who have bad or no credit, bad or no employment
> history, and little ability to pay back the loans.
>

Lending to deadbeats describes many of the loans financed by
private label securities.

https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2013-06-26-Resurrection-of-RMBS.pdf

The private RMBS market was at the heart of the financial panic and
the Great Recession that followed. The market financed egregious
mortgage
lending to homebuyers who had low credit scores, put little or nothing
down,
and in many cases lied about jobs, incomes, or intentions to flip the
property for a quick buck. The private RMBS market was the financial
pump
that inflated the housing bubble.

From 2004 to 2006, an astounding $3 trillion in private RMBS were
issued.
At the height of the frenzy in early 2006, about half of all new
mortgages
were taken by households with credit scores below the national average
of
700; almost one-fourth had scores below 620. The market peaked in spring
2007, with more than 11.5 million mortgage loans backing private RMBS,
accounting for more than one-fifth of total mortgage debt outstanding.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/13/2014 3:23 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:
>
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> On 1/13/2014 2:03 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied

>>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/12/2014 6:43 PM, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight *shitbag*
>>>> bitch, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> Lie #2 Examiners no longer had the discretion they once had. For
>>>>> banks, simply proving that they were looking for qualified
>>>>> buyers wasn�t enough.
>>>>
>>>> Not a lie - it's the truth. And this is how Countrywide, which was not
>>>> subject to CRA as it wasn't a deposit taker, became a major part of the
>>>> corruption. Countrywide would make the CRA loans, then sell them to the
>>>> banks. Presto! the banks now had sufficient CRA loans on their books.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The purpose of CRA is to compel Bank regulators to
>>> evaluate whether banks are meeting the credit
>>> needs of the geographic area where the bank branch or office
>>> gets its deposits. The purpose of the law is to protect the
>>> property interests of the depositors.
>>
>
>>
>> lending to deadbeats who have bad or no credit, bad or no employment
>> history, and little ability to pay back the loans.
>>
>
> Lending to deadbeats describes

what CRA and the demolition of underwriting standards at the GSEs
brought about.

[jim]

The fact that the GSEs had the best loan performance
record is convincing evidence that your story is make believe.

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/gse-critics-ignore-loan-performance-1059187-1.html
There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly superior
loan performance of the GSEs. Year after year, decade after decade,
before, during and after the housing crash, GSE loan performance has
consistently been two-to-six times better than that of any other
segment of the market. The numbers are irrefutable, and they show that
the entire case against GSE underwriting standards, and their role in
the financial crisis, is based on social stereotyping, smoke and
mirrors, and little else.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/13/2014 3:40 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

went bankrupt due to unsound loan purchases tells you all you need to know.

Clinton gutted the underwriting standards. We know what did it:
left-wing race obsession.

[jim]

The GSE have paid back all the loans and are now
making a profit. That is only because the GSE loan portfolio
had very few of the bad loans.

Meanwhile the loan losses from privately financed
loans are still mounting up and climbing towards a
trillion dollars.

The loan performance data make it more than obvious
who was financing the bad loans.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Nope.... they were still losing money last year and their past losses
were 300 Billion dollars that taxpayers had supplied to bail them out.
And that has been projected to go up to 500 Billion in losses and Obama
made it an unlimited amount that can be used to prop up the failed GSE's
by Nationalizing them as he did.


You idiot Liberals ahve again been fuck ed by Obama and his gang of thieves


["""""Their recovery owes much to an improving housing market, legal
settlements and tax benefits.

Fannie said net income more than quadrupled compared with last year's
third quarter, reaching $8.7 billion. Freddie said it earned $30.5
billion, as a $6.5 billion operating profit was combined with a $24
billion tax benefit."""""""]


To begin with the housing market is crap so that is lie that they made
up any losses there. The legal settlements is Obama extorting money
from Wall Street business' and NOT any settlement since Fannie/Freddie
don't buy from the Wall street investment banks but rather the
investment banks bought from Fannie/Freddie because Fannie/Freddie were
created to buy from small banks and loan companies and re-sell the paper
as investments.


["""""For now, the two entities will keep operating under 2012
agreements with the Treasury Department that require them to pay much of
their profits as dividends to the government. That means taxpayers will
begin reaping multibillion-dollar returns on the investment by next
year, barring a reversal of the housing recovery. """""""]

The Housing market is already falling apart.


The government didn't lose money... the SHARE HOLDERS in Fannie and
Freddie, they lost money, where is that money ? I had one share of
Fannie so I could get their information and when they crashed and burned
I got NO repayment? So they haven't paid back all the investors they
stole from.

And the government is far from breaking even while the second wave of
loan failures is on the horizon right now and will be here soon enough.

The BULK of the government(tax payer) loan to Fannie/Freddie is being
laundered like a crime family launders their money.

They admit above that "with a $24 billion tax benefit." so they are
paying tax payers back with taxpayer money, in other words they wrote it
off for FREE and that isn't paying it off it's *WRITING IT OFF*

The IRS wouldn't let you or I get off the hook with that kind of
accounting in our own business accounting.....


SO they have NOT paid off the loans and the failures continue.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Obsessive Compulsive Racism by Liberals.....?

Instead of OCD the Liberals are OCR.

I like it, I'll make sure to use it all the time like they use
"homophobic" every chance they get.

Show me a Liberal and I'll show you an Obsessive Compulsive Racist.






--
If you haven't found the lie in what a Liberal told you, then you
didn't dig deep enough.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 1/13/2014 5:03 PM, jim wrote:
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/12/2014 6:43 PM, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight *shitbag*
>> bitch, lied:
>>
>>> Lie #2 Examiners no longer had the discretion they once had. For
>>> banks, simply proving that they were looking for qualified
>>> buyers wasn�t enough.
>>
>> Not a lie - it's the truth. And this is how Countrywide, which was not
>> subject to CRA as it wasn't a deposit taker, became a major part of the
>> corruption. Countrywide would make the CRA loans, then sell them to the
>> banks. Presto! the banks now had sufficient CRA loans on their books.
>
>
>
> The purpose of CRA is to compel Bank regulators to
> evaluate whether banks are meeting the credit
> needs of the geographic area where the bank branch or office
> gets its deposits. The purpose of the law is to protect the
> property interests of the depositors.

Which made it easy for the Clinonite obsessive Compulsive Racist types
to extort money and behavior out of the banks by claiming hyper racist
activity in the mortgage markets and all the while it was nothing but an
unwarranted fear of racism by Liberals that are fixated on race that
imagined a problem that didn't exist.


It was all for nothing.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

I like it. And, sadly, it's true.

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:07:22 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@Blackhole.nebulx.com> wrote:

Works for me.


__
"Anyone who thinks Obama is doing a good job
is either stupid or a perpetual societal leech"

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The CRA dictates that RACE is of more importance than anyone's ability
to repay any loans made. And it was passed BY Liberals that suffer from
OCR *Obsessive Compulsive Racism* and they are never able to do anything
without injecting race into the subject.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> On 1/13/2014 5:25 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > On 1/13/2014 2:03 PM, jim wrote:
> >>
> >> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 1/12/2014 6:43 PM, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight *shitbag*
> >>> bitch, lied:
> >>>
> >>>> Lie #2 Examiners no longer had the discretion they once had. For
> >>>> banks, simply proving that they were looking for qualified
> >>>> buyers wasn¹t enough.
> >>>
> >>> Not a lie - it's the truth. And this is how Countrywide, which was not
> >>> subject to CRA as it wasn't a deposit taker, became a major part of the
> >>> corruption. Countrywide would make the CRA loans, then sell them to the
> >>> banks. Presto! the banks now had sufficient CRA loans on their books.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The purpose of CRA is to compel
> >
> > lending to deadbeats who have bad or no credit, bad or no employment
> > history, and little ability to pay back the loans.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
>
> The CRA dictates that RACE

[Snipped the lies]

CRA is a law that requires bank regulators to determine
whether banks are lending to the same geographic area that
the bank gets its deposits from. The purpose of the law
is to protect the property rights of depositors

[First-Post]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:11:15 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
wrote:

As always, you saying so doesn't make it true.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> >
> > The GSE have paid back all the loans and are now
> > making a profit.
>
> Nope.... they were still losing money last year and their past losses
> were 300 Billion dollars that taxpayers had supplied to bail them out.

You are lying.

> And that has been projected to go up to 500 Billion in losses and Obama
> made it an unlimited amount that can be used to prop up the failed GSE's
> by Nationalizing them as he did.

You are lying again.

The GSE have paid back all the loans and are now making

a profit. The current financial success is because the GSEs
stayed away from the loans that would fail during the bubble. .

[jim]

Congress put it in the statutes

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-30
Statement of purpose
The Congress finds that...
(3) regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative
obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities
in which they are chartered.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 1/13/2014 10:11 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>> On 1/13/2014 5:25 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 1/13/2014 2:03 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/12/2014 6:43 PM, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight *shitbag*
>>>>> bitch, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lie #2 Examiners no longer had the discretion they once had. For
>>>>>> banks, simply proving that they were looking for qualified
>>>>>> buyers wasn�t enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not a lie - it's the truth. And this is how Countrywide, which was not
>>>>> subject to CRA as it wasn't a deposit taker, became a major part of the
>>>>> corruption. Countrywide would make the CRA loans, then sell them to the
>>>>> banks. Presto! the banks now had sufficient CRA loans on their books.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The purpose of CRA is to compel
>>>
>>> lending to deadbeats who have bad or no credit, bad or no employment
>>> history, and little ability to pay back the loans.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>
>> The CRA dictates that RACE
>
> [Snipped the lies]
>
> CRA is a law that requires bank regulators to determine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebWJ892h5dA
Democrats told us there is NO mortgage crisis.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 1/13/2014 10:11 PM, jim wrote:
>
>

> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>> On 1/13/2014 5:25 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 1/13/2014 2:03 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/12/2014 6:43 PM, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight *shitbag*
>>>>> bitch, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lie #2 Examiners no longer had the discretion they once had. For
>>>>>> banks, simply proving that they were looking for qualified
>>>>>> buyers wasn�t enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not a lie - it's the truth. And this is how Countrywide, which was not
>>>>> subject to CRA as it wasn't a deposit taker, became a major part of the
>>>>> corruption. Countrywide would make the CRA loans, then sell them to the
>>>>> banks. Presto! the banks now had sufficient CRA loans on their books.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The purpose of CRA is to compel
>>>
>>> lending to deadbeats who have bad or no credit, bad or no employment
>>> history, and little ability to pay back the loans.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>
>> The CRA dictates that RACE
>
> [Snipped the lies]
>
> CRA is a law that requires bank regulators to determine

Where were these regulators you speak of? Were they supposed to allow
the mortgage markets to collapse? All we heard from Liberals was that
there was NO problem at Fannie/Freddie and yet we know there was a
problem don't we.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 1/13/2014 10:20 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The GSE have paid back all the loans and are now
>>> making a profit.
>>
>> Nope.... they were still losing money last year and their past losses
>> were 300 Billion dollars that taxpayers had supplied to bail them out.
>
> You are lying.
>
>
>> And that has been projected to go up to 500 Billion in losses and Obama
>> made it an unlimited amount that can be used to prop up the failed GSE's
>> by Nationalizing them as he did.
>
> You are lying again.
> The GSE have paid back all the loans and are now making
> a profit. The current financial success is because the GSEs
> stayed away from the loans that would fail during the bubble. .

Repeating your lie didn't make it any more true than it was the first time.

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

So was President Eisenhower from your distorted and unbalanced
perspective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

On the domestic front, he covertly opposed Joseph McCarthy and
contributed to the end of McCarthyism by openly invoking the modern
expanded version of executive privilege. He otherwise left most
political activity to his Vice President, Richard Nixon. He was a
moderate conservative who continued New Deal agencies and expanded
Social Security.

Among his enduring innovations, he launched the Interstate Highway
System; the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which
led to the internet, among many invaluable outputs; the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), driving peaceful
discovery in space; the establishment of strong science education via
the National Defense Education Act; and encouraging peaceful use of
nuclear power via amendments to the Atomic Energy Act.[5]

In social policy, he sent federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, for
the first time since Reconstruction to enforce federal court orders to
desegregate public schools. He also signed civil rights legislation in
1957 and 1960 to protect the right to vote. He implemented
desegregation of the armed forces in two years and made five
appointments to the Supreme Court.

He was the first term-limited president in accordance with the 22nd
Amendment. Eisenhower's two terms were peaceful ones for the most part
and saw considerable economic prosperity except for a sharp recession
in 1958�59. Eisenhower is often ranked highly among the U.S.
presidents.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> On 1/13/2014 10:11 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/13/2014 5:25 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>> On 1/13/2014 2:03 PM, jim wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 1/12/2014 6:43 PM, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight *shitbag*
> >>>>> bitch, lied:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Lie #2 Examiners no longer had the discretion they once had. For
> >>>>>> banks, simply proving that they were looking for qualified
> >>>>>> buyers wasn¹t enough.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not a lie - it's the truth. And this is how Countrywide, which was not
> >>>>> subject to CRA as it wasn't a deposit taker, became a major part of the
> >>>>> corruption. Countrywide would make the CRA loans, then sell them to the
> >>>>> banks. Presto! the banks now had sufficient CRA loans on their books.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The purpose of CRA is to compel
> >>>
> >>> lending to deadbeats who have bad or no credit, bad or no employment
> >>> history, and little ability to pay back the loans.
> >>>
> >>> Yes.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The CRA dictates that RACE
> >
> > [Snipped the lies]
> >
> CRA is a law that requires bank regulators to determine

> whether banks are lending to the same geographic area that
> the bank gets its deposits from. The purpose of the law
> is to protect the property rights of depositors

No bank has ever been sued under CRA. No such lawsuit exists.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> On 1/13/2014 10:11 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/13/2014 5:25 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>> On 1/13/2014 2:03 PM, jim wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 1/12/2014 6:43 PM, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight *shitbag*
> >>>>> bitch, lied:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Lie #2 Examiners no longer had the discretion they once had. For
> >>>>>> banks, simply proving that they were looking for qualified
> >>>>>> buyers wasn¹t enough.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not a lie - it's the truth. And this is how Countrywide, which was not
> >>>>> subject to CRA as it wasn't a deposit taker, became a major part of the
> >>>>> corruption. Countrywide would make the CRA loans, then sell them to the
> >>>>> banks. Presto! the banks now had sufficient CRA loans on their books.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The purpose of CRA is to compel
> >>>
> >>> lending to deadbeats who have bad or no credit, bad or no employment
> >>> history, and little ability to pay back the loans.
> >>>
> >>> Yes.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The CRA dictates that RACE
> >
> > [Snipped the lies]
> >
> > CRA is a law that requires bank regulators to determine
>
> Where were these regulators you speak of? Were they supposed to allow
> the mortgage markets to collapse?

The lenders that were making the reckless loans were not
deposit taking banks. The money that was financing the
reckless loans was not bank deposit money. Bank regulators
are tasked with the job of making sure deposit taking
institutions conduct business financed with deposit
money in a safe and sound manner.

There is no law against reckless lending by private
lenders who are financed with private money.

[Sancho Panza]

On 1/14/2014 6:42 AM, jim wrote:

>> CRA is a law that requires bank regulators to determine
>> whether banks are lending to the same geographic area that
>> the bank gets its deposits from. The purpose of the law
>> is to protect the property rights of depositors
>
> No bank has ever been sued under CRA. No such lawsuit exists.

Strawman! The OP never said anything about a suit.

[Sancho Panza]

On 1/14/2014 6:49 AM, jim wrote:

>> Where were these regulators you speak of? Were they supposed to allow
>> the mortgage markets to collapse?
>
> The lenders that were making the reckless loans were not
> deposit taking banks. The money that was financing the
> reckless loans was not bank deposit money.

With repurchasing of the mortgages, bank deposit money most definitely
did become involved. Ask Wamu.

> Bank regulators
> are tasked with the job of making sure deposit taking
> institutions conduct business financed with deposit
> money in a safe and sound manner.
>
> There is no law against reckless lending by private
> lenders who are financed with private money.

But there are regulations on reckless investments by regulated
institutions. And the regulators were fast asleep in their cozy and
fancy positions.

[jim]

http://cir.ca/news/future-of-fannie-and-freddie
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced their Q3 earnings on Nov. 7,
combining for $39.2 billion in profit — $39 billion of which will
go to the U.S. Treasury by the end of 2013. At that time they will
have paid back $185.3 billion to the U.S. government out of $187.5
billion loaned them."

In addition to the profits that F&F have turned over to the
US Treasury. The Govt has collected about $20 billion from
lenders that sold phony non-conforming loans to the GSEs.

[jim]

Sancho Panza wrote:
>
> On 1/14/2014 6:42 AM, jim wrote:
>
> >> CRA is a law that requires bank regulators to determine
> >> whether banks are lending to the same geographic area that
> >> the bank gets its deposits from. The purpose of the law
> >> is to protect the property rights of depositors
> >
> > No bank has ever been sued under CRA. No such lawsuit exists.
>
> Strawman! The OP never said anything about a suit.

No lawsuits under CRA. It never happened.

Your story is a fairytale. No banks were coerced into
making bad loans by CRA. You have nothing but a make believe
story about
what you suppose might have happened.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/13/2014 4:43 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

Not the point. They never would have gone bankrupt if they hadn't
become political agents of the Democratic party and started making
unsound mortgage purchases intended to make it easier for deadbeats -
Democrats - to obtain mortgages.

Those loans to the GSEs shouldn't have been made at all.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/13/2014 9:21 PM, mackerel cunt, Sheila Bryant, lied:

> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:27:09 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> On 1/12/2014 10:33 PM, mackerel cunt, Sheila Bryant, lied:
>>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 22:05:33 -0800, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight *shitbag* bitch, lied:
>>>
>>>> �While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that
>>>> it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to
>>>> live in a clean and pollution-free environment.�
>>>> ~Barry Goldwater
>>>
>>> The wonders of the Tea Party dystopia unfold before us in West
>>> Virginia.
>>>
>>> Chemical spill
>>
>> Nothing to do with the Tea Party.
>>
>> You are not at the center, mackerel cunt. You are on the far-left
>> lunatic fringe. You admit it.
>
> So was President Eisenhower

No. Eisenhower was truly a centrist. You are *far* to the left of the
center. This is not in rational dispute. You advocate left-wing
totalitarianism. You're a Stalinist. North Korea is your ideal.

[jim]

They weren't bankrupt. You create a fairy tale based
on the supposition that they were.

Freddie and Fannie always remained solvent with
assets exceeding liabilities. That is because they didn't
have the bad loans in their portfolio like
the private label securities did.

The bailout was to solve a liquidity problem and to prevent a
collapse in the entire mortgage market if Freddie and Fannie pushed
their creditors to pay up too aggressively. The reason Freddie
and Fannie are profitable today is because F&F stayed away from
the bad loans during the housing bubble. The lending standards for
the GSEs was much higher than the rest of the market.

The GSE loans required higher credit scores, higher income to
debt ratios and larger down payments than any other type of
loan financing. The quality of GSE standards were far superior and
that is why loan failures were far less for GSE backed loans.
http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/24009/FHFA_RepToCongr11_6_14_508.pdf

[jim]

Sancho Panza wrote:
>
> On 1/14/2014 6:49 AM, jim wrote:
>
> >> Where were these regulators you speak of? Were they supposed to allow
> >> the mortgage markets to collapse?
> >
> > The lenders that were making the reckless loans were not
> > deposit taking banks. The money that was financing the
> > reckless loans was not bank deposit money.
>
> With repurchasing of the mortgages, bank deposit money most definitely
> did become involved. Ask Wamu.

After each fairy tale is knocked down you substitute a new
fairy tale. There is nothing relevant to be asking WAMU. You are
just making up yet another make believe story.

There is no evidence WAMU used deposit money
to fund reckless lending. Washington Mutual holding
company owned several subprime lenders
whose loans were financed by private money.
You have zero evidence that any of WAMUs reckless
loans were being financed by deposit money.

>
> > Bank regulators
> > are tasked with the job of making sure deposit taking
> > institutions conduct business financed with deposit
> > money in a safe and sound manner.
> >
> > There is no law against reckless lending by private
> > lenders who are financed with private money.


>
> But there are regulations on reckless investments by regulated
> institutions. And the regulators were fast asleep in their cozy and
> fancy positions.

Your story is a fairy tale. You come up with nothing but an endless
series of made up stories. Every post you come up with a new
stories that you can't support. You never base any of your
stories on facts or data.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/14/2014 7:52 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

>> Not the point. They never would have gone bankrupt if they hadn't
>> become political agents of the Democratic party and started making
>> unsound mortgage purchases intended to make it easier for deadbeats -
>> Democrats - to obtain mortgages.
>>
>> Those loans to the GSEs shouldn't have been made at all.
>

> They weren't bankrupt.

They were bankrupt.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Then they didn't need taxpayer money. And we don't need more
regulations like Dodd-Frank and you can ask for it and the CRA to be
repealed.

Because FANNIE/FREDDIE weren't covered by CRA and Dodd-Frank hasn't
helped. According to you since there was no problem at Fannie/Freddie


See, you can't have it both ways, your lies are conflicting with one
another, since you told us it was deregulation that caused it. But
Fannie/Freddie were among the few that are NOT covered by those
regulations anyways and Now you say they were also NOT the ones to go
bankrupt. Which means deregulation had ZERO to do with the crash of the
mortgage markets.

You just made the point to show that "your blaming of Republicans and
Deregulation was a lie" either that or you're lying to us about Fannie
and Freddie NOT going bankrupt.... which lie is the lie you want to go
with....

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/14/2014 8:51 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:
>
>
> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>
>> On 1/14/2014 6:49 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:

>>
>>>> Where were these regulators you speak of? Were they supposed to allow
>>>> the mortgage markets to collapse?
>>>
>>> The lenders that were making the reckless loans were not
>>> deposit taking banks. The money that was financing the
>>> reckless loans was not bank deposit money.
>>
>> With repurchasing of the mortgages, bank deposit money most definitely
>> did become involved. Ask Wamu.
>
> After each fairy tale

No fairy tales from our side, front boy. You're the one spewing fairy
tales. No surprise - you're a fairy.

CRA was nothing but an expression of left-wing race obsession. This is
established.

[jim]

CRA was created to prevent banks from stealing from
depositors. That has nothing to do with race.
The vast majority of geographic areas where the
credit needs of depositors are underserved are not
minority communities.

[jim]

They needed a bailout for the same reason all of
the large banks needed a bailout. And like the
banks they have paid back the loaned money.

Freddie and Fannies always had assets in excess of
liabilities. They were never insolvent. The reason they
earned profits and paid back the loans is that
they stayed away from the bad loans.

> And we don't need more
> regulations like Dodd-Frank and you can ask for it and the CRA to be
> repealed.
>

CRA is a law that discourages banks from stealing wealth
from depositors. Why do you want to support theft?

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/14/2014 11:52 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

collective, lied:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> On 1/14/2014 8:51 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
>> collective, lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/14/2014 6:49 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>>>
>>>>>> Where were these regulators you speak of? Were they supposed to allow
>>>>>> the mortgage markets to collapse?
>>>>>
>>>>> The lenders that were making the reckless loans were not
>>>>> deposit taking banks. The money that was financing the
>>>>> reckless loans was not bank deposit money.
>>>>
>>>> With repurchasing of the mortgages, bank deposit money most definitely
>>>> did become involved. Ask Wamu.
>>>
>>> After each fairy tale
>>
>> No fairy tales from our side, front boy. You're the one spewing fairy
>> tales. No surprise - you're a fairy.
>>
>> CRA was nothing but an expression of left-wing race obsession. This is
>> established.
>
> CRA was created to prevent banks from stealing from
> depositors.

No, that's a left-wing fairy tale. It has been thoroughly debunked.

[Rudy Canoza]

They were bankrupt. They were bankrupt because the Democrats forced
them to buy shitty loans that had been made to deadbeats.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 1/14/2014 2:52 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> On 1/14/2014 8:51 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
>> collective, lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/14/2014 6:49 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>>>
>>>>>> Where were these regulators you speak of? Were they supposed to allow
>>>>>> the mortgage markets to collapse?
>>>>>
>>>>> The lenders that were making the reckless loans were not
>>>>> deposit taking banks. The money that was financing the
>>>>> reckless loans was not bank deposit money.
>>>>
>>>> With repurchasing of the mortgages, bank deposit money most definitely
>>>> did become involved. Ask Wamu.
>>>
>>> After each fairy tale
>>
>> No fairy tales from our side, front boy. You're the one spewing fairy
>> tales. No surprise - you're a fairy.
>>
>> CRA was nothing but an expression of left-wing race obsession. This is
>> established.
>
> CRA was created to prevent banks from stealing from
> depositors.

And in its place the Federal government will steal from taxpayers.


Why is one better than the other, it's all stealing.



--
If you haven't found the lie in what a Liberal told you, then you
didn't dig deep enough.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

But Fannie/Freddie don't fall under the same regulations as the large
banks. at least that was what "you" told me.

And you told us that most loan companies were NOT covered by the CRA,
and Dodd-Frank and the others that were NOT under them same as
Fannie/Freddie so the CRA was useless in preventing the collapse and
that means it could only be a useless law or could have helped cause the
collapse.


Care to tell us which?

Were the government regulations useless, or were they instrumental in
helping cause the mortgage collapse?

--
If you haven't found the lie in what a Liberal told you, then you
didn't dig deep enough.

*Rumination*
*ObamaCare The Big Lie*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHMgU9TAgEQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCUpJDzyRnY#t=25
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc72edn6lI0
"If you like your plan you can keep it" -Obama-

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

> >>>>>> The GSE have paid back all the loans and
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not the point. They never would have gone bankrupt if they hadn't
> >>>>> become political agents of the Democratic party and started making
> >>>>> unsound mortgage purchases intended to make it easier for deadbeats -
> >>>>> Democrats - to obtain mortgages.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Those loans to the GSEs shouldn't have been made at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> They weren't bankrupt.
> >>
> >> Then they didn't need taxpayer money.
> >
> >
> > They needed a bailout for the same reason all of
> > the large banks needed a bailout.
>
> But Fannie/Freddie don't fall under the same regulations as the large
> banks. at least that was what "you" told me.

That is correct. Fannie and Freddie had the highest lending
standards in the mortgage industry because those standards were
imposed by regulators. Privately financed mortgage companies had
much lower lending standards.

>
> And you told us that most loan companies were NOT covered by the CRA,

Only deposit taking facilities are covered by CRA. That
is because CRA is a law that discourages deposit taking
facilities from stealing from their depositors.

Privately financed loan companies were not covered by any
govt imposed lending standards. Private lenders were subject
to civil rights laws and that meant that they were required
to apply the same lending standards equally to all lenders.
There is no law or court that ordered private lenders to
follow any particular lending standard.

Since their loans were not financed by public money, private
lenders were free to set whatever standards they wanted.
Private lenders accepted lower credit scores, lower debt to
income ratios and lower down payments than either GSE backed or
deposit backed CRA lending.

The data shows GSE lending standards were far superior to
private mortgage company standards:
http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/24009/FHFA_RepToCongr11_6_14_508.pdf

> and Dodd-Frank and the others that were NOT under them same as
> Fannie/Freddie so the CRA was useless in preventing the collapse and
> that means it could only be a useless law or could have helped cause the
> collapse.

CRA is a law that prevents banks from stealing the
wealth of depositors. When a bank takes loans in
one community and makes loans in the banker's community the
bank is redistributing the wealth of the depositors into
the bankers pocket. CRA discourages this form
of theft by requiring regulators to evaluate and grade
the banks on how good a job they do in lending in the
same geographic area where the bank gets deposit money.
The idea of the law is that exposing theft will discourage it.

>
> Care to tell us which?
>
> Were the government regulations useless, or were they instrumental in
> helping cause the mortgage collapse?

CRA had nothing to do with the mortgage collapse
the Community Reinvestment Act is intended to
protect the property rights of depositors - nothing else.

Research has shown that banks that did their
lending to the same community that provided deposits
during the housing bubble tended to have fewer failed
loans than banks that did not.

http://www.frbsf.org/community-development/files/cra_lending_during_subprime_meltdown11.pdf

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/14/2014 2:49 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> The GSE have paid back all the loans and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not the point. They never would have gone bankrupt if they hadn't
>>>>>>> become political agents of the Democratic party and started making
>>>>>>> unsound mortgage purchases intended to make it easier for deadbeats -
>>>>>>> Democrats - to obtain mortgages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those loans to the GSEs shouldn't have been made at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They weren't bankrupt.
>>>>
>>>> Then they didn't need taxpayer money.
>>>
>>>
>>> They needed a bailout for the same reason all of
>>> the large banks needed a bailout.
>>
>> But Fannie/Freddie don't fall under the same regulations as the large
>> banks. at least that was what "you" told me.
>
>
> That is correct. Fannie and Freddie had the highest lending
> standards in the mortgage industry

Until Bill Clinton tore them up.

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 07:52:02 -0800, Rudy Canoza

<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:

>On 1/13/2014 9:21 PM, mackerel cunt, Sheila Bryant, lied:
>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:27:09 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/12/2014 10:33 PM, mackerel cunt, Sheila Bryant, lied:
>>>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 22:05:33 -0800, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight *shitbag* bitch, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> �While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that
>>>>> it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to
>>>>> live in a clean and pollution-free environment.�
>>>>> ~Barry Goldwater
>>>>
>>>> The wonders of the Tea Party dystopia unfold before us in West
>>>> Virginia.
>>>>
>>>> Chemical spill
>>>
>>> Nothing to do with the Tea Party.
>>>
>>> You are not at the center, mackerel cunt. You are on the far-left
>>> lunatic fringe. You admit it.
>>
>> So was President Eisenhower
>
>No. Eisenhower was truly a centrist.

Glad to see your belated realization that Eisenhower's expansion of
Social Security, acceleration of the New Deal, use of Federal troops,
investment in infrastructure and creation of new federal agencies and
regulatory bodies are , in fact, truly centrist policies.

>You are *far* to the left of the
>center. This is not in rational dispute.

You falsely assert that about many things.

I hate to break it to you but you and rationality parted company long
ago.

>You advocate left-wing totalitarianism. You're a Stalinist. North Korea is your ideal.

Ever thought of writing Science Fiction?

[jim]

http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/24009/FHFA_RepToCongr11_6_14_508.pdf

There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly
superior loan performance of the GSEs. Year after year,
decade after decade, before, during and after the housing
crash, GSE loan performance has consistently been two-to-six
times better than that of any other segment of the market.

[Sancho Panza]

On 1/14/2014 11:51 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>
>> On 1/14/2014 6:49 AM, jim wrote:
>>
>>>> Where were these regulators you speak of? Were they supposed to allow
>>>> the mortgage markets to collapse?
>>>
>>> The lenders that were making the reckless loans were not
>>> deposit taking banks. The money that was financing the
>>> reckless loans was not bank deposit money.
>>
>> With repurchasing of the mortgages, bank deposit money most definitely
>> did become involved. Ask Wamu.
>
> After each fairy tale is knocked down you substitute a new
> fairy tale. There is nothing relevant to be asking WAMU. You are
> just making up yet another make believe story.
>
> There is no evidence WAMU used deposit money
> to fund reckless lending. Washington Mutual holding
> company owned several subprime lenders
> whose loans were financed by private money.
> You have zero evidence that any of WAMUs reckless
> loans were being financed by deposit money.

No one said they used depositers' funds. Another straw man!

>> But there are regulations on reckless investments by regulated
>> institutions. And the regulators were fast asleep in their cozy and
>> fancy positions.
>
> Your story is a fairy tale. You come up with nothing but an endless
> series of made up stories. Every post you come up with a new
> stories that you can't support. You never base any of your
> stories on facts or data.

Seeing as how you fail to provide any backup for your sweeping
assertions, try these facts about the complicity of Wamu on for size:

"NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Washington Mutual Inc. WM +0.63% , the largest
U.S. savings and loan, has become the latest home lender to eliminate
some of the riskiest mortgages to borrowers with scuffed credit or heavy
debts.

Effective immediately, the Seattle company will no longer offer subprime
mortgages that carry fixed rates for the first two or three years and
then reset to higher market rates. Those loans, also known as 2/28 and
3/27 subprime loans, pose higher default risk as the housing slump makes
it harder for financially stretched homeowners to refinance or sell
their homes.

WaMu will also require subprime borrowers to provide full documentation.
Over the past two years, heightened competition has led home lenders to
peddle so-called stated-income loans - under which borrowers have to
disclose their income but aren't required to provide verification. The
skipped paperwork, however, has contributed to higher default rates as
some borrowers overstated their financial strength in order to get loans
to buy houses they really can't afford.

"I want to emphasize that we remain committed to providing subprime
loans to creditworthy borrowers," WaMu Chief Executive Kerry Killinger
said in remarks prepared for its earnings conference call after the
market close Wednesday.

Countrywide Financial Corp. , Option One Mortgage Corp. and Merrill
Lynch & Co.'s First Franklin Financial unit told employees and mortgage
brokers this week that they would no longer offer 2/28 subprime loans,
according to The Wall Street Journal.

In recent months, soaring defaults have led to a plunge in investor
demand for those risky mortgages, which in turn has pushed lenders to
cut back on those loans. Meanwhile, federal bank, thrift and
credit-union regulators recently toughened up guidelines to curb weak
underwriting standards for subprime mortgages.

In particular, the guidance calls for lenders to take into account the
highest possible monthly payments - as opposed to the initial low
payments - when deciding borrowers' ability to repay the loans. Many
lenders have opposed the proposal, arguing that it could limit credit to
subprime borrowers at a time when credit is most needed. Billions of
dollars of subprime hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages are set to reset to
higher rates this year.

Analysts at Credit Suisse's asset-backed securities research group
recently examined the subprime borrowers who last year took out the
loans that have fixed rates for the first two years and then adjust to
market rates. Their conclusion: About a third of them wouldn't have
qualified for the loans had the lenders used the fully indexed rate -
not the initial "teaser" rate - in determining the borrowers' repayment
ability.

As part of its efforts to implement the new federal guidelines, WaMu
also said it will require tax and insurance escrow accounts with all new
subprime loans it originates. In addition, the lender will enhance its
disclosures and consumer-outreach efforts, including preclosing contact
with the borrower even when the borrower has been represented by a
broker."
--http://www.marketwatch.com/story/washington-mutual-to-stop-offering-certain-subprime-loans

[Sancho Panza]

On 1/14/2014 2:52 PM, jim wrote:
>
>

Sure as hell didn't work with Wamu, Wachovia or a slew of other turkeys.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/14/2014 7:07 PM, lying far-left mackerel cunt Sheila Bryant, about
as far to the left of center as it's possible to be, lied:

> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 07:52:02 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> On 1/13/2014 9:21 PM, mackerel cunt, Sheila Bryant, lied:
>>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:27:09 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/12/2014 10:33 PM, mackerel cunt, Sheila Bryant, lied:
>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 22:05:33 -0800, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight *shitbag* bitch, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> �While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that
>>>>>> it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to
>>>>>> live in a clean and pollution-free environment.�
>>>>>> ~Barry Goldwater
>>>>>
>>>>> The wonders of the Tea Party dystopia unfold before us in West
>>>>> Virginia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chemical spill
>>>>
>>>> Nothing to do with the Tea Party.
>>>>
>>>> You are not at the center, mackerel cunt. You are on the far-left
>>>> lunatic fringe. You admit it.
>>>
>>> So was President Eisenhower
>>
>> No. Eisenhower was truly a centrist.
>
> Glad to see your belated realization that Eisenhower's expansion of
> Social Security, acceleration of the New Deal,

No such thing.

You're a really shitty liar, Sheila, you mackerel cunt. You're a liar,
without doubt, but you're a really *shitty* liar.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/14/2014 7:10 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> On 1/14/2014 2:49 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:

>>>
>>>
>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The GSE have paid back all the loans and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not the point. They never would have gone bankrupt if they hadn't
>>>>>>>>> become political agents of the Democratic party and started making
>>>>>>>>> unsound mortgage purchases intended to make it easier for deadbeats -
>>>>>>>>> Democrats - to obtain mortgages.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those loans to the GSEs shouldn't have been made at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They weren't bankrupt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then they didn't need taxpayer money.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They needed a bailout for the same reason all of
>>>>> the large banks needed a bailout.
>>>>
>>>> But Fannie/Freddie don't fall under the same regulations as the large
>>>> banks. at least that was what "you" told me.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is correct. Fannie and Freddie had the highest lending
>>> standards in the mortgage industry
>>
>> Until Bill Clinton tore them up.
>
> http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/24009/FHFA_RepToCongr11_6_14_508.pdf
>
> There is no data anywhere

There are Clinton orders to the GSEs.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/14/2014 7:10 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:

>
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> On 1/14/2014 2:49 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:

>>>
>>>
>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The GSE have paid back all the loans and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not the point. They never would have gone bankrupt if they hadn't
>>>>>>>>> become political agents of the Democratic party and started making
>>>>>>>>> unsound mortgage purchases intended to make it easier for deadbeats -
>>>>>>>>> Democrats - to obtain mortgages.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those loans to the GSEs shouldn't have been made at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They weren't bankrupt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then they didn't need taxpayer money.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They needed a bailout for the same reason all of
>>>>> the large banks needed a bailout.
>>>>
>>>> But Fannie/Freddie don't fall under the same regulations as the large
>>>> banks. at least that was what "you" told me.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is correct. Fannie and Freddie had the highest lending
>>> standards in the mortgage industry
>>
>> Until Bill Clinton tore them up.
>
> http://www.fh

No.

Policies of the Clinton Administration

As noted, the National Homeownership Strategy, which advocated a general
loosening of lending standards, at least with regard to affordable
housing, was devised in 1995 by HUD under the Clinton Administration.
During the rest of the Clinton Administration HUD set increasingly
rigorous affordable housing loan requirements for Fannie and Freddie.

In 1995 the Clinton Administration made changes to the CRA. The changes
were extensive and, in the opinion of critics, very destructive. Under
the new rules, banks and thrifts were to be evaluated "based on the
number and amount of loans issued within their assessment areas, the
geographical distribution of those loans, the distribution of loans
based on borrower characteristics, the number and amount of community
development loans, and the amount of innovation and flexibility they
used when approving loans." Some analysts maintain that these new rules
pressured banks to make weak loans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis#Policies_of_the_Clinton_Administration


That's how it happened.

We're tired of your polemical lies.

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:20:48 -0800, Rudy Canoza

You really think you can just "snip" the truth away?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

On the domestic front, he covertly opposed Joseph McCarthy and
contributed to the end of McCarthyism by openly invoking the modern
expanded version of executive privilege.

He otherwise left most political activity to his Vice President,
Richard Nixon. He was a moderate conservative who continued New Deal
agencies and expanded Social Security.

[Rudy Canoza]

The subject is *YOUR* far-left extremism, mackerel cunt. You are not at
the center; not anywhere near it. You are a rabid far-left extremist.
You're an America-hating totalitarian. This is not in dispute.

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:19:39 -0800, Rudy Canoza

No.

The subject is the nature of centrism.

Your snipping and kooky attempts at ad hominem diversions and idiotic
fantasies about other posters is simply your confession that you
cannot deal with the actual subject in a lucid fashion.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

There are HUD lawsuits against the NON GSE's and they used Liberal
interpretations of Discrimination laws to coerce those NOT already
forced by the CRA to make loans they would NOT have otherwise made.
That is the summation of HUD secretary Andrew Cuomo.

[jim]

That is ignorant nonsense. There is no evidence that CRA did
not do exactly what the Congress says it is supposed to do.

CRA is a law intended to protect property rights of
FDIC insured deositors.

CRA is a law that requires regulators to evaluate and grade
FDIC deposit facilities on how good a job they do in lending
deposit money in the same geographic area where the deposits
were collected. When banks get poor CRA rating, depositors are
notified because they have a right to know that their
bank is acting against their interest.

[jim]

This is a story. The loan performance data shows
there was no reduction in GSE loan quality. That
alone proves the story is false.

The story is diametrically opposed to the facts,
The facts are that the GSE loan losses was
at an all time low from 1994-2004. 1994-2004 was also
the period of huge expansion of loans financed by
private investment instead of the traditional
deposit based or GSE based financing.

The housing bubble was about making profits and had
nothing to do with "affordable housing" goals.
The housing bubble was driven by high priced reckless loans
financed by private money. At the height of the bubble
home ownership was dropping because 90% of the bad loans were
either refinance loans, second home buyers or speculators that
were buying houses that were not primary residences. First
time home buyers buying homes to live in were practically
non-existent in the subprime frenzy. Almost none of the wild
subprime lending met the loan criteria that counted towards
meeting "affordable housing goals". Subprime loans were not
affordable but expensive loans that were driven by speculation
that rising house prices would cover the high expense.

>
> In 1995 the Clinton Administration made changes to the CRA. The changes
> were extensive and, in the opinion of critics, very destructive. Under
> the new rules, banks and thrifts were to be evaluated "based on the
> number and amount of loans issued within their assessment areas, the
> geographical distribution of those loans, the distribution of loans
> based on borrower characteristics, the number and amount of community
> development loans, and the amount of innovation and flexibility they
> used when approving loans." Some analysts maintain that these new rules
> pressured banks to make weak loans.

Another made up story that no one even tries to support
with facts. Banks began making more loans within their
chartered area (where the deposits came from) and those
local loans performed much better than loans that banks
made outside of the geographic area where deposits came from.
This better loan performance was particularly true for
low-income areas where making loans counted towards satisfactory
CRA ratings.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

>
> There are HUD lawsuits against the NON GSE's and they used Liberal

> interpretations of Discrimination laws.

Discrimination laws have nothing to do with lending
standards. The Constitution expects equal treatment under the law
for everyone. Any lending standard whether it be high or low
must be applied equally based only on the creditworthiness of
the applicant.

> to coerce those NOT already
> forced by the CRA to make loans

You're lying again.

CRA ia law that encourages FDIC deposit institutions
to lend prudently where they get deposits. This is intended to
protect the property interests of depositors. There is
not a shred of evidence that CRA forced banks to make
bad loans.

[Sancho Panza]

So what! The fact is still the fact, and it remains an important part of
the history that the regulators fucked up big time. The depositors were
lied to, as were the shareholders. The regulators were nothing short of
being criminally complicit in massive fraud. And all without suffering a
single consequence.'

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/14/2014 9:55 PM, mackerel cunt, Sheila Bryant, lied:

> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:19:39 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>

>> On 1/14/2014 8:31 PM, mackerel cunt, Sheila Bryant, lied:

Yes, mackerel cunt. It is not in dispute that you are a far-left
totalitarian-minded extremist.

> The subject is the nature of centrism.

No, not "centrism"; there is no such thing. There is a center, and you
are very far to the left of it, at the left-wing totalitarian fringe.
Not in dispute. You really ought to be locked up. You're farther left
than Sendero Luminoso or Khmer Rouge. You want to execute
freedom-loving law-abiding Americans, and we may need to kill you first.

[jim]

What regulators are you talking about?

No doubt that private investors fucked up. I've seen no
evidence that bank regulators that were implementing CRA
statutes fucked up.

> The depositors were
> lied to, as were the shareholders.

That is called fraud. Is the FBI the regulators you
were referring to? There certainly was much fraud that
escaped the notice of authorities that had the legal power
to prosecute fraud. On the other hand the FBI did catch
quite a number of scammers. Perhaps the fraud was so
wide spread they couldn't keep up.

I think a lot of fraud came to light only after the
mortgage market crashed. The fraud was the result of
collusion between Borrowers, lenders, real estate
appraisers, real estate brokers, and credit rating
agencies. Can you imagine that Prosecuting the millions
involved might have done more harm than good in an weak
economy?

> The regulators were nothing short of
> being criminally complicit in massive fraud. And all without suffering a
> single consequence.'

Is it your theory that the FBI and others charged with
preventing fraud should be prosecuted for all the fraud
that they missed? What about the millions that were the
ones committing the fraud?

[jim]

That is not evidence that is a story based on
what you suppose might have resulted from those orders.
The facts contradict your story so you choose to
never look at the loan performance data.

There is ample evidence that orders to F&F produced loans
that were much less likely to fail than the loans being
financed by any other segment of the market. As it happens
the period from 1994 to 2004 was the decade that F&F had the
lowest credit losses in its entire history. And at all times
the loan failure rate for F&F loans has been much lower than
any other segment of the mortgage market.

http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/24009/FHFA_RepToCongr11_6_14_508.pdf

In the 1990's the GSEs were ordered to finance more low income
loans because the loan data showed there was an abundance of
low-income prime loans that were not being financed by the GSEs.
The evidence is undeniable that the loan performance of the GSEs
was not lowered and remained as always much better than the rest of
the mortgage market.

What you suppose was the consequence of orders to F&F is the
sole basis of your fairy tale. There is no data to support
your story. It is a make believe story.

[jim]

Sancho Panza wrote:
>
> On 1/14/2014 11:51 AM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sancho Panza wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/14/2014 6:49 AM, jim wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Where were these regulators you speak of? Were they supposed to allow
> >>>> the mortgage markets to collapse?
> >>>
> >>> The lenders that were making the reckless loans were not
> >>> deposit taking banks. The money that was financing the
> >>> reckless loans was not bank deposit money.
> >>
> >> With repurchasing of the mortgages, bank deposit money most definitely
> >> did become involved. Ask Wamu.
> >
> > After each fairy tale is knocked down you substitute a new
> > fairy tale. There is nothing relevant to be asking WAMU. You are
> > just making up yet another make believe story.
> >
> > There is no evidence WAMU used deposit money
> > to fund reckless lending. Washington Mutual holding
> > company owned several subprime lenders
> > whose loans were financed by private money.
> > You have zero evidence that any of WAMUs reckless
> > loans were being financed by deposit money.
>
> No one said they used depositers' funds.

Then your statement "bank deposit money most definitely
did become involved" was false. WAMU was a holding company.
Some of its subsidiaries were deposit taking facilities and
some were not. Banking regulators supervise the
deposit taking facilities. Regulators' job is to make sure
deposit money is handled in a safe and sound manner.

>
> >> But there are regulations on reckless investments by regulated
> >> institutions. And the regulators were fast asleep in their cozy and
> >> fancy positions.
> >
> > Your story is a fairy tale. You come up with nothing but an endless
> > series of made up stories. Every post you come up with a new
> > stories that you can't support. You never base any of your
> > stories on facts or data.
>
> Seeing as how you fail to provide any backup for your sweeping
> assertions, try these facts about the complicity of Wamu on for size:

It is an accepted fact that WAMU was a bad lender.

You have presented no evidence that WAMU's bad lending habits
were caused by govt regulation, CRA or the GSEs. WAMU became
insolvent mostly because it invested private investment money
unwisely. There is a tradition in the USA that private investments
can choose whatever level of risk they want to. Govt regulation
is focused on supervising mortgages that are financed by
depositors' money or by Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE).


Before the mid 90's close to 100% of mortgage lending was financed
by deposit money or the GSEs. Then along came private mortgage
companies and private label mortgage backed securities
The entire network of private lenders and wall street issued
securities that financed the housing boom were created as a way
to avoid govt supervised lending. By 2006 private investment money
was finacing 60% of mortgage loans. Then came the crash and after
2008 depositor money and the GSEs are again financing close to
100% of the mortgage market.

It seems pretty obvious it was the huge growth of private money
that financed risky (and high priced) loans that caused the rapid
rise and fall in home prices.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/15/2014 5:09 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
>
>
> [...]

>>>
>>> CRA was created to prevent banks from stealing from
>>> depositors.

False. Not lending to deadbeats is the banks' *obligation* to depositors.

CRA is what *MANDATED* stealing from depositors. CRA mandates making
loans to bad-credit deadbeats. That is stealing from depositors - it
increases the risk the bank will become insolvent and unable to pay back
their depositors.

>>
>> Sure as hell didn't work with Wamu, Wachovia or a slew of other turkeys.
>
> That is ignorant nonsense. There is no evidence that CRA did
> not do exactly what the Congress says it is supposed to do.

It is established beyond rational dispute that CRA was a key element in
causing the financial system collapse.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/15/2014 6:56 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

It is factual. The story, the fairy tale, is your delusion that rigging
the market for housing wouldn't have an adverse effect. It did - it led
to the collapse. This is established fact and accepted by all
knowledgeable analysts.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/15/2014 7:05 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:
>
>

> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>>
>> There are HUD lawsuits against the NON GSE's and they used Liberal
>> interpretations of Discrimination laws.
>
> Discrimination laws have nothing to do with lending
> standards.

That's your delusional left-wing fairy tale.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/15/2014 7:28 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

collective, lied:

> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>

>> On 1/15/2014 8:09 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/14/2014 2:52 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/14/2014 8:51 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/14/2014 6:49 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where were these regulators you speak of? Were they supposed to allow
>>>>>>>>>> the mortgage markets to collapse?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The lenders that were making the reckless loans were not
>>>>>>>>> deposit taking banks. The money that was financing the
>>>>>>>>> reckless loans was not bank deposit money.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With repurchasing of the mortgages, bank deposit money most definitely
>>>>>>>> did become involved. Ask Wamu.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After each fairy tale
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No fairy tales from our side, front boy. You're the one spewing fairy
>>>>>> tales. No surprise - you're a fairy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CRA was nothing but an expression of left-wing race obsession. This is
>>>>>> established.
>>>>>
>>>>> CRA was created to prevent banks from stealing from
>>>>> depositors.

No, it was not. It was created to force banks to lend to deadbeats -
deadbeats who are reliable voters for Democrats. CRA was nothing but
left-wing race obsession enacted into public policy and law.

>>>> Sure as hell didn't work with Wamu, Wachovia or a slew of other turkeys.
>>>
>>> That is ignorant nonsense. There is no evidence that CRA did
>>> not do exactly what the Congress says it is supposed to do.
>>>
>>> CRA is a law intended to protect property rights of
>>> FDIC insured deositors.
>>>
>>> CRA is a law that requires regulators to evaluate and grade
>>> FDIC deposit facilities on how good a job they do in lending
>>> deposit money in the same geographic area

to deadbeats - mostly, urban black deadbeats who are reliable Democratic
voters. That's what CRA required. This is established beyond rational
dispute.

>>
>> So what! The fact is still the fact, and it remains
>> an important part of the history that the regulators
>> fucked up big time.
>
> What regulators are you talking about?

Bank and GSE regulators, you fucking moron.

>> The depositors were
>> lied to, as were the shareholders.
>
> That is called fraud.

CRA mandated fraud.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/15/2014 7:32 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

It's fact. Clinton ordered the GSEs to start buying sub-prime loans as
part of his "affordable housing" goals. It was a giveaway to deadbeats,
and it brought on the bubble and its bursting which led to the financial
system collapse.

All of this is established fact, and it is not in rational dispute.
Only irrational extremists dispute it, based on nothing more than their
slavish adherence to extremist dogma.

[Sancho Panza]

FDIC, Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury, SEC, among many others.

>
> No doubt that private investors fucked up. I've seen no
> evidence that bank regulators that were implementing CRA
> statutes fucked up.

A multitrillion-dollar debacle constitutes crystal-clear evidence in my
book.

>
>
>> The depositors were
>> lied to, as were the shareholders.
>
> That is called fraud. Is the FBI the regulators you
> were referring to? There certainly was much fraud that
> escaped the notice of authorities that had the legal power
> to prosecute fraud. On the other hand the FBI did catch
> quite a number of scammers. Perhaps the fraud was so
> wide spread they couldn't keep up.

Which regulators suffered any consequences?

>
> I think a lot of fraud came to light only after the
> mortgage market crashed. The fraud was the result of
> collusion between Borrowers, lenders, real estate
> appraisers, real estate brokers, and credit rating
> agencies. Can you imagine that Prosecuting the millions
> involved might have done more harm than good in an weak
> economy?
>
>
>> The regulators were nothing short of
>> being criminally complicit in massive fraud. And all without suffering a
>> single consequence.'
>
> Is it your theory that the FBI and others charged with
> preventing fraud should be prosecuted for all the fraud
> that they missed? What about the millions that were the

> ones committing the fraud?\

Yup. Just like the schmucks who were told about Madoff and didn't do a
single damn thing about him. The mortgage and financial institution
regulators had been put on notice and distinctly and specifically chose
to lay back.

[Sancho Panza]

Amateur snipping. What you deleted showed how the depositers became
involved in the subprime mortgages. Much to the belated consternation of
folks like the FDIC.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/15/2014 8:04 AM, Sancho Panza wrote:
> On 1/15/2014 10:28 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>
>>
>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/15/2014 8:09 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/14/2014 2:52 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:

No, it is not. CRA is a law that works *AGAINST* the interest of
depositors.

>>>
>>> So what! The fact is still the fact, and it remains
>>> an important part of the history that the regulators
>>> fucked up big time.
>>
>> What regulators are you talking about?
>
> FDIC, Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury, SEC, among many others.
>
>>
>> No doubt that private investors fucked up. I've seen no
>> evidence that bank regulators that were implementing CRA
>> statutes fucked up.
>
> A multitrillion-dollar debacle constitutes crystal-clear evidence in my
> book.
>>
>>
>>> The depositors were
>>> lied to, as were the shareholders.
>>
>> That is called fraud.

The fraud was perpetrated against the depositors by legal mandate - the
banks were *required* to defraud their depositors by making bad loans to
deadbeats with no credit. The name of the law that mandated the fraud
is CRA - the Community 'Reinvestment' [sic] Act.

>
> Which regulators suffered any consequences?
>
>>
>> I think a lot of fraud came to light only after the
>> mortgage market crashed. The fraud was the result of

CRA. Also, the result of the abolition of prudent underwriting
standards at the GSEs, also in pursuit of the left's race obsession.

>>
>>
>>> The regulators were nothing short of
>>> being criminally complicit in massive fraud. And all without suffering a
>>> single consequence.'
>>
>> Is it your theory that the FBI and others charged with
>> preventing fraud

The FBI is not charged with preventing fraud.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/15/2014 8:06 AM, Sancho Panza wrote:
> On 1/15/2014 10:36 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>
>> [...]

CRA was and is *purely* about Democrats' race pandering. That's all it
ever was intended to be.

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> On 1/15/2014 5:09 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
> >
> >
> > [...]
> >>>
> >>> CRA was created to prevent banks from stealing from
> >>> depositors.
>
> False. Not lending to deadbeats is the banks' *obligation* to depositors.

Total ignorant nonsense. The federal govt insures that
depositors will never lose their deposits. Since the
govt picks up the tab if the bank fails the obligation
to not lend to deadbeats is owed to the govt. The govt
routinely closes down banks that make bad loans based
on protecting the govt interest in not paying for failure.
The statutes which allow these closures specifically state
that the power to do so flows from the govt deposit guarantees.

>
> CRA is what *MANDATED* stealing from depositors. CRA mandates making
> loans to bad-credit deadbeats.

That is a made up story. You keep running away
from the facts that prove that your story is false.

> That is stealing from depositors - it
> increases the risk the bank will become insolvent and unable to pay back
> their depositors.

You have no clue how modern banking works.
You are describing how banking worked in the 19th century.
Actually, it describes how banking repeatedly failed in
the 19th century.

Depositors do not lose money when banks become insolvent.
That never happens anymore. The entire regulatory system has
an impeccable record of not permitting that to ever happen.

Deposit guarantee is the very reason a law is needed to prevent banks
from looting their depositors' wealth. Since federal govt has
insured depositor money (since the 1930's) the banks no longer
have a natural stake in the well being of depositors.
In fact without artificially created inducements to serve
depositors most banks would be charging depositors to
hold their money. Banks don't need depositors to create loans.
Loans create new deposits and warehousing deposits are a liability
and a cost to banks. Banks would dump depositors if there were
not a regulatory regime in place that compels banks to serve
the depositors needs and interests.
Included in that, the govt has to make sure that banks do not
steal the wealth of depositors by undermining the property
values in the communities where the banks depositors own
property.

>
> >>
> >> Sure as hell didn't work with Wamu, Wachovia or a slew of other turkeys.
> >
> > That is ignorant nonsense. There is no evidence that CRA did
> > not do exactly what the Congress says it is supposed to do.
>
> It is established beyond rational dispute that CRA was a key element in
> causing the financial system collapse.

You have repeatedly established you don't
know what you are talking about.

[jim]

If it were factual you would be presenting facts instead of
just stories.

[jim]

The Constitution expects equal treatment under the law

for everyone. Any lending standard whether they be high or low

must be applied equally based only on the creditworthiness of
the applicant.

[jim]

That is a story. You cannot produce any order
that required " buying sub-prime loans" or that
required loosening lending standards.
You cannot produce those orders because they
only exist in your fictional stories.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/15/2014 8:37 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> On 1/15/2014 5:09 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:

>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> CRA was created to prevent banks from stealing from
>>>>> depositors.
>>
>> False. Not lending to deadbeats is the banks' *obligation* to depositors.
>
> Total ignorant nonsense.

No, front boy. The banks have a fiduciary obligation to depositors to
make the most prudent loans possible, in order not to incur unreasonable
risk to the depositors and taxpayers. CRA *mandated* that they make
riskier loans.

>> CRA is what *MANDATED* stealing from depositors. CRA mandates making
>> loans to bad-credit deadbeats.
>
> That is

Fact. It's fact - established beyond rational dispute.

>> That is stealing from depositors - it
>> increases the risk the bank will become insolvent and unable to pay back
>> their depositors.
>

> I have no clue how modern banking works.

Correct.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/15/2014 8:38 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

It is factual. You have acknowledged it to be factual. You have
admitted that you are just a shill for a left-wing disinformation
collective - a paid liar.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/15/2014 8:39 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective - that is, a hired liar - lied:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> On 1/15/2014 7:05 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
>> collective, lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are HUD lawsuits against the NON GSE's and they used Liberal
>>>> interpretations of Discrimination laws.
>>>
>>> Discrimination laws have nothing to do with lending
>>> standards.
>>
>> That's your delusional left-wing fairy tale.
>
> The Constitution

You don't know or understand the Constitution.

The Constitution in no way mandates lending to deadbeats. You lied.

Who is paying you to spew left-wing lies and disinformation? Who feeds
you your material? You have admitted you are only the front for some
group. Who is it?

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/15/2014 8:44 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

It is established as unimpeachable fact.

[jim]

The SEC is the only regulator that had authority over
private lending companies like Countrywide that were financed
by private label securities.

The SEC did successfully prosecute Countrywide for fraud.
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2009/2009-129.htm

The justice dept also prosecuted Countrywide for
fraudulent loans that were sold to the GSEs

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/23/news/economy/countrywide-fannie-freddie/

>
> >
> > No doubt that private investors fucked up. I've seen no
> > evidence that bank regulators that were implementing CRA
> > statutes fucked up.
>
> A multitrillion-dollar debacle constitutes crystal-clear evidence in my
> book.

Evidence of what? The mortgage losses were less
than a trillion dollars so what does "multitrillion-dollar
debacle" refer to?

> >
> >
> >> The depositors were
> >> lied to, as were the shareholders.
> >
> > That is called fraud. Is the FBI the regulators you
> > were referring to? There certainly was much fraud that
> > escaped the notice of authorities that had the legal power
> > to prosecute fraud. On the other hand the FBI did catch
> > quite a number of scammers. Perhaps the fraud was so
> > wide spread they couldn't keep up.
>
> Which regulators suffered any consequences?

The regulators didn't commit the fraud. Bank
regulators didn't regulate private lending because
their is very little statutory authority to do so.

The whole reason for forming private mortgage companies
and private financing vehicles was to get away from
bank regulators. The attitude of lawmakers was
private investment money should be free to do what
they want. Do you disagree?

>
> >
> > I think a lot of fraud came to light only after the
> > mortgage market crashed. The fraud was the result of
> > collusion between Borrowers, lenders, real estate
> > appraisers, real estate brokers, and credit rating
> > agencies. Can you imagine that Prosecuting the millions
> > involved might have done more harm than good in an weak
> > economy?
> >
> >
> >> The regulators were nothing short of
> >> being criminally complicit in massive fraud. And all without suffering a
> >> single consequence.'
> >
> > Is it your theory that the FBI and others charged with
> > preventing fraud should be prosecuted for all the fraud
> > that they missed? What about the millions that were the
> > ones committing the fraud?\
>
> Yup. Just like the schmucks who were told about Madoff and didn't do a
> single damn thing about him. The mortgage and financial institution
> regulators had been put on notice and distinctly and specifically chose
> to lay back.

That's your story. It is not the real story.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/15/2014 9:09 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective - that is, a hired liar - lied:
>
>
> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>
>> On 1/15/2014 10:28 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective - that is, a hired liar - lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/15/2014 8:09 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective - that is, a hired liar - lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/14/2014 2:52 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective - that is, a hired liar - lied:

Countrywide was a huge player in CRA-qualifying mortgages. They made
them - millions of them - and then sold them to CRA-mandated banks.

[jim]

Your cut and paste did not even mention "depositors" .

[jim]

If it were factual you would be presenting the facts instead of
telling the same old tired stories.

[jim]

It is a make believe story.

[jim]

That's a story. And a pretty lame one at that.

There are no mandates connected with CRA.
Deposit institutions are simply given a grade on how
good a job they do in lending to the same geographic
area that supplies the deposits. The purpose of
the law is to protect the property interests of depositors.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Just turn it around....


Clinton didn't Stop the GSE's from buying sub Prime Loans, why is that?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebWJ892h5dA
Democrats told us there is NO mortgage crisis.

Because it was a Hidden-BACK_DOOR welfare program.

First the Clinton Regime coersed the banks and GSE's to make and buy the
high risk loans, then they did NOTHING to stop any of the GSE buying of
*HIGH RISK* and high default rate. Andrew Cuomo tells you that it is
what the Clinton Regime wanted and they got it.








--
If you haven't found the lie in what a Liberal told you, then you
didn't dig deep enough.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/15/2014 10:01 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

collective - that is, a hired liar - lied:

>
>

> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>
>> On 1/15/2014 10:36 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective - that is, a hired liar - lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/14/2014 11:51 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective - that is, a hired liar - lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/14/2014 6:49 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective - that is, a hired liar - lied:

>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where were these regulators you speak of? Were they supposed to allow
>>>>>>>> the mortgage markets to collapse?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The lenders that were making the reckless loans were not
>>>>>>> deposit taking banks. The money that was financing the
>>>>>>> reckless loans was not bank deposit money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With repurchasing of the mortgages, bank deposit money most definitely
>>>>>> did become involved. Ask Wamu.
>>>>>
>>>>> After each fairy tale is knocked down you substitute a new
>>>>> fairy tale. There is nothing relevant to be asking WAMU. You are
>>>>> just making up yet another make believe story.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no evidence WAMU used deposit money
>>>>> to fund reckless lending. Washington Mutual holding
>>>>> company owned several subprime lenders
>>>>> whose loans were financed by private money.
>>>>> You have zero evidence that any of WAMUs reckless
>>>>> loans were being financed by deposit money.
>>>>
>>>> No one said they used depositers' funds.
>>>
>>> Then your statement "bank deposit money most definitely
>>> did become involved" was false.

Banks were forced by CRA to lend depositors' money to deadbeats, thereby
putting the depositors' money at risk.

>>>>>> But there are regulations on reckless investments by regulated
>>>>>> institutions. And the regulators were fast asleep in their cozy and
>>>>>> fancy positions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your story is a fairy tale. You come up with nothing but an endless
>>>>> series of made up stories. Every post you come up with a new
>>>>> stories that you can't support. You never base any of your
>>>>> stories on facts or data.
>>>>
>>>> Seeing as how you fail to provide any backup for your sweeping
>>>> assertions, try these facts about the complicity of Wamu on for size:
>>
>> Amateur snipping. What you deleted showed how the depositers became
>> involved in the subprime mortgages. Much to the belated consternation of
>> folks like the FDIC.
>>
>
> Your cut and paste did not even mention "depositors" .

Depositors' money was lent to deadbeats - mandated by CRA.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/15/2014 10:03 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective - that is, a hired liar - lied:

It is factual. I have presented the facts. CRA-mandated lending to
deadbeats and the Democrat-ordered obliteration of underwriting
standards at the GSEs are fact. You cannot dispute them.