PDA

View Full Version : It wasn't us.



Qtec
03-16-2010, 04:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Remember Rick Santelli's rant that put the bow on the tea party movement for FOX News? The media seems to willfully forget how important this rant was to mobilize them <span style='font-size: 20pt'>and shift the blame for the mortgage crisis from Santelli's Wall Street fat cats to the working class.</span> <u>The poor under-appreciated mortgage lenders and CEO's were the victims of people who couldn't afford to pay for a mortgage because they were too stupid to understand the legal documents, but got themselves a house anyway.</u>

CNBC had one of their talking head panels with Larry Kudlow at the helm which focused on financial reform and the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Once the idea of predatory lending comes up the CNBCers get their freak on and blamed the uneducated poor people for all the destruction the housing bubble caused during the Bush administration as usual except for Janet Takakoli.</span>

Matt Taibbi takes the lead:

Look at about the 5-minute mark of this video — Janet Tavakoli debating Rick Santelli about predatory lending.<u> You basically have a whole panel of CNBC goons pooh-poohing the idea that predatory lending took place, setting up the inevitable revisionist history that the 2008 crash was caused by individual homeowners borrowing beyond their means.</u>

My favorite part of this comes roughly at the six-minute mark. Tavakoli has just deftly explained how a lot of the predatory practices worked — people with limited financial literacy were presented with long and complicated mortgage deals, and told they would have a fixed payment in perpetuity or a guaranteed re-finance, or were nailed by fraudulent appraisals.<span style='font-size: 20pt'> Then she mentioned the big one, the fact that investment banks then took all these mortgages and with eyes wide open securitized them and sold them off as worthy investments to suckers on the other end of the chain.</span>

While she’s saying all this stuff, Santelli, who is one of the fathers of the Tea Party movement, is shaking his head furiously, video-scoffing at everything she’s saying. When he finally does get a chance to speak, this is what he says:

<u>Here’s my problem with this. It takes two to tango. You can’t cheat an honest man.

You can’t cheat an honest man? What the f*&k does that mean? This whole scene sort of encapsulates what’s wrong with the Tea Party movement</u>

Amen, brother Taibbi. Not many people watch these CNBC programs, but this is the narrative that Santelli and his brethren like Melissa Francis have helped to propagate into the main stream.

Digby caught Taibbi's post and observes Santelli at his circus clown best:

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Fox/CNBC types have very cannily latched on this narrative to rewrite the history of the financial crisis. They know that Tea Partiers will go for any narrative that puts blame on poor (and especially poor minority) homeowners, because the idea of poor blacks and Hispanics borrowing beyond their means fits seamlessly with their world view. But this is a situation where poor minorities were really incidental to a much larger fraud scheme that culminated in a welfare program — the bank bailouts — that dwarfs the entire “entitlement” infrastructure. But the millions of people who are actually in the Tea Party movement seem to have absolutely no idea that their so-called leaders, the Santellis of their world, are shilling for tax cheats and crooks and welfare bums of the sort they would despise (perhaps even more than their black and Hispanic neighbors), if they could actually see them.
</span>
Unfortunately all the elites, political and otherwise, have a vested interest in keeping the rubes focused on the blacks and browns so it's hard to see the mechanism by which they will be revealed. And that's the whole purpose of right wing populism.</div></div>

link (http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/rick-santelli-still-shills-predatory-le)

Q

LWW
03-16-2010, 09:18 AM
Predatory lending.

Explain this.

How does a lender make a loan to someone who defaults and the lender makes out?

Seriously ... this phrase is tossed about mindlessly and incessantly with no intellectual thought as to the meaning of the words used.

It should have been called predatory borrowing.

It could also have been called predatory loan guarantees.

I agree that many of the people who took out these loans were victims of the public school system who couldn't read the docs much less follow them.

I also know that in a normal market they would never have qualified for loans.

Their only means of getting them was ACORN's thug tactics forcing lenders to make riskier loans to keep the state off their back and the ACORN goons out of their lobby.

When that ran out they petitioned FANNIE/FREDDIE to lower the quality of loans they would guarantee by requiring lower downstrokes.

When that ran out they petitioned FANNIE/FREDDIE to lower the quality of loans they would guarantee by requiring lower credit scores.

When that ran out they petitioned FANNIE/FREDDIE to lower the quality of loans they would guarantee by requiring lower income requirements.

When that ran out they petitioned FANNIE/FREDDIE to lower the quality of loans they would guarantee by requiring less documentation.

When that ran out they petitioned FANNIE/FREDDIE to lower the quality of loans they would guarantee by requiring fewer assets.

When that ran out they petitioned FANNIE/FREDDIE to lower the quality of loans they would guarantee by requiring no documentation.

When that ran out they and FANNIE/FREDDIE was found to be filled with fraudsters they petitioned congress to keep the regulators at bay.

When that ran out they and the house of cards collapsed they blamed Bush.

When that ran out they petitioned congress to recapitalize the banks to cover the billions in bad paper FANNIE/FREDDIE had guaranteed.

Now they set to make yet another run at the treasury.

But, you have no time to face the reality.

LWW

sack316
03-16-2010, 09:20 AM
Yep, and all the way back to 1977.

Sack

Gayle in MD
03-16-2010, 11:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Remember Rick Santelli's rant that put the bow on the tea party movement for FOX News? The media seems to willfully forget how important this rant was to mobilize them <span style='font-size: 20pt'>and shift the blame for the mortgage crisis from Santelli's Wall Street fat cats to the working class.</span> <u>The poor under-appreciated mortgage lenders and CEO's were the victims of people who couldn't afford to pay for a mortgage because they were too stupid to understand the legal documents, but got themselves a house anyway.</u>

CNBC had one of their talking head panels with Larry Kudlow at the helm which focused on financial reform and the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Once the idea of predatory lending comes up the CNBCers get their freak on and blamed the uneducated poor people for all the destruction the housing bubble caused during the Bush administration as usual except for Janet Takakoli.</span>

Matt Taibbi takes the lead:

Look at about the 5-minute mark of this video — Janet Tavakoli debating Rick Santelli about predatory lending.<u> You basically have a whole panel of CNBC goons pooh-poohing the idea that predatory lending took place, setting up the inevitable revisionist history that the 2008 crash was caused by individual homeowners borrowing beyond their means.</u>

My favorite part of this comes roughly at the six-minute mark. Tavakoli has just deftly explained how a lot of the predatory practices worked — people with limited financial literacy were presented with long and complicated mortgage deals, and told they would have a fixed payment in perpetuity or a guaranteed re-finance, or were nailed by fraudulent appraisals.<span style='font-size: 20pt'> Then she mentioned the big one, the fact that investment banks then took all these mortgages and with eyes wide open securitized them and sold them off as worthy investments to suckers on the other end of the chain.</span>

While she’s saying all this stuff, Santelli, who is one of the fathers of the Tea Party movement, is shaking his head furiously, video-scoffing at everything she’s saying. When he finally does get a chance to speak, this is what he says:

<u>Here’s my problem with this. It takes two to tango. You can’t cheat an honest man.

You can’t cheat an honest man? What the f*&k does that mean? This whole scene sort of encapsulates what’s wrong with the Tea Party movement</u>

Amen, brother Taibbi. Not many people watch these CNBC programs, but this is the narrative that Santelli and his brethren like Melissa Francis have helped to propagate into the main stream.

Digby caught Taibbi's post and observes Santelli at his circus clown best:

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Fox/CNBC types have very cannily latched on this narrative to rewrite the history of the financial crisis. They know that Tea Partiers will go for any narrative that puts blame on poor (and especially poor minority) homeowners, because the idea of poor blacks and Hispanics borrowing beyond their means fits seamlessly with their world view. But this is a situation where poor minorities were really incidental to a much larger fraud scheme that culminated in a welfare program — the bank bailouts — that dwarfs the entire “entitlement” infrastructure. But the millions of people who are actually in the Tea Party movement seem to have absolutely no idea that their so-called leaders, the Santellis of their world, are shilling for tax cheats and crooks and welfare bums of the sort they would despise (perhaps even more than their black and Hispanic neighbors), if they could actually see them.
</span>
Unfortunately all the elites, political and otherwise, have a vested interest in keeping the rubes focused on the blacks and browns so it's hard to see the mechanism by which they will be revealed. And that's the whole purpose of right wing populism.</div></div>

link (http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/rick-santelli-still-shills-predatory-le)

Q </div></div>


The predatory lenders didn't care if the loans were paid or not, they knew they were going to sell them off before sundown anyway.

Only the more ignorant Americans can be swayed into blaming the crises on the poor. It was the big cats, investors, who bought up real estate, four and five properties, held onto it, and then left the keys on the kitchen counter.

It was predatory lenders, Wall STreet Fat Cats, complex financial instruments, Greenspan, with those ridiculously low interest rates, to support Bush's "Ownership Society"

It's really absurd that the right tries to blame the poor. Stunning ignorance, like the same ignorance the supports the idea that Republicans are better at keeping AMerica safe!

Incredible!

G.

Gayle in MD
03-16-2010, 11:12 AM
From Business Week:

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis
Posted by: Aaron Pressman on September 29, 2008

Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act — a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”

Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley (PDF file here).

Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market. Oops.

Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt. (Barry Ritholtz had an excellent and more comprehensive survey of how Washington contributed to the crisis in this week’s Barron’s.)

There’s plenty more good reading on the CRA and the subprime crisis out in the blogosphere. Ellen Seidman, who headed the Office of Thrift Supervision in the late 90s, has written several fact-filled posts about the CRA controversey, including one just last week. University of Oregon professor and economist Mark Thoma has also defended the CRA on his blog. I also learned something from a post back in April by Robert Gordon, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, which ends with this ditty:




It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness.

</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">Blaming Fannie and Freddie, or the CRA, Stunning ignorance! About at the same level as the "Birthers" the "Deathers" and the Tea Party members, radically ignorant and dangerous!</span>

eg8r
03-16-2010, 05:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Only the more ignorant Americans can be swayed into blaming the crises on the poor.</div></div>Only the more ignorant Americans can be swayed into believe the "poor" (actually it affected the poor all the way to the rich but your argument sounds better when you limit your grouping) had no responsibility at all for their actions.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's really absurd that the right tries to blame the poor.</div></div>It is really absurd that the left tries to give the poor a free ride.

eg8r

eg8r
03-16-2010, 05:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How does a lender make a loan to someone who defaults and the lender makes out?</div></div>It is very easy to understand this. Have you never seen your mortgage get sold to another institution? It happened to me a few times when I bought my first house. The lender that sold the mortgage to the next person made his cut, that is how he "makes out". The person/bank that loses is the one that bought the bad loan.

This is the bank's fault just as much as it is the borrower's fault.

eg8r

wolfdancer
03-16-2010, 05:53 PM
I thought this was pretty well known by now....and the other part of the story, is that these same people then combined, repackaged these hi-risk loans and sold them to the local rubes managing Banks.
I remember one talking head saying if you weren't lending, you weren't in the game.
You could get a better deal on those ARMs from your local Capo...

Qtec
03-17-2010, 01:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree that many of the people who took out these loans were victims of the public school system who couldn't read the docs much less follow them.

I also know that in a normal market they would never have qualified for loans.

Their only means of getting them was ACORN's thug tactics forcing lenders to make riskier loans to keep the state off their back and the ACORN goons out of their lobby. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON HOMEOWNERSHIP
at the Department of Housing and Urban Development
Washington, D.C.
June 18, 2002, 10:30 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you all very much for that kind welcome. I'm here for a couple of reasons. First, I want to thank you all for your service to the greatest nation on the face of the Earth. (Applause.) I'm here to celebrate National Homeownership Month, because I believe owning a home is an essential part of economic security. And I'm concerned about the security of America. (Applause.)


...... But I believe owning something is a part of the American Dream, as well. I believe when somebody owns their own home, they're realizing the American Dream. They can say it's my home, it's nobody else's home. (Applause.) And we saw that yesterday in Atlanta, when we went to the new homes of the new homeowners. And I saw with pride firsthand, the man say, welcome to my home. He didn't say, welcome to government's home; he didn't say, welcome to my neighbor's home; he said, welcome to my home. I own the home, and you're welcome to come in the home, and I appreciate it. (Applause.) He was a proud man. He was proud that he owns the property. And I was proud for him. And I want that pride to extend all throughout our country.

One of the things that we've got to do is to address problems straight on and deal with them in a way that helps us meet goals. And so I want to talk about a couple of goals and -- one goal and a problem.

The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so. The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America. Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics own homes. That ownership gap signals that something might be wrong in the land of plenty. And we need to do something about it.

<u>We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems. So I've set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 -- million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) Five-and-a-half million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a realistic goal.</u> But it's going to mean we're going to have to work hard to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the federal government, but the private sector, as well.

And so I want to, one, encourage you to do everything you can to work in a realistic, smart way to get this done. I repeat, we're here for a reason. And part of the reason is to make this dream extend everywhere.

I'm going to do my part by setting the goal, by reminding people of the goal, by heralding the goal, and by calling people into action, both the federal level, state level, local level, and in the private sector. (Applause.)

And so what are the barriers that we can deal with here in Washington? <u>Well, probably the single barrier to first-time homeownership is high down payments. People take a look at the down payment, they say that's too high, I'm not buying. They may have the desire to buy, but they don't have the wherewithal to handle the down payment. We can deal with that. And so I've asked Congress to fully fund an American Dream down payment fund which will help a low-income family to qualify to buy, to buy.</u> (Applause.)

We believe when this fund is fully funded and properly administered, which it will be under the Bush administration, that over 40,000 families a year -- 40,000 families a year -- will be able to realize the dream we want them to be able to realize, and that's owning their own home. (Applause.)

The second barrier to ownership is the lack of affordable housing. There are neighborhoods in America where you just can't find a house that's affordable to purchase, and we need to deal with that problem. The best way to do so, I think, is to set up a single family affordable housing tax credit to the tune of $2.4 billion over the next five years to encourage affordable single family housing in inner-city America. (Applause.)

<u>The third problem is the fact that the rules are too complex. People get discouraged by the fine print on the contracts. They take a look and say, well, I'm not so sure I want to sign this. There's too many words. (Laughter.) There's too many pitfalls. So one of the things that the Secretary is going to do is he's going to simplify the closing documents and all the documents that have to deal with homeownership.</u>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>It is essential that we make it easier for people to buy a home</span>, not harder. And in order to do so, we've got to educate folks. Some of us take homeownership for granted, but there are people -- obviously, the home purchase is a significant, significant decision by our fellow Americans. We've got people who have newly arrived to our country, don't know the customs. We've got people in certain neighborhoods that just aren't really sure what it means to buy a home. And it seems like to us that it makes sense to have a outreach program, an education program that explains the whys and wherefores of buying a house, to make it easier for people to not only understand the legal implications and ramifications, but to make it easier to understand how to get a good loan.

There's some people out there that can fall prey to unscrupulous lenders, and we have an obligation to educate and to use our resource base to help people understand how to purchase a home and what -- where the good opportunities might exist for home purchasing.

Finally, we want to make sure the Section 8 homeownership program is fully implemented. This is a program that provides vouchers for first-time home buyers which they can use for down payments and/or mortgage payments. (Applause.)

So this is an ambitious start here at the federal level. And, again, I repeat, you all need to help us every way you can. But the private sector needs to help, too. They need to help, too. Of course, it's in their interest. If you're a realtor, it's in your interest that somebody be interested in buying a home. If you're a homebuilder, it's in your interest that somebody be interested in buying a home.

And so, therefore, I've called -- yesterday, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>I called upon the private sector to help us and help the home buyers. We need more capital in the private markets for first-time, low-income buyers. And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and, as I understand, it's about $440 billion over a period of time. They've used their influence to create that much capital available for the type of home buyer we're talking about here. It's in their charter; it now needs to be implemented. Freddie Mac is interested in helping. I appreciate both of those agencies providing the underpinnings of good capital.</span>

There's a lot of faith-based programs that want to be involved with educating people about how to buy a home. And we're going to have an active outreach from HUD. (Applause.)

And so this ambitious goal is going to be met. I believe it will be, just so long as we keep focused, and remember that security at home is -- economic security at home is just an important part of -- as homeland security. And owning a home is part of that economic security. It's also a part of making sure that this country fulfills its great hope and vision. </div></div>


Did you say ACORN?

See also this (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=1)

Q

Gayle in MD
03-17-2010, 01:09 AM
Blew that Acorn BS away pretty efficiently, didn't ya! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif