Divide among elites and rest of country widening ahead of 2024 election

[Danthemailman]

Silver Dollar City has some good coasters.

Woo Hoo!

 

[rjs330]

Such as?


Ditto.

Nx needs to back up his statements first regarding the Republicans he blames when the entire world had a melt down. Same goes for the pandemic.

 

[NxNW]

Thers some truth to this, but it's generally Democrat policies that created the situation.

Uh, no.

Either that or a pandemic which would have tanked things no matter who was in charge. The crash in 2008 was global. Are you saying the Republicans were responsible for a global crisis. I think you are going to need to back that up.

The GOP supports the policies that caused it, namely banks making risky investments for short-term gain. When laws prohibiting this are proposed, they call it anti-capitslist.

 

[Vambram]

The GOP supports the policies that caused it, namely banks making risky investments for short-term gain. When laws prohibiting this are proposed, they call it anti-capitslist.

Can you provide real facts to back up that assertion about the banks and GOP policies?

 

[NxNW]

Can you provide real facts to back up that assertion about the banks and GOP policies?

Trump rolled back Dodd-Franks and targeted Sarbanes-Oxley.

 

[Vambram]

Trump rolled back Dodd-Franks and targeted Sarbanes-Oxley.

There were also Democratic Senators who wrote that legislation Trump signed in 2018 according to that article from The Hill.

 

[DaisyDay]

There were also Democratic Senators who wrote that legislation Trump signed in 2018 according to that article from The Hill.

But who was in charge?

Who controlled the presidency, the House and the Senate?

 

[Vambram]

But who was in charge?

Who controlled the presidency, the House and the Senate?

You know as well as I do, that in order for a bill to come to a full Senate vote back then, that it requires 60 Senators to agree to go ahead and allow that bill to come to a vote upon the Senate floor.

 

[DaisyDay]

You know as well as I do, that in order for a bill to come to a full Senate vote back then, that it requires 60 Senators to agree to go ahead and allow that bill to come to a vote upon the Senate floor.

So? Who was in charge back then - who controlled the Senate, the House and the Presidency?

 

[rjs330]

Uh, no.

Uh, yes. Their policies and demands are what pushed some the issues that created the problems in 2008. The entire world had a collapse so certainly neither the Republicans or Democrats were responsible for the world issues. They only govern the US. But some of the US problems came from Democratic policies. Yes the banks ran with some of it but it was due to the Democratic policies pushing and threatening them. It's undeniable. Cuomo was the one authorized by Clinton to push the banks to take in the risky loans. Bolstered by the CRA.

CRA regulations are at the core of Fannie’s and Freddie’s so-called affordable housing mission. In the early 1990s, a Democrat Congress gave HUD the authority to set and enforce (through fines) CRA-grade loan quotas at Fannie and Freddie.

It passed a law requiring the government-backed agencies to “assist insured depository institutions to meet their obligations under the (CRA).” The goal was to help banks meet lending quotas by buying their CRA loans.

But they had to loosen underwriting standards to do it. And that’s what they did.

New Study Finds Democrats Fully to Blame for Subprime Mortgage Crisis that Caused 2008 Financial Disaster | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Clinton Housing Policy Wrecked Economy, Not 1%

I could do more but I won't. Bush screwed up in the fact the neither he nor Congress tried to address the problem that was started by the Democrats so the Democrats don't get all the blame.

The GOP supports the policies that caused it, namely banks making risky investments for short-term gain. When laws prohibiting this are proposed, they call it anti-capitslist.

As I showed it was Democratic policies that caused it in the first place. Neither party is totally off the hook there, but it was Democratic policies that started it all.

 

[rjs330]

Trump rolled back Dodd-Franks and targeted Sarbanes-Oxley.

What's that got to do with anything? It certainly has nothing to do with COVID and the economic shut down. We all know what caused the economic collapse in 2020 and it wasn't the roll back. It was COVID. To pretend otherwise is a total denial of history that we all lived through.

 

[rjs330]

So? Who was in charge back then - who controlled the Senate, the House and the Presidency?

You surely aren't claim the economic shutdown from COVID was due to Republicans are you? It was COVID that caused the problems. You might have a point if the economy collapsed and COVID didn't exist. But the facts are the economy was going just fine until then. We lived through it. To flat out ignore what we all lived through is preposterous.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Uh, yes. Their policies and demands are what pushed some the issues that created the problems in 2008. The entire world had a collapse so certainly neither the Republicans or Democrats were responsible for the world issues. They only govern the US. But some of the US problems came from Democratic policies. Yes the banks ran with some of it but it was due to the Democratic policies pushing and threatening them. It's undeniable. Cuomo was the one authorized by Clinton to push the banks to take in the risky loans. Bolstered by the CRA.

CRA regulations are at the core of Fannie’s and Freddie’s so-called affordable housing mission. In the early 1990s, a Democrat Congress gave HUD the authority to set and enforce (through fines) CRA-grade loan quotas at Fannie and Freddie.

It passed a law requiring the government-backed agencies to “assist insured depository institutions to meet their obligations under the (CRA).” The goal was to help banks meet lending quotas by buying their CRA loans.

But they had to loosen underwriting standards to do it. And that’s what they did.

New Study Finds Democrats Fully to Blame for Subprime Mortgage Crisis that Caused 2008 Financial Disaster | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Clinton Housing Policy Wrecked Economy, Not 1%

I could do more but I won't.

What you should do more of is read the underlying sources you're using instead of just taking the headlines at face value. Here's the actual paper cited in your first link, not Gateway Pundit's spin on a now-defunct IBD summary of it:

Loading…

www.nber.org

The conclusion of that paper is that, "in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams, lending [at the banks going through the exam] is elevated on average by about 5 percent and these loans default about 15 percent more often."

They don't even address the issue of what impact the CRA had on the subprime meltdown. The Federal Reserve (and others) has also looked into this. They found:

Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown? | Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

Two Federal Reserve economists examine whether available data support critics' claims that the Community Reinvestment Act spawned the subprime mortgage crisis.

www.minneapolisfed.org

In total, of all the higher-priced loans, only 6 percent were extended by CRA-regulated lenders (and their affiliates) to either lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in the lenders' CRA assessment areas, which are the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. The small share of subprime lending in 2005 and 2006 that can be linked to the CRA suggests it is very unlikely the CRA could have played a substantial role in the subprime crisis.​

<snip>​

Another way to measure the relationship between the CRA and the subprime crisis is to examine foreclosure activity across neighborhoods that are classified by income. Data made available by RealtyTrac on foreclosure filings from January 2006 through August 2008 indicate that most foreclosure filings (e.g., about 70 percent in 2006) have taken place in middle- or higher-income neighborhoods. More important, foreclosure filings have increased at a faster pace in middle- or higher-income areas than in lower-income areas that are the focus of the CRA.9/ (See Table 7.)​

​

Two basic points emerge from our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.​

So, while the CRA may have had some effect on increasing the number of risky loans made, only a small percentage of the failed loans were even covered by the CRA. And the CRA had nothing whatsoever to do with the way the financial industry valued, borrowed against, and sold those loans, which is what made the problem so catastrophic.

As I showed it was Democratic policies that caused it in the first place. Neither party is totally off the hook there, but it was Democratic policies that started it all.

You didn't show that. You just think you did because you took at face value the headline from a partisan rag.

 

[rjs330]

What you should do more of is read the underlying sources you're using instead of just taking the headlines at face value. Here's the actual paper cited in your first link, not Gateway Pundit's spin on a now-defunct IBD summary of it:

Loading…

www.nber.org

The conclusion of that paper is that, "in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams, lending [at the banks going through the exam] is elevated on average by about 5 percent and these loans default about 15 percent more often."

They don't even address the issue of what impact the CRA had on the subprime meltdown. The Federal Reserve (and others) has also looked into this. They found:

Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown? | Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

Two Federal Reserve economists examine whether available data support critics' claims that the Community Reinvestment Act spawned the subprime mortgage crisis.

www.minneapolisfed.org

In total, of all the higher-priced loans, only 6 percent were extended by CRA-regulated lenders (and their affiliates) to either lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in the lenders' CRA assessment areas, which are the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. The small share of subprime lending in 2005 and 2006 that can be linked to the CRA suggests it is very unlikely the CRA could have played a substantial role in the subprime crisis.​

<snip>​

Another way to measure the relationship between the CRA and the subprime crisis is to examine foreclosure activity across neighborhoods that are classified by income. Data made available by RealtyTrac on foreclosure filings from January 2006 through August 2008 indicate that most foreclosure filings (e.g., about 70 percent in 2006) have taken place in middle- or higher-income neighborhoods. More important, foreclosure filings have increased at a faster pace in middle- or higher-income areas than in lower-income areas that are the focus of the CRA.9/ (See Table 7.)​

​

Two basic points emerge from our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.​

So, while the CRA may have had some effect on increasing the number of risky loans made, only a small percentage of the failed loans were even covered by the CRA. And the CRA had nothing whatsoever to do with the way the financial industry valued, borrowed against, and sold those loans, which is what made the problem so catastrophic.


You didn't show that. You just think you did because you took at face value the headline from a partisan rag.

The problem was the CRA was pushing these loans. It wasn't just affecting how low income people received loans. This kind of thing had a WIDE effect. They weren't just saying only low income earners received the risky loans. They were giving out these loans to middle income earners as well who were also risky. Not all middle income workers are reliable or able to handle the large loans required. This was a result directly related to the the Democrat policies to get loans out to people. Those who were a risk. Don't get so narrow minded and focused on the low income people that you miss the wider picture of the total effect. The CRA affected moderate income people who definitely would qualify as middle income. Yes it was these Democrat policies that were pushed by a Democrat president and his people.

Like I said we cannot eliminate the Republicans from this either. They did nothing to slow it stop the issues and Bush just let it run. So he and the Republicans are not blameless. But it was started by the Democrat policies.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The problem was the CRA was pushing these loans.

No, that's what you think the problem was. Not even your source claims that. What your source claims was that the testing process was motivating covered lenders to weaken their lending standards by a little bit around the time of the tests. When the tests were over, they went back.

It wasn't just affecting how low income people received loans. This kind of thing had a WIDE effect. They weren't just saying only low income earners received the risky loans. They were giving out these loans to middle income earners as well who were also risky. Not all middle income workers are reliable or able to handle the large loans required.

The CRA does not cover all mortgages from all lenders. It covers some mortgages from some lenders.

This was a result directly related to the the Democrat policies to get loans out to people. Those who were a risk. Don't get so narrow minded and focused on the low income people that you miss the wider picture of the total effect.

I'm being narrow minded? I'm not the one repeating the headlines of a partisan rag without understanding the sources they're citing.

Did you know that over half of the subprime mortgages were made by independent lenders that weren't covered by the CRA at all? Did you know that those lenders made a disproportionately high number of subprime loans relative to their market share?

FRB: HMDA Data

www.federalreserve.gov

Did you know that CRA loans made in 2006 had a delinquency rate lower than the average for all loans?
FRB: Federal Reserve Bulletin

• Loans to low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers made by banking institutions in 2006 within their Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) assessment areas--loans that the CRA encourages--had a delinquency rate that was lower than that for all loans combined and less than one-fourth the rate for all higher-priced loans of the same vintage. These findings are inconsistent with the notion that the CRA was a principal driver of the mortgage and financial crisis.

How do those facts jive with your claim?

 

[rjs330]

No, that's what you think the problem was. Not even your source claims that. What your source claims was that the testing process was motivating covered lenders to weaken their lending standards by a little bit around the time of the tests. When the tests were over, they went back.



The CRA does not cover all mortgages from all lenders. It covers some mortgages from some lenders.




I'm being narrow minded? I'm not the one repeating the headlines of a partisan rag without understanding the sources they're citing.

Did you know that over half of the subprime mortgages were made by independent lenders that weren't covered by the CRA at all? Did you know that those lenders made a disproportionately high number of subprime loans relative to their market share?

FRB: HMDA Data

www.federalreserve.gov

Did you know that CRA loans made in 2006 had a delinquency rate lower than the average for all loans?
FRB: Federal Reserve Bulletin

• Loans to low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers made by banking institutions in 2006 within their Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) assessment areas--loans that the CRA encourages--had a delinquency rate that was lower than that for all loans combined and less than one-fourth the rate for all higher-priced loans of the same vintage. These findings are inconsistent with the notion that the CRA was a principal driver of the mortgage and financial crisis.

How do those facts jive with your claim?

Look I read a bunch of stuff and only linked to one. You know this all came about from the Democrat policies. It had a cascading effect. The CRA did it and other lenders saw what happening and jumped on the band wagon. They were foolish. As foolish as the CRA was. This was a real problem that was started by Democrat policies. That's it.

Peace out.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Look I read a bunch of stuff and only linked to one.

You linked to one partisan rag that mischaracterized its underlying source. You’ll understand why I’m skeptical that you came away from your reading with an accurate assessment of things.

You know this all came about from the Democrat policies.

If I know that, I wouldn’t be arguing.

It had a cascading effect. The CRA did it and other lenders saw what happening and jumped on the band wagon.

That doesn’t even make any sense. Why would other lenders “jump on the bandwagon” of abiding by government regulations to which they aren’t subject? Who does that?

The reality is that there were financial advantages to making risky loans, because loan originators were able to sell off the risk and make a quick buck. That wasn’t the CRA’s doing.

 

[RoBo1988]

A couple years ago I read this in the comments of a blog , and I saved it- it describes my definition of the "elite", be they Democrats or Republicans:

(The elite) are the people who have "bought into the system." They went to college, got a masters, got a white collar or government job in the city, got married in their early 30's, had their 2 designer children, and started them on the same path. Their goal is to ensure that the system remains intact and continues to pay off for them. They definitely want all those dirty people like the plumbers and electricians and mechanics to be around to serve them, but they don't want to actually have to interact with them, and for heaven's sake, shouldn't be letting any of those unwashed masses have a say in how we are governed."
-"BH93" Commentator on Power Line Blog (parentheses my edit)

 

[rambot]

A couple years ago I read this in the comments of a blog , and I saved it- it describes my definition of the "elite", be they Democrats or Republicans:

(The elite) are the people who have "bought into the system." They went to college, got a masters, got a white collar or government job in the city, got married in their early 30's, had their 2 designer children, and started them on the same path. Their goal is to ensure that the system remains intact and continues to pay off for them. They definitely want all those dirty people like the plumbers and electricians and mechanics to be around to serve them, but they don't want to actually have to interact with them, and for heaven's sake, shouldn't be letting any of those unwashed masses have a say in how we are governed."
-"BH93" Commentator on Power Line Blog (parentheses my edit)

OK bur you're using your own definition of what an elite is isn't helpful foe everyone using something closer to a formal definition.


What you described there sounds a bit better labeled as "yuppies"

The first half of that description financially describes my family but the latter half absolutely does not.


I don't want to interact with plumbers and electricians because I don't want those problems coming up in my house. But of course I humbly welcome and their vast knowledge and skill set when they are needed and I don't look down on them. But I don't think a person like Bill Gates looks down at his plumber either....


It's also a VERY poor definition of elite as it presumes people with that attitude and mindset ACTUALLY have the power to affect govt Decision making

 

[iluvatar5150]

(The elite) are the people who have "bought into the system." They went to college, got a masters, got a white collar or government job in the city, got married in their early 30's, had their 2 designer children, and started them on the same path. Their goal is to ensure that the system remains intact and continues to pay off for them.

They definitely want all those dirty people like the plumbers and electricians and mechanics to be around to serve them, but they don't want to actually have to interact with them, and for heaven's sake, shouldn't be letting any of those unwashed masses have a say in how we are governed."
-"BH93" Commentator on Power Line Blog (parentheses my edit)

That’s a huge jump from the first half to the second. It’s wild how many of you guys think having a masters degree and a white collar job is an indicator of being that snooty and out of touch.