‘A lot of people are saying . . . ’: How Trump spreads conspiracies and innuendos

[Mainecat]

1 hour ago, 1jkw said:

What specifically did the dems. do to tip the spear as you say?

What happened is corporate America learned to buy Washington after fighting it for decades. Trade agreements killed us.

We cant compete is a pussy remark.

[Capt.Storm]

4 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Yeah we know the Negroes bankrupted wall street.

 

True dem colors are starting to show through.

[racer254]

2 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

What happened is corporate America learned to buy Washington after fighting it for decades. Trade agreements killed us.

We cant compete is a pussy remark.

Same shit different day with you and snowbeavis.  Give some reasons to why you think this way and not a bunch of left wing talking points, some personal examples and correlate them to specifics.  I bet you can't do that.

[Mainecat]

Just listen to Trump live right now. What an idiot. The RNC has got to be thinking of shooting him.

[Capt.Storm]

.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Capt.Storm

[Edmo]

They can't even raise the interest rate a half a point without fear the whole house of cards will come crashing down. Yep, sounds like a great economy. SMH

[Zambroski]

1 hour ago, 1jkw said:

I don't disagree with that the free trade agreements hurt us, and was signed by a dem. pres. but if you look up those agreements you will find more r's supported them than d's as they have with deregulation, and more R's were behind tpp, giving Obama fast track authority.

As it started to go south, more and more R's pulled away from their approval of it all.  I can't remember the latest number but I think around 60-70% of R's think it was a bad thing for us and want it reworked vs. about 30-40% of Dems.  I still don't see how the Union heads keep throwing support to the Dems, although, this time there was definitely some "ripples" getting the AFL-CIO to back Hillary.  I haven't read up on it yet but it may be interesting.

54 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

BULLFUCKING SHIT.

Well.....you convinced me then!  Nice work!

10 minutes ago, Edmo said:

They can't even raise the interest rate a half a point without fear the whole house of cards will come crashing down. Yep, sounds like a great economy. SMH

Truth.  But the inflation isn't really there yet either.  Consumers really don't have the money to spend or are not spending it (consumer confidence). The start of significant inflation will signal rate changes.  And the Fed continuing to "yap" about higher rates is killing confidence.  The wicked webs......

Edited June 15, 2016 by Zambroski

[1jkw]

2 hours ago, Momorider said:

 Clinton deregulation was 100% responsible for allowing the derivatives that lead of the 2008 collapse, dupe 

You mean the GLB act, the one sponsored by 3 republicans, the one  that every r senator and only one dem. senator for and far more r congressman voted for than dems. did?

[Mainecat]

1 hour ago, racer254 said:

Same shit different day with you and snowbeavis.  Give some reasons to why you think this way and not a bunch of left wing talking points, some personal examples and correlate them to specifics.  I bet you can't do that.

Are you this stupid? You think money has not influenced politics?

[racer254]

2 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Are you this stupid? You think money has not influenced politics?

I didn't ask that, I asked why you have these views and why you seem to think that the left is immune to that corporate money?

[1jkw]

17 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

As it started to go south, mre and more R's pulled away from their approval of it all.  I can't remember the latest number but I think around 60-70% of R's think it was a bad thing for us and want it reworked vs. about 30-40% of Dems.  I still don't see how the Union heads keep throwing support to the Dems, although, this time there was definitely some "ripples" getting the AFL-CIO to back Hillary.  I haven't read up on it yet but it may be interesting.

Well.....you convinced me then!  Nice work!

Truth.  But the inflation isn't really there yet either.  Consumers really don't have the money to spend or are not spending it (consumer confidence). The start of significant inflation will signal rate changes.  And the Fed continuing to "yap" about higher rates is killing confidence.  The wicked webs......

There were more r's than d's for it in the beginning and probably still are, and if by going south you mean unpopular you are right and that's why support is falling.

[1jkw]

2 hours ago, Capt.Storm said:

No it wasn't. at that time as long as the person was breathing you better let the loan through or you would be called out on it..true story.

Not true at all, the rules were that they needed to be capable of getting PMI, if they couldn't it was the end of the process, until the bright idea of credit default swaps came into play.

There is a reason why every bank didn't go tits up. BECAUSE THEY FOLLOWED THE RULES.

[Capt.Storm]

Just now, 1jkw said:

Not true at all, the rules were that they needed to be capable of getting PMI, if they couldn't it was the end of the process, until the bright idea of credit default swaps came into play.

There is a reason why every bank didn't go tits up. BECAUSE THEY FOLLOWED THE RULES.

Whatever you say chief.

Truth is enough went bad to fawk things up that didn't happen till Clinton.

[1jkw]

46 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

Whatever you say chief.

Truth is enough went bad to fawk things up that didn't happen till Clinton.

Truth is they didn't go bad until 6 1/2 to 7 years under W's term, so using your logic W had 7 years to make things better.

The GLB act was a republican sponsored bill voted  on by far more r's than d's.

[Capt.Storm]

Just now, 1jkw said:

Truth is they didn't go bad until 6 1/2 to 7 years under W's term, so using your logic W had 7 years to make things better.

The GLB act was a republican sponsored bill voted  on by far more r's than d's.

You're just no fawkin' fun.

[1jkw]

3 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

You're just no fawkin' fun.

Yes I know facts can sometimes suck.

I spent hours talking to my banks CEO, the rules compliance officer and a federal bank regulator not all at the same time, but I wanted to know what happened  from people who were in the know.

It was greed and a perfect storm of smart and crooked bankers and a lack of oversight by the federal regulators.

[Capt.Storm]

3 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

Yes I know facts can sometimes suck.

I spent hours talking to my banks CEO, the rules compliance officer and a federal bank regulator not all at the same time, but I wanted to know what happened  from people who were in the know.

It was greed and a perfect storm of smart and crooked bankers and a lack of oversight by the federal regulators.

Well I guess I would rather agree to disagree..but hey.

Probably some of both.

[1jkw]

4 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

Well I guess I would rather agree to disagree..but hey.

Probably some of both.

If you have any facts to prove otherwise on this or any subject I'm willing to learn, being proven wrong is no sin, I look at it as education, that's why I don't engage in the name calling except with a select few and I mostly just ignore them.

[Capt.Storm]

5 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

If you have any facts to prove otherwise on this or any subject I'm willing to learn, being proven wrong is no sin, I look at it as education, that's why I don't engage in the name calling except with a select few and I mostly just ignore them.

Ok but lets start with the present time frame then work backwards .

The Obama administration is doing its best to give the nation another mortgage meltdown.

As Paul Sperry recently noted in The Post, Team Obama has pushed mortgage lenders to offer home loans to folks with shaky credit, setting up conditions for another housing-market collapse.

Wasn’t the last one bad enough?

Credit scores of approved borrowers, for example, have been trending down, even as their debt levels have grown.

The Federal Housing Administration and government-sponsored “independent” lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been demanding lower credit standards — just as the feds did starting under President Bill Clinton, in pursuit of the same “affordable housing” goal.

Some borrowers need only put 3 percent down to get a Fannie Mae loan — even if the downpayment is a gift. Fannie also has started up a new subprime lending program.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency recently warned that mortgage underwriting standards have slipped and now reflect “broad trends similar to those experienced from 2005 through 2007, before the most recent financial crisis.”

When the economy and housing prices turn south again, a lot of these loans will go bad, just as they did last time.

Good news: That probably won’t cause another global financial crisis, because the banks largely learned their lesson on that front back in 2008.

Bad news: The taxpayers will likely wind up on the hook. Directly or indirectly, Uncle Sam has been responsible for insuring at least 80 percent of new mortgages since 2008.

President Obama loves to cite “the definition of insanity” as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”

Which prompts the question: Is he expecting these disastrous mortgage policies to bring a different result this time?

http://nypost.com/2016/04/09/team-obama-is-setting-us-up-for-another-housing-market-collapse/

FILED UNDER BARACK OBAMA ,  EDITORIAL ,  HOUSING ,  MORTGAGES

 

Edited June 15, 2016 by Capt.Storm

[1jkw]

8 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

Ok but lets start with the present time frame then work backwards .

The Obama administration is doing its best to give the nation another mortgage meltdown.

As Paul Sperry recently noted in The Post, Team Obama has pushed mortgage lenders to offer home loans to folks with shaky credit, setting up conditions for another housing-market collapse.

Wasn’t the last one bad enough?

Credit scores of approved borrowers, for example, have been trending down, even as their debt levels have grown.

The Federal Housing Administration and government-sponsored “independent” lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been demanding lower credit standards — just as the feds did starting under President Bill Clinton, in pursuit of the same “affordable housing” goal.

Some borrowers need only put 3 percent down to get a Fannie Mae loan — even if the downpayment is a gift. Fannie also has started up a new subprime lending program.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency recently warned that mortgage underwriting standards have slipped and now reflect “broad trends similar to those experienced from 2005 through 2007, before the most recent financial crisis.”

When the economy and housing prices turn south again, a lot of these loans will go bad, just as they did last time.

Good news: That probably won’t cause another global financial crisis, because the banks largely learned their lesson on that front back in 2008.

Bad news: The taxpayers will likely wind up on the hook. Directly or indirectly, Uncle Sam has been responsible for insuring at least 80 percent of new mortgages since 2008.

President Obama loves to cite “the definition of insanity” as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”

Which prompts the question: Is he expecting these disastrous mortgage policies to bring a different result this time?

http://nypost.com/2016/04/09/team-obama-is-setting-us-up-for-another-housing-market-collapse/

FILED UNDER BARACK OBAMA ,  EDITORIAL ,  HOUSING ,  MORTGAGES

 

Is PMI required for these mortgages ?

In the red it says the fed started asking under Clinton and it has continued apparently, the lowering of standards now or then will not have the devastating effects if the borrower has PMI, insurance companies write policies backed by cash, the credit default swaps were written by companies who didn't have the cash to back them, as long as they are insured if they default the insurance company will pay the mortgage not the FDIC.

[Capt.Storm]

Just now, 1jkw said:

Is PMI required for these mortgages ?

In the red it says the fed started asking under Clinton and it has continued apparently, the lowering of standards now or then will not have the devastating effects if the borrower has PMI, insurance companies write policies backed by cash, the credit default swaps were written by companies who didn't have the cash to back them, as long as they are insured if they default the insurance company will pay the mortgage not the FDIC.

Look dude,

I don't know if pmi was required on those sub-prime loans or not..you would need to consult with your bankers again I guess.

I'm too bored to even google the pmi part of it.

But either way all this was pushed by the feds.

I think I have proven that.

[Capt.Storm]

What the feds did was to try and improve the economy to make things look good at the cost of the tax payers.

And you better believe that's a true story.

Government can't really make a great economy..they can only get in the way of it.  

[1jkw]

3 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

Look dude,

I don't know if pmi was required on those sub-prime loans or not..you would need to consult with your bankers again I guess.

I'm too bored to even google the pmi part of it.

But either way all this was pushed by the feds.

I think I have proven that.

I never said it wasn't pushed by the feds or independent lenders, I said that PMI was required and was replaced with CDS's when borrowers were unable to get PMI or the lender just waived even looking and went the CDS route.

There is a reason every bank didn't go under or write these type of loans , they were honest and did what was best for the bank and its stockholders, the worst part is very few were ever prosecuted, even though huge fine were paid, if you or I stole 500.00 bucks we would end up in jail for sure, rob billions no jail time.

[Capt.Storm]

7 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

I never said it wasn't pushed by the feds or independent lenders, I said that PMI was required and was replaced with CDS's when borrowers were unable to get PMI or the lender just waived even looking and went the CDS route.

There is a reason every bank didn't go under or write these type of loans , they were honest and did what was best for the bank and its stockholders, the worst part is very few were ever prosecuted, even though huge fine were paid, if you or I stole 500.00 bucks we would end up in jail for sure, rob billions no jail time.

I know what you're trying to say and yes some banks covered their ass's better then others.

Some banks did take advantage of the situation and gave out really stupid loans then bundled them with good ones and sold them..no doubt..but some where better at that game then others.

 

All I wanted to prove was that Bill was behind that push..or at least the people under his leadership were.

 

But hey nice discussing this with you without all the name calling.

Oh and fanny mac and mae were not "independent" lenders back then.

Most say they really are not now either. dunno.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Capt.Storm

[Capt.Storm]

Freddie mac and mae are two diff deals but similar.

Both are a way to get the gov into that kind of banking ..to back bad home loans to make things look better.

That's why some banks didn't care if the loans failed because really the gov was backing them..but the backing came at a cost to the taxpayers by way of a gov bail out to those two gov institutions.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Capt.Storm