Open Season on Trump......

Discussion in 'Offtopic Lounge' started by basicstrategy777, Jan 6, 2016.

  1. basicstrategy777, Jan 6, 2016

    basicstrategy777

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    9,269
    Likes Received:
    8,487
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CT.
    What I See Happening In a Trump Presidency - By Bill Bennett

    They will kill him before they let him be president. It could be a Republican or a Democrat that instigates the shutting up of Trump. Don’t be surprised if Trump has an accident. Some people are getting very nervous: Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Jon Corzine, to name just a few. It's about the unholy dynamics between big government, big business, and big media. They all benefit by the billions of dollars from this partnership, and it's in all of their interests to protect one another. It's one for all and all for one.

    It’s a heck of a filthy relationship that makes everyone filthy rich, everyone except the American people. We get ripped off. We’re the patsies. But for once, the powerful socialist cabal and the corrupt crony capitalists are scared. The over-the-top reaction to Trump by politicians of both parties, the media, and the biggest corporations of America has been so swift and insanely angry that it suggests they are all threatened and frightened.

    Donald Trump can self-fund. No matter how much they say to the contrary, the media, business, and political elite understand that Trump is no joke. He could actually win and upset their nice cozy apple cart.

    It's no coincidence that everyone has gotten together to destroy The Donald. It's because most of the other politicians are part of a good old boys club. They talk big, but they won’t change a thing. They are all beholden to big-money donors. They are all owned by lobbyists, unions, lawyers, gigantic environmental organizations, and multinational corporations – like Big Pharmacy or Big Oil. Or they are owned lock, stock, and barrel by foreigners like George Soros owns Obama or foreign governments own Hillary and their Clinton Foundation donations.

    These run-of-the-mill establishment politicians are all puppets owned by big money. But there's one man who isn't beholden to anyone. There's one man who doesn't need foreigners, or foreign governments, or George Soros, or the United Auto Workers, or the teacher's union, or the Service Employees International Union, or the Bar Association to fund his campaign.

    Billionaire tycoon and maverick Donald Trump does not need anyone’s help. That means he doesn’t care what the media says. He doesn’t care what the corporate elites think. That makes him very dangerous to the entrenched interests. That makes Trump a huge threat to those people. Trump can ruin everything for the bribed politicians and their spoiled slave masters.

    Don’t you ever wonder why the GOP has never tried to impeach Obama? Don’t you wonder why John Boehner and Mitch McConnell talk a big game, but never actually try to stop Obama? Don’t you wonder why Congress holds the purse strings, yet has never tried to de-fund Obamacare or Obama’s clearly illegal executive action on amnesty for illegal aliens? Bizarre, right? It defies logic, right?

    First, I'd guess many key Republicans are being bribed. Secondly, I believe many key Republicans are being blackmailed. Whether they are having affairs, or secretly gay, or stealing taxpayer money, the National Security Agency knows everything.

    Ask former House Speaker Dennis Hastert about that. The government even knew he was withdrawing large sums of his own money from his own bank account. The NSA, the SEC, the IRS, and all the other three-letter government agencies are watching every Republican political leader. They survey everything. Thirdly, many Republicans are petrified of being called racists, so they are scared to ever criticize Obama or call out his crimes, let alone demand his impeachment. Fourth , why rock the boat? After defeat or retirement, if you’re a good old boy, you’ve got a $5 million-per-year lobbying job waiting. The big-money interests have the system gamed. Win or lose, they win.

    But Trump doesn’t play by any of these rules. Trump breaks up this nice, cozy relationship between big government, big media, and big business. All the rules are out the window if Trump wins the Presidency. The other politicians will protect Obama and his aides but not Trump. Remember: Trump is the guy who publicly questioned Obama's birth certificate. He questioned Obama's college records and how a mediocre student got into an Ivy League university. Now, he's doing something no Republican has the chutzpah to do. He's questioning our relationship with Mexico; he's questioning why the border is wide open; he's questioning why no wall has been built across the border; he's questioning if allowing millions of illegal aliens into America is in our best interests; he's questioning why so many illegal aliens commit violent crimes, yet are not deported; and he's questioning why our trade deals with Mexico, Russia and China are so bad.

    Trump has the audacity to ask out loud why American workers always get the short end of the stick. Good question! I'm certain Trump will question what happened to the almost billion dollars given in a rigged no-bid contract to college friends of Michelle Obama at foreign companies to build the defective Obamacare website. By the way, that tab is now up to $5 billion. Trump will ask if Obamacare's architects can be charged with fraud for selling it by lying. Trump will investigate Obama's widespread IRS conspiracy, not to mention Obama's college records. Trump will prosecute Clinton and Obama for fraud committed to cover up Benghazi before the election. How about the fraud committed by employees of the Labor Department when they made up dramatic job numbers in the last jobs report before the 2012 election?

    Obama, the multinational corporations and the media need to stop Trump. They recognize this could get out of control. If left unchecked, telling the raw truth and asking questions everyone else is afraid to ask, Trump could wake a sleeping giant. Trump's election would be a nightmare. Obama has committed many crimes. No one else but Trump would dare to prosecute. He will not hesitate. Once Trump gets in and gets a look at the cooked books and Obama's records, the game is over. The jig is up. The goose is cooked. Holder could wind up in prison. Jarrett could wind up in prison. Obama bundler Corzine could wind up in prison for losing $1.5 billion of customer money. Clinton could wind up in jail for deleting 32,000 emails or for accepting bribes from foreign governments while Secretary of State, or for misplacing $6 billion as the head of the State Department, or for lying about Benghazi. The entire upper level management of the IRS could wind up in prison.

    Obamacare will be de-funded and dismantled. Obama himself could wind up ruined, his legacy in tatters. Trump will investigate. Trump will prosecute. Trump will go after everyone involved. That’s why the dogs of hell have been unleashed on Donald Trump.

    Yes, it's become open season on Donald Trump. The left and the right are determined to attack his policies, harm his businesses, and, if possible, even keep him out of the coming debates. But they can't silence him. And they sure can't intimidate him. The more they try, the more the public will realize that he's the one telling the truth.

    Your thoughts Fly



    777
     
    #1
  2. six shooter, Jan 6, 2016

    six shooter

    six shooter Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2013
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    79
    Location:
    Michigan
    One thing people don't talk about, if he is elected President, he doesn't owe anything to anybody. He would surround himself with the best people to make the best decisions for our Country. Not placing a unqualified person in a position because you worked on their campaign. Both republicans and democrats are guilty of this. Can any person tell me one accomplishments from an Obama appointed czar. He would lay to waste so many useless people taking up space in government positions feeding off the trough. We need a change and only one outsider is capable of making the change needed!
     
    #2
  3. Grizzoola, Jan 6, 2016

    Grizzoola

    Grizzoola Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    517
    If Trump doesn't have a Congress to support him (in whatever un-detailed programs he has), he'll be just like Obama.
     
    #3
  4. Settingcanthurt, Jan 6, 2016

    Settingcanthurt

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    4,975
    Likes Received:
    3,498
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Flyover below the tundra
    Griz were you paying attention AT ALL on Obama's first two years???
     
    #4
  5. Settingcanthurt, Jan 6, 2016

    Settingcanthurt

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    4,975
    Likes Received:
    3,498
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Flyover below the tundra
    In My dreams. Along with "fast & Furious"
     
    #5
  6. Grizzoola, Jan 6, 2016

    Grizzoola

    Grizzoola Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    517
    All I remember is that Obama's first 2 years was trying to avoid another Great Depression brought about by your hero, G.W. Bush. So, what's your take on Obama's first 2 years?
     
    #6
  7. basicstrategy777, Jan 7, 2016

    basicstrategy777

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    9,269
    Likes Received:
    8,487
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CT.
    It would probably be the wrong decision....but I would have let the company's that miscalculated due to bad management decisions go under....no bailout.

    It would have been very hurtful to many but capitalizm is the survival of the fittest. If you can't cut it your out. Ultimately, I believe, the country would have been stronger financially, and all citizens would be better off. As a gov't I would have taken extra measures to help citizens; don't know what form that would be.

    I would love to hear, different senario's by the 'experts', on what would have happened to the country if no bailout was done by the gov't.

    As far as I'm concerned, obama never had to look for a job when he got out of college and experience what young people have to face today. He never really had a job....his background was not American and his formative years molded him to do what he did to America. The combination of no experience and his upbringing was disasterous for this country. This is my opinion..I know you think he did/is doing a great job.

    777
     
    #7
    Pressit likes this.
  8. basicstrategy777, Jan 7, 2016

    basicstrategy777

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    9,269
    Likes Received:
    8,487
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CT.
    Grizz....you might enjoy this:

    Obama and the Insanity of the Liberal Mind
    By Lauri B. Regan




    In his masterpiece, Common Sense, Thomas Paine observed:

    Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.
    Paine may have been discussing the British monarch circa 1776, but his insight is equally applicable to Obama and Co., who reign like kings while exhibiting ignorance and incompetence. This is particularly surprising, given that many liberal policymakers, including Obama, are highly educated, and therefore presumably adept at critical thinking and analysis. But after seven years of Obama leading the Democratic Party in insane notions of transforming the country, it is clear that rational thought and common sense are skill sets greatly lacking among liberal elites.

    Whether blinded by ideology, motivated by egocentrism and nihilism, or solely focused on their goals of destroying America’s exceptionalism (while ensuring that Democrats rule forever), liberals are incapable of scientific inquiry, common sense analyses, and reason. Their irrationality is best illustrated by examining some of the faux wars they have chosen to fight and the real ones in which they have surrendered.

    Global Warming: The fight against anthropological global warming, manmade climate change, or what normal people simply refer to as “weather”, has been a cause celebre of the left since Al Gore jumped onboard the gravy train a decade ago. Much like other liberal causes, this war has become a religion for its proponents. However, environmentalists have become religious fanatics who pronounce the science “settled” and consider any views to the contrary blasphemy. They urge the prosecution of skeptics including one Democratic senator suggesting that “climate denial” should be made a “crime against humanity.”

    Liberals are so blinded by their nihilism that they proclaim this the greatest threat to mankind notwithstanding the global proliferation of Islamic terrorism, an imminently nuclear Iran, nuclear-armed rogue regimes in North Korea and Pakistan, and precarious relationships with other foes such as Russia and China.

    And while logic would dictate that the way to win this made-up war would be to reduce one’s carbon footprint, the elites championing the cause are actually burning fossil fuels at record-breaking rates as they live the lives of kings. “Let them eat cake” is the unspoken mantra whispered at White House dinners. While Obama, Kerry, and Gore fly around the globe in their private jets, the rest of us are forced to use inefficient energy-saving appliances, ridiculously expensive light bulbs, and toilets with no water pressure. Our elitist-in-chief lectured Americans, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times," and proceeded to heat the Oval Office to a temperature appropriate for growing orchids. Forget about SUVs; the man obsessed with climate change travels in a limousine known as “The Beast”.


    At least two cars travel with the president wherever he goes, and they get a humble 3.7 miles to the gallon. The president's motorcade is surrounded with up to 45 other armed vehicles, including an identical decoy, local police, a mobile communications center, more armed vehicles, and an ambulance.

    By his own estimation, Obama himself is an existential threat to mankind.

    Islamic Terrorism: Anyone questioning the liberal mantra that Islam is a religion of peace, despite data to the contrary, is labeled an Islamophobe with the aim of shutting down honest debate. Islamists declared war on the U.S. well before 9/11 and yet liberals still refuse to name the enemy. To liberals, political correctness trumps common sense. Irrationally, they are importing hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees despite knowing that terrorists are entering the country. FBI training materials were insanely scrubbed of any mention of jihad, Islamic extremism or other terms potentially offensive to Muslims, likely resulting in Tamerlan Tsarneav slipping through the cracks. And while logic would dictate expanding the number of terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Obama is releasing known terrorists back to the killing fields, common sense -- and his oath of office -- be damned.

    As Stephen Hayes noted, despite Obama prioritizing “emptying the facility over the security of the country,” and then lying about it, the mainstream media has been MIA. This is no surprise given that the liberal media have, for the most part, given the president a pass on his responsibility for the rise of the ISIS caliphate, expanded Iranian hegemon, Russian and Chinese aggression, and the years-long Syrian civil war.

    Gun Control: Never letting a crisis go to waste, liberals have once again renewed efforts to take away the guns of law-abiding citizens notwithstanding that they may help thwart a terrorist attack. Refusing to recognize that terrorists will not only obtain guns whenever they want but that their weapon of choice is more often a bomb, liberals’ inability to reason has and will continue to lead to loss of life and limb. Only a change in commander-in-chief will save Americans from living through decades of terrorist attacks on our shores.

    con't on post 9
     
    #8
  9. basicstrategy777, Jan 7, 2016

    basicstrategy777

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    9,269
    Likes Received:
    8,487
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CT.
    cont from post 8 :

    Iran: War with Iran? Whatchu talkin bout, Willis? Gary Coleman’s famous line is the reaction the administration and Iran deal supporters project when anyone questions the wisdom of Obama’s weak-kneed diplomacy with the mullahs. That irrational mentality ignores the fact that Iran has been at war with America since the Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis in 1979.

    Liberals ignore chants of “Death to America,” the murder of our soldiers on battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-sponsored terrorism across the world from Buenos Aires to the Gaza Strip, and breaches of international law including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet as illogic would dictate, liberals support a deal that, in effect, allows this rogue mullahcracy, the world’s largest state sponsor of Islamic terror, to go nuclear. Go figure.

    Poverty and Unemployment: Paine sensibly recognized, “From the errors of other nations, let us learn wisdom.” Unfortunately, the Democrats are so ignorantly enamored by European-style socialism, despite its complete collapse, that the U.S. economy has not grown during Obama’s reign and the divide among economic classes has widened.

    Liberal economic policies like Keynesian taxing and spending and increased minimum wages are illogical and have failed. Affirmative action and other forms of social manipulation will not produce more productive members of society but rather, more resentful minorities. And bringing in untold numbers of indigent immigrants, whether Hispanic, Muslim, or otherwise, will only create more of a burden on government-run social welfare programs. The illogic of liberalism has led to a doubling down of failed policies that are creating more poor, unemployed, and government dependents -- and Democratic votes.

    Racism: Obama, Holder, Jarrett and the gang would have us believe that we are a country of racists. Ignoring the fact that Americans elected an African-American to the highest office in the land twice, this gang of angry black folks is fueling the flames of hate -- at the expense of African-Americans. Obama’s divisiveness has set the civil rights movement back decades as Black Lives Matters groups protest violently, police across the country are paralyzed while crime rises, and everyone who does not agree that we are a racist country is labeled, well racist.

    Enemies: Liberals irrationally imagine enemies around every corner. The enemies Hillary Clinton is the most proud to have made are Republicans, while Obama is Nixonian in his view that all dissenters are foes to be quashed. Whether sic’ing the IRS on those with whom he disagrees or ordering the NSA to spy on Congress and the Israelis, Obama has enlisted all troops to fight his perceived domestic enemies. His DOJ nonsensically fails to prosecute criminals (Black Panthers and CAIR) while fabricating cases against individuals who disagree with his policies, including Bob Menendez who voted against his Iran deal.

    In the illogical White House, Israel, the Gulf States, and European nations like Poland and Ukraine are to be swatted with sticks while reset buttons, diplomacy, and carrots are openhandedly offered to enemies like Russia and Iran. Netanyahu gets a 45-minute lecture from Hillary when housing permits are issued. Rouhani doesn’t even get a slap on the wrist for violating international agreements, including shooting rockets at U.S. warships and testing ballistic missiles designed to destroy our allies and reach our shores. In liberal la-la-land, our historic friends are now our enemies on whom we spy and our decades-long enemies are friends who get $150 billion and nuclear weapons for doing nothing other than threatening our national security.

    Tomes will be written in wonderment at the irrationality of the leader of the strongest nation in the history of mankind relinquishing control of one of the world’s most strategically important regions to Islamic fundamentalists. History will look back at an America that won the Cold War under Reagan only to reignite it under Obama. Our descendants will ponder how their ancestors abandoned American supremacy, ingenuity, and civility due to ignorance, idealism, and an irrational obsession with politically correct progressivism that led to the transformation -– and decline -- of this once great nation.

    Constitution: Obama took an oath to defend the Constitution. He has been at war with its constraints since day one, usurping power from the other branches of government and ignoring the laws that he swore to uphold and the security of the country he vowed to defend. He has chosen to transform the country through a strategy of divide and conquer despite promises of bipartisanship and transparency. Whether ObamaCare, illegal immigration, or the Iran deal, Obama has reduced Congress to an insignificant thorn in his side.

    He has fueled a nationwide disdain for the First Amendment as college students wish to repeal their free speech rights for fear of offensive Halloween costumes, being referred to as “he” or “she” rather than “zhe,” or ideas with which they disagree. Safe spaces, coed locker rooms and unisex bathrooms in elementary schools and government-funded harvesting of fetal tissue at Planned Parenthoods are all the rage these days. American history teachers are liberals who distort U.S. history, lie to their students, and create future progressives misunderstanding the world and ill-equipped to think critically. Open debate? Not so much.

    Obama’s over-reaching executive actions and regulations are being litigated in untold numbers -- because they are unconstitutional. Whether welcoming illegal immigrants en masse and illegally handing them work permits or rewriting Congressional legislation unilaterally as he did with ObamaCare, Obama does not believe in the Constitutional limits of office. His hope is that if his actions are on the books long enough, they will become impossible to reverse. His failure to analyze the destructive nature of a president who ignores 225 years of tradition and governance is par for the course (for the most prolific golfer and vacationer in the nation’s history).

    Can Republicans help usher in a new “Age of Reason?” One can only hope, but one thing is clear; under the dictatorial, insanely irrational policies of the liberals dominating the Democratic Party, the country is destined to fall into the same abyss as the Roman Empire. Unlike Paine, liberals are intolerant and unwilling to reason let alone debate their positions, shutting down all civil discourse and opposing views. Years of Democratic rule have resulted in division, chaos, violence, and a decline in civilized and societal norms. Would that a modern-day Paine write Common Sense, Part II to inspire a new revolution in the country; one in which Americans once again rise up to gain their independence against an oppressive government.

    777
     
    #9
  10. random_roller, Jan 7, 2016

    random_roller

    random_roller Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    4,013
    Likes Received:
    5,352

    What the government did wrong, IMO, was bail out the banks. That will only encourage bad behavior at some point in the future. What should have happened is taking the government bailout money and using it to pay off millions of mortgages for eligible homeowners, thereby giving millions of homeowners a "clean slate" and simultaneously taking millions of bad loans off the books of the financial institutions. Part 2 would have been implementing really strict verification requirements (including appraisals) for mortgages, HELOCs, etc., and cap loan-to-value at 50% (or less) so homeowners don't get stupid again (at least not too quickly) and borrow beyond their means. With paid off mortgages, there should be no reason for those homeowners to take on high levels of debt they can't afford. As a result of the millions of paid off mortgages, the banks would have greatly reduced bad debt, but more importantly funds to lend to businesses and governments for much needed infrastructure investment/repair. They would need to make these loans in order to generate income (now that millions of mortgages were paid off).
     
    #10
  11. Settingcanthurt, Jan 7, 2016

    Settingcanthurt

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    4,975
    Likes Received:
    3,498
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Flyover below the tundra
    WEll if you had bothered to get your head out of the MSNBC/CNN/Comedy central crap you would know Bush did not crash the economy. It was all in the posts I posted a while ago. Liberal progressive laws passed requiring banks to loan to people who did not qualify or have the resources to repay. Your BOY Obama was leading that charge in Chicago as a Community Organizer.
    "So, what's your take on Obama's first 2 years?" Really??
    100% control of congress and the presidency he could make any laws he chose to. For two years. What did he do with it?? Pass a 2700 page law without reading it. Then Pass another law (Dodd Frank) Which crippled the economy and here we are 7 years later in worse shape then where we started. I could go on but if you don't know you cant be taught.
     
    #11
    basicstrategy777 likes this.
  12. Settingcanthurt, Jan 7, 2016

    Settingcanthurt

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    4,975
    Likes Received:
    3,498
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Flyover below the tundra
    Random much of the bailout money was not used as intended. The banks made out like fat rats with the foreclosures. I personally have been through hundreds of houses that were trashed by people who had no intention of paying their mortgage. They just destroyed the house.
     
    #12
  13. Settingcanthurt, Jan 7, 2016

    Settingcanthurt

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    4,975
    Likes Received:
    3,498
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Flyover below the tundra
    Answer to Grizz and his beliefs. ( He wont read it)

    Two narratives seem to be forming to describe the underlying causes of the financial crisis. One, as outlined in a New York Times front-page story on Sunday, December 21, is that President Bush excessively promoted growth in home ownership without sufficiently regulating the banks and other mortgage lenders that made the bad loans. The result was a banking system suffused with junk mortgages, the continuing losses on which are dragging down the banks and the economy. The other narrative is that government policy over many years--particularly the use of the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to distort the housing credit system-- underlies the current crisis. The stakes in the competing narratives are high. The diagnosis determines the prescription. If theTimes diagnosis prevails, the prescription is more regulation of the financial system; if instead government policy is to blame, the prescription is to terminate those government policies that distort mortgage lending.

    There really isn’t any question of which approach is factually correct: right on the front page of the Times edition of December 21 is a chart that shows the growth of home ownership in the United States since 1990. In 1993 it was 63 percent; by the end of the Clintonadministration it was 68 percent. The growth in the Bush administration was about 1 percent. The Times itself reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton administration to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers--a policy that necessarily entailed higher risks. Can there really be a question, other than in the fevered imagination of the Times, where the push to reduce lending standards and boost home ownership came from?

    The fact is that neither political party, and no administration, is blameless; the honest answer, as outlined below, is that government policy over many years caused this problem. The regulators, in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, were the enforcers of the reduced lending standards that were essential to the growth in home ownership and the housing bubble.


    THERE ARE TWO KEY EXAMPLES of this misguided government policy. One is the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The other is the affordable housing “mission” that the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were charged with fulfilling.

    Next post:
     
    #13
  14. Settingcanthurt, Jan 7, 2016

    Settingcanthurt

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    4,975
    Likes Received:
    3,498
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Flyover below the tundra
    As originally enacted in 1977, the CRA vaguely mandated regulators to consider whether an insured bank was serving the needs of the “whole” community. For 16 years, the act was invoked rather infrequently, but 1993 marked a decisive turn in its enforcement. What changed? Substantial media and political attention was showered upon a 1992 Boston Federal Reserve Bank study of discrimination in home mortgage lending. This study concluded that, while there was no overt discrimination in banks’ allocation of mortgage funds, loan officers gave whites preferential treatment. The methodology of the study has since been questioned, but at the time it was highly influential with regulators and members of the incoming Clinton administration; in 1993, bank regulators initiated a major effort to reform the CRA regulations.

    In 1995, the regulators created new rules that sought to establish objective criteria for determining whether a bank was meeting CRA standards. Examiners no longer had the discretion they once had. For banks, simply proving that they were looking for qualified buyers wasn’t enough. Banks now had to show that they had actually made a requisite number of loans to low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers. The new regulations also required the use of “innovative or flexible” lending practices to address credit needs of LMI borrowers and neighborhoods. Thus, a law that was originally intended to encourage banks to use safe and sound practices in lending now required them to be “innovative” and “flexible.” In other words, it called for the relaxation of lending standards, and it was the bank regulators who were expected to enforce these relaxed standards.

    The effort to reduce mortgage lending standards was led by the Department of Housing and Urban Development through the 1994 National Homeownership Strategy, published at the request of President Clinton. Among other things, it called for “financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, to help homeowners that lack cash to buy a home or to make the payments.” Once the standards were relaxed for low-income borrowers, it would seem impossible to deny these benefits to the prime market. Indeed, bank regulators, who were in charge of enforcing CRA standards, could hardly disapprove of similar loans made to better-qualified borrowers.

    Sure enough, according to data published by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, from 2001 through 2006, the share of all mortgage originations that were made up of conventional mortgages (that is, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage that had always been the mainstay of the U.S. mortgage market) fell from 57.1 percent in 2001 to 33.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2006. Correspondingly, sub-prime loans (those made to borrowers with blemished credit) rose from 7.2 percent to 18.8 percent, and Alt-A loans (those made to speculative buyers or without the usual underwriting standards) rose from 2.5 percent to 13.9 percent. Although it is difficult to prove cause and effect, it is highly likely that the lower lending standards required by the CRA influenced what banks and other lenders were willing to offer to borrowers in prime markets. Needless to say, most borrowers would prefer a mortgage with a low down payment requirement, allowing them to buy a larger home for the same initial investment.


    The problem is summed up succinctly by Stan Liebowitz of the University of Texas atDallas:

    From the current handwringing, you’d think that the banks came up with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with regulators just asleep on the job. In fact, it was the regulators who relaxed these standards--at the behest of community groups and "progressive" political forces.… For years, rising house prices hid the default problems since quick refinances were possible. But now that house prices have stopped rising, we can clearly see the damage done by relaxed loan standards.

    The point here is not that low-income borrowers received mortgage loans that they could not afford. That is probably true to some extent but cannot account for the large number of sub-prime and Alt-A loans that currently pollute the banking system. It was the spreading of these looser standards to the prime loan market that vastly increased the availability of credit for mortgages, the speculation in housing, and ultimately the bubble in housing prices.

    Next Post::
     
    #14
  15. Settingcanthurt, Jan 7, 2016

    Settingcanthurt

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    4,975
    Likes Received:
    3,498
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Flyover below the tundra
    IN 1992, AN AFFORDABLE housing mission was added to the charters of Fannie and Freddie, which--like the CRA--permitted Congress to subsidize LMI housing without appropriating any funds. A 1997 Urban Institute report found that local and regional lenders seemed more willing than the GSEs to serve creditworthy low- to moderate-income and minority applicants. After this, Fannie and Freddie modified their automated underwriting systems to accept loans with characteristics that they had previously rejected. This opened the way for large numbers of nontraditional and sub-prime mortgages. These did not necessarily come from traditional banks, lending under the CRA, but from lenders like Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest sub-prime and nontraditional mortgage lender and a firm that would become infamous for consistently pushing the envelope on acceptable underwriting standards.

    Fannie and Freddie used their affordable housing mission to avoid additional regulation by Congress, especially restrictions on the accumulation of mortgage portfolios (today totaling approximately $1.6 trillion) that accounted for most of their profits. The GSEs argued that if Congress constrained the size of their mortgage portfolios, they could not afford to adequately subsidize affordable housing. By 1997, Fannie was offering a 97 percent loan-to-value mortgage. By 2001, it was offering mortgages with no down payment at all. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie were required to show that 55 percent of their mortgage purchases were LMI loans and, within that goal, 38 percent of all purchases were to come from underserved areas (usually inner cities) and 25 percent were to be loans to low-income and very-low-income borrowers. Meeting these goals almost certainly required Fannie and Freddie to purchase loans with low down payments and other deficiencies that would mark them as sub-prime or Alt-A.

    The decline in underwriting standards is clear in the financial disclosures of Fannie and Freddie. From 2005 to 2007, Fannie and Freddie bought approximately $1 trillion in sub-prime and Alt-A loans. This amounted to about 40 percent of their mortgage purchases during that period. Moreover, Freddie purchased an ever-increasing percentage of Alt-A and sub-prime loans for each year between 2004 and 2007. It is impossible to forecast the total losses the GSEs will realize from a $1.6 trillion portfolio of junk loans, but if default rates on these loans continue at the unprecedented levels they are showing today, the number will be staggering. The losses could make the $150 billion S&L bailout in the late 1980s and early 1990s look small by comparison.

    The GSEs’ purchases of sub-prime and Alt-A loans affected the rest of the market for these mortgages in two ways. First, it increased the competition for these loans with private-label issuers. Before 2004, private-label issuers--generally investment and commercial banks--specialized in subprime and Alt-A loans because GSEs’ financial advantages, especially their access to cheaper financing, enabled them to box private-label competition out of the conventional market. When the GSEs decided to ramp up their purchases of sub-prime and Alt-A loans to fulfill their affordable housing mission, they began to take market share from the private-label issuers while simultaneously creating greater demand for sub-prime and Alt-A loans among members of the originator community.

    Second, the increased demand from the GSEs and the competition with private-label issuers drove up the value of sub-prime and Alt-A mortgages, reducing the risk premium that had previously suppressed originations. As a result, many more marginally qualified or unqualified applicants for mortgages were accepted. From 2003 to late 2006, conventional loans (including jumbo loans) declined from 78.8 percent to 50.1 percent of all mortgages, while subprime and Alt-A loans increased from 10.1 percent to 32.7 percent. Because GSEpurchases are not included in these numbers, in the years just before the collapse of home prices began, about half of all home loans being made in the United States were non-prime loans. Since these mortgages aggregate more than $2 trillion, this accounts for the weakness in bank assets that is the principal underlying cause of the current financial crisis.

    In a very real sense, the competition from Fannie and Freddie that began in late 2004 caused both the GSEs and the private-label issuers to scrape the bottom of the mortgage barrel. Fannie and Freddie did so in order to demonstrate to Congress their ability to increase support for affordable housing. The private-label issuers did so to maintain their market share against the GSEs’ increased demand for sub-prime and Alt-A products. Thus, the gradual decline in lending standards--beginning with the revised CRA regulations in 1993 and continuing with the GSEs’ attempts to show Congress that they were meeting their affordable housing mission--came to dominate mortgage lending in the United States.

    Next post::
     
    #15
  16. Settingcanthurt, Jan 7, 2016

    Settingcanthurt

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    4,975
    Likes Received:
    3,498
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Flyover below the tundra
    FEDERAL HOUSING INIATIVES are not the only culprits in the current mortgage mess--state-based residential finance laws give homeowners two free options that contributed substantially to the financial crisis. First, any homeowner may, without penalty, refinance a mortgage whenever interest rates fall or home prices rise to a point where there is significant equity in the home, enabling them to extract any equity that had accumulated between the original financing transaction and any subsequent refinancing. The result is so-called cash-out refinancing, in which homeowners treat their homes like savings accounts, drawing out funds to buy cars, boats, or second homes. By the end of 2006, 86 percent of all home mortgage refinancings were cash-outs, amounting to $327 billion that year. Unfortunately, this meant that when home prices fell, there was little equity in the home behind the mortgage and frequently little reason to continue making payments on the mortgage.

    The willingness of homeowners to walk away from their “underwater” mortgages was increased by the designation of mortgages as “without recourse” in most states. In essence, non-recourse mortgages mean that defaulting homeowners are not personally responsible for paying any difference between the value of the home and the principal amount of the mortgage obligation, or that the process for enforcing this obligation is so burdensome and time-consuming that lenders simply do not bother. The homeowner’s opportunity to walk away from a home that is no longer more valuable than the mortgage it carries exacerbates the effect of the cash-out refinancing.

    Tax laws further amplified the problems of the housing bubble and diminished levels of home equity, especially the deductibility of interest on home equity loans. Interest on consumer loans of all kinds--for cars, credit cards, or other purposes--is not deductible for federal tax purposes, but interest on home equity loans is deductible no matter how the funds are used. As a result, homeowners are encouraged to take out home equity loans to pay off their credit card or auto loans or to make the purchases that would ordinarily be made with other forms of debt. Consequently, homeowners are encouraged not only to borrow against their homes’ equity in preference to other forms of borrowing, but also to extract equity from their homes for personal and even business purposes. Again, the reduction in home equity has enhanced the likelihood that defaults and foreclosures will rise precipitously as the economy continues to contract.

    Bank regulatory policies should also shoulder some of the blame for the financial crisis. BaselI, a 1988 international protocol developed by bank regulators in most of the world’s developed countries, devised a system for ensuring that banks are adequately capitalized. Bank assets are assigned to different risk categories, and the amount of capital that a bank holds for each asset is pegged to the asset’s perceived riskiness. Under Basel I’s tiered risk-weighting system, AAA asset-backed securities are less than half as risky as residential mortgages, which are themselves half as risky as commercial loans. These rules provided an incentive for banks to hold mortgages in preference to commercial loans or to convert their portfolios of whole mortgages into an MBS portfolio rated AAA, because doing so would substantially reduce their capital requirements.

    Though the banks may have been adequately capitalized if the mortgages were of high quality or if the AAA rating correctly predicted the risk of default, the gradual decline in underwriting standards meant that the mortgages in any pool of prime mortgages often had high loan-to-value ratios, low FICO scores, or other indicators of low quality. In other words, the Basel bank capital standards, applicable throughout the world’s developed economies, encouraged commercial banks to hold only a small amount of capital against the risks associated with residential mortgages. As these risks increased because of the decline in lending standards and the ballooning of home prices, the Basel capital requirements became increasingly inadequate for the risks banks were assuming in holding both mortgages and MBS portfolios.

    Next Post:
     
    #16
  17. Settingcanthurt, Jan 7, 2016

    Settingcanthurt

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    4,975
    Likes Received:
    3,498
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Flyover below the tundra
    PREVENTING A RECURRENCE of the financial crisis we face today does not require new regulation of the financial system. What is required instead is an appreciation of the fact--as much as lawmakers would like to avoid it--thatU.S.housing policies are the root cause of the current financial crisis. Other players--greedy investment bankers; incompetent rating agencies; irresponsible housing speculators; shortsighted homeowners; and predatory mortgage brokers, lenders, and borrowers--all played a part, but they were only following the economic incentives that government policy laid out for them. If we are really serious about preventing a recurrence of this crisis, rather than increasing the power of the government over the economy, our first order of business should be to correct the destructive housing policies of theU.S.government.

    Now Grizz if you got this far. And learned anything it would be good to look up the acts enacted by Congress and How over all the years Congress (Democrats) continually amended these acts to further do damage. It was deliberate to cause americans to become reliant on government.
    I did this research back in 2009. Today the problem is much greater then housing and banking collapse. Its bringing in millions of people who want freebies and or to destroy this country. I hope you live to see it and remember you were warned right here, right now.
     
    #17
  18. random_roller, Jan 7, 2016

    random_roller

    random_roller Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    4,013
    Likes Received:
    5,352
    The problem was most of the bailout money went to the banks directly. They had little incentive to write-off/down the mortgages or their books would have been in even worse shape and bank executives would have missed out on lofty bonuses. In addition, the mortgage owner had to approve changing the terms of the mortgage. Often the biggest issue was finding out who was the true owner of the mortgage (note), as these debt instruments are packaged and then sold to investors. My proposal of paying off the mortgages for qualified homeowners would have made getting the mortgage owner's approval irrelevant. Sure, some investors would have received less than they had perhaps bargained for in some cases because of prepayment and time value of money, but others would have fared even better because they would be paid on loans that were previously non-performing (and basically written off) and they wouldn't have to go through the foreclosure process and perhaps own a piece of property they didn't want. BTW, I'm not excusing the conduct of a homeowner who has trashed a house that is being foreclosed. But in the end, the servicing agents should have realized that was a distinct possibility if the homeowner was going to lose the property and tried to do more to help defuse the situation. Everyone needed to work harder and be more understanding during the crisis, but unfortunately that often didn't happen. Throw in a misdirected government bailout program with the usual government bureaucracy, and the outcome was entirely predictable.
     
    #18
  19. Settingcanthurt, Jan 7, 2016

    Settingcanthurt

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    4,975
    Likes Received:
    3,498
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Flyover below the tundra
    In 2005 I had been selling houses for 3 years and was having a ok but tough time because it was so competitive. The demand was still high and valuations continued to climb. Then the subprime loans were call in and one of my associates who had been in the biz for years commented how long this was going to last and how bad/deep it was. I had no Idea. I watch as many of the heavy hitters lost their businesses and houses. I cut all my expenses and converted into valuation statements for banks where I got paid for my opinion of value. Not near as much money but it paid all my bills and any houses I sold were gravy. Its been a tough ten years and today I do not see any hope of it improving in any time frame. Until people are back to work this will not get better. Home sales numbers continue to decline. Values have stopped going down and in spite of what the news may be reporting they are not going up. We are in absolute stagnation. Used to be we just thru mud to the wall and saw what stuck. Today the wall is further away. Fortunately for me I can live without selling but I want the excess the sales bring in. So back to work I go. The government has again put sticks in the spokes in the wheels this year but like always we have to roll with it. Like a good roll I want to be there when things get better which wont happen till Obummer is gone. If another D gets in. Its over. No matter who gets in they have a monster mess to clean up which makes 2008 look like a walk in the park.
     
    #19

  20. 7uwin

    7uwin Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2015
    Messages:
    548
    Likes Received:
    549
    Gender:
    Male
    The last two administrations have spent money like Wilma Flintstone with Freds new credit card. W went into Iraq causing a lot of this debt. Obama pulls out which leads to the strife, instability, and more debt.

    With 19 trillion in debt and the middle class being eliminated its time for something different.
    Trump certainly couldn't make things any worse.
     
    #20