Civil War if Obama Reelected

[ApolloBalboa]

The hell it didn't. The Clinton DOJ wanted to pursue racially charged cases and it scared the bejeezus out of Citigroup and then eventually others. Over time, the bad paper was propped up by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and eventually bought by Wall Street. You, quite frankly are a buffoon.

And you, quite frankly, are a paranoiac who is looking for any reason to see the writing on the wall.

 

[Rey C.]

Try as we might, repeating a lie will never make it true

I bet you are clueless that Obama was one of the lawyers that sued Citi Corp to make them grant home loans to unqualified minority borrowers. Where they capitulated and then other lenders followed suit for fear of years of litigation. Which lead the housing bubble burst, which lead to the "worst economic crisis since the great depression".

He was fucking instrumental in what become a dangerous process of loans for unqualified people. It all has to start somewhere and it stated with him and his cronies. The housing bubble burst caused the economic crisis. It all has to start somewhere and it was Democrat policies that lead to it. Of course Obama denied culpability.Get your partisan head out of your ass

The hell it didn't. The Clinton DOJ wanted to pursue racially charged cases and it scared the bejeezus out of Citigroup and then eventually others. Over time, the bad paper was propped up by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and eventually bought by Wall Street. You, quite frankly are a buffoon.

BC, while you and I may have different political views on certain issues, I've always had a good deal of respect for you and your opinions. And so, I see and treat you in a very different way than say, Fisher (who is a certified idiot and low brow moron). So take this as it is meant: I don't want to see you repeating urban myths that are false (or barely half true), but get passed off as facts. OK? I will not make this correction into one of my overly long, tiresome posts, as I'm sure people are sick of reading paragraph after paragraph after paragraph from me.

Citi was accused of redlining - the exact same charge that was made against the bank that I worked for after we sold our mortgage company to Credit Suisse in the late 80's. The bank that I worked for decided to settle the claims made against us by state AG's (because we were guilty) and Citibank settled out of court with the class plaintiffs in the case against them. No one was or has ever been forced to make loans to "unqualified minority borrowers" by the government or anybody else. I'm sorry but that just did not happen. That is completely untrue. Other than correcting Danica P@trick fans on racing forums over claims that she had a successful F1 test (with Honda, so they claim), this is probably the other topic that I have corrected people on the most. My bank did not enter the subprime market following our settlement. And Citibank didn't have to enter the subprime market either. All they had to do was not violate the law by engaging in illegal, discriminatory practices. The bank that I just refinanced with last week never offered the first subprime or Alt-A mortgage. The banks that did enter the subprime market did it for the same reason that I would often guarantee rate locks, but then trade the market to "buy" the funding at a lower rate and profit from the spread (sometimes I would win, sometimes I would lose - just like stock or bond trading): we did it for money. That is why bankers do what they do, Blue Countach. Citi, Chase, Wachovia, Wells and many/most of the other big banks literally demanded that associated mortgage companies feed their pipelines with any mortgage that they could write, so they would have paper to package and resell. I offered a detailed explanation some months back, which I won't repeat, but mortgage bankers (doing the same amount of work as with a prime/conforming) made fees off of subprimes that were often 500%+ greater than those on prime/conforming mortgage originations... and the banks (yes, through Fannie and Freddie as well as on the OTC) had a willing market, with hogs just waiting to eat whatever they threw at them. Money. Mortgage bankers made huge sums on the front end and investment bankers made huge sums on the back end. And you don't have to force a banker to make money. If I hadn't been cursed by my parents and God with a conscience, I would have stuck around for another decade or so, and I'd probably be sitting in a 10,000 sqft house now, being fed figs and ripe pears by topless, busty, curvy handmaidens and trying to decide if I was going to drive the Aston DBS today or the Bentley GT. But I have my sanity and self-respect (and the respect of my family), so I determined that my soul was worth more than any amount of money. :hatsoff:

But yes, FNMA, FHLMC, the Fed and Congress did have a hand in facilitating this crisis. But Obama's extremely limited participation in the Buycks-Roberson case had no more to do with the housing and mortgage crisis than my post-lock rate trades.

Simple message (which as an attorney, you may already realize): Don't... don't... don't believe the hype. Don't believe the hype.

Don't believe me? Here's a further analysis from Snopes:
Snopes: Barack Obama Required Banks to Lend Money to Poor People (Mostly False)

 

[Will E Worm]

If that's the case, would you admit that others were correct when Bush created the deficit that the country's in about how the country was doomed then, or was that Obama's doing even before he became President?

I have already said, Bush wasn't great either.

RINO, grandpa McCain would have been worse.

That's why I voted third party in 2008.


If disgruntled voters are smart, they will look into the Constitution party and give them a chance if their next presidential candidate is good.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Re: Try as we might, repeating a lie will never make it true

BC, while you and I may have different political views on certain issues, I've always had a good deal of respect for you and your opinions. And so, I see and treat you in a very different way than say, Fisher (who is a certified idiot and low brow moron). So take this as it is meant: I don't want to see you repeating urban myths that are false (or barely half true), but get passed off as facts. OK? I will not make this correction into one of my overly long, tiresome posts, as I'm sure people are sick of reading paragraph after paragraph after paragraph from me.

Citi was accused of redlining - the exact same charge that was made against the bank that I worked for after we sold our mortgage company to Credit Suisse in the late 80's. The bank that I worked for decided to settle the claims made against us by state AG's (because we were guilty) and Citibank settled out of court with the class plaintiffs in the case against them. No one was or has ever been forced to make loans to "unqualified minority borrowers" by the government or anybody else. I'm sorry but that just did not happen. That is completely untrue. Other than correcting Danica P@trick fans on racing forums over claims that she had a successful F1 test (with Honda, so they claim), this is probably the other topic that I have corrected people on the most. My bank did not enter the subprime market following our settlement. And Citibank didn't have to enter the subprime market either. All they had to do was not violate the law by engaging in illegal, discriminatory practices. The bank that I just refinanced with last week never offered the first subprime or Alt-A mortgage. The banks that did enter the subprime market did it for the same reason that I would often guarantee rate locks, but then trade the market to "buy" the funding at a lower rate and profit from the spread (sometimes I would win, sometimes I would lose - just like stock or bond trading): we did it for money. That is why bankers do what they do, Blue Countach. Citi, Chase, Wachovia, Wells and many/most of the other big banks literally demanded that associated mortgage companies feed their pipelines with any mortgage that they could write, so they would have paper to package and resell. I offered a detailed explanation some months back, which I won't repeat, but mortgage bankers (doing the same amount of work as with a prime/conforming) made fees off of subprimes that were often 500%+ greater than those on prime/conforming mortgage originations... and the banks (yes, through Fannie and Freddie as well as on the OTC) had a willing market, with hogs just waiting to eat whatever they threw at them. Money. Mortgage bankers made huge sums on the front end and investment bankers made huge sums on the back end. And you don't have to force a banker to make money. If I hadn't been cursed by my parents and God with a conscience, I would have stuck around for another decade or so, and I'd probably be sitting in a 10,000 sqft house now, being fed figs and ripe pears by topless, busty, curvy handmaidens and trying to decide if I was going to drive the Aston DBS today or the Bentley GT. But I have my sanity and self-respect (and the respect of my family), so I determined that my soul was worth more than any amount of money. :hatsoff:

But yes, FNMA, FHLMC, the Fed and Congress did have a hand in facilitating this crisis. But Obama's extremely limited participation in the Buycks-Roberson case had no more to do with the housing and mortgage crisis than my post-lock rate trades.

Simple message (which as an attorney, you may already realize): Don't... don't... don't believe the hype. Don't believe the hype.

Don't believe me? Here's a further analysis from Snopes:
Snopes: Barack Obama Required Banks to Lend Money to Poor People (Mostly False)

Consider this. While Barack Obama may have been a young community organizer/attorney in 1994 this was a concerted effort to expand on Jimmy Carter's dream of home ownership for minorities whether they could repay or not. It is not a coincidence that this originated during the Clinton administration who were hellbent on carry the baton on this issue. The Chicago attorneys knew that they would receive backing from the Clinton DOJ something they knew wouldn't happen under the Bush and Reagan administrations.

Financial institutions don't like having their feet held to the fire by the US government and they certainly don't like the prospects of long drawn out and lengthy litigation especially those involving discrimination. While they were never ordered to make these loans, the handwriting was on the wall and Citigroup has a history of making decisions that other financial institutions follow. They decided to relax requirements and hence the domino effect.

Barack Obama seems to be the luckiest man alive when it comes to his associations. Whether it is Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko or Miner Barnhill & Galland, he is always portrayed as a minor player or casual associate of all these shady figures, yet he is always there, each and every time something arises and can be placed at the scene.

Urban legend? Hardly, it was however the shot heard around the world when it came to the sub prime lending crisis and started the ball rolling. Many people have addressed this including Mike Huckabee (hardly a right wing nut job). Obama has blood on his hands when he talks about the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and he in his heart of hearts knows it.

 

[Conan_1984]

In Russia, many people would like to beat Romney. But government media campaigned for Obama.

 

[Rey C.]

Re: Try as we might, repeating a lie will never make it true

Consider this. While Barack Obama may have been a young community organizer/attorney in 1994 this was a concerted effort to expand on Jimmy Carter's dream of home ownership for minorities whether they could repay or not. It is not a coincidence that this originated during the Clinton administration who were hellbent on carry the baton on this issue. The Chicago attorneys knew that they would receive backing from the Clinton DOJ something they knew wouldn't happen under the Bush and Reagan administrations.

Financial institutions don't like having their feet held to the fire by the US government and they certainly don't like the prospects of long drawn out and lengthy litigation especially those involving discrimination. While they were never ordered to make these loans, the handwriting was on the wall and Citigroup has a history of making decisions that other financial institutions follow. They decided to relax requirements and hence the domino effect.

Barack Obama seems to be the luckiest man alive when it comes to his associations. Whether it is Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko or Miner Barnhill & Galland, he is always portrayed as a minor player or casual associate of all these shady figures, yet he is always there, each and every time something arises and can be placed at the scene.

Urban legend? Hardly, it was however the shot heard around the world when it came to the sub prime lending crisis and started the ball rolling. Many people have addressed this including Mike Huckabee (hardly a right wing nut job). Obama has blood on his hands when he talks about the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and he in his heart of hearts knows it.

With all due respect, BC, while I will often defer to your general knowledge of the law, especially in this case, I think you would be wise to trust what I am telling you about financial institutions, their practices for seeking profits and what happened with these redlining cases. I owned a mortgage company. I worked for a mortgage bank. I did very well for myself in those years. Without meaning to sound haughty or arrogant, I know.

After the financial crisis, after the big banks had been bailed out by the U.S. taxpayer, even Citi (with their feet held to the fire, the government holding a sword over their heads and public sentiment firmly against them) refused to expand lending, even to qualified individuals and businesses. And to this day, that is still an issue. The banks expanded into subprime for the very reasons that I described above. Obama had nothing to do with it. Fannie, Freddie and Congress? Yes. Obama? No. Not on this one. Sorry. I'd have no issue tagging him if he was guilty. But the case for causation simply is not there. I'm sure you're aware that correlation (the timing of Obama's very limited participation in a single lawsuit) does not imply causation. And further, the government did not force anyone to do anything, except follow the laws regarding housing and lending discrimination that were already on the books. A bank could have legally continued to deny mortgages to every single Black person that walked in the door if they had a 490 credit score, as long as they also denied mortgages to White people with the same credit scores. But, assuming the income and property condition were adequate, they could not deny a Black person a mortgage if he/she had a 740 credit score, while approving a White person with a 680 credit score. That. Is. Illegal.

Subprime lending has existed for a very long time, my friend. But prior to the mid 90's, the market was almost exclusively for the manufactured and mobile home market. That's how Countrywide grew into what it later became. But the properties were what made the loans non-conforming/"subprime" (and higher cost), not the borrowers.

Knowing full well that a mortgage banker could make say $10K doing a $250K subprime, but only $2500+/- if that same loan was originated and underwritten as a prime/conforming, should answer the question for anyone paying just a little bit of attention to what actually happened. Recent studies, including one from the Fed, have found that as many as 20% of the subprimes made were actually mortgages that could have been written as primes. Now, I ask you... why would that be? Why would a mortgage banker originate a prime as a subprime? Because a new Jag XK8 or a nicely optioned Porsche 911 ran about about $70K in 2004. As long as you didn't have much of a conscience, paying for your new ride by writing 7 loans made a hell of a lot more sense than writing 28 loans. It's just simple math, not quantum physics.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I have conceded the fact that it never reached the point that they were forced to make these loans from a legal standpoint. I don't mean to trivialize your involvement in the financial profession but you are one man with one opinion and I don't believe that your evidence should be considered strictly anecdotal. I am certain the cost of long and drawn out litigation and the millions of dollars that it would cost to defend against claims of discrimination weighed heavily on Citigroup et al and all of their decisions to relax requirements. You know the money business , but believe me when I tell you that just the threat or possibility of the Feds coming down on them makes them quake in their boots.

I also understand how greed played a huge part in lenders preferring to originate subprime loans as opposed to conforming if given the chance. And the fact that the regulations were such that made this possible can be laid at the feet of many. I have had lengthy discussions with a few people in the banking industry who feel that this was started back in the 70's and the torch was reignited in the early 90's coming to a head 4 years ago. Both Republicans and Democrats can be blamed for this mess and I take issue with the head in the sand mentality of the Obama administration blaming all of this on Republicans. I do have some familiarity with some of the things you have gone through in the past 10 years i,e, predatory lending laws and realize that the money business has been tough going the past few years. We will have to disagree as to culpability, as all flames start with a single spark.

 

[Rey C.]

I have conceded the fact that it never reached the point that they were forced to make these loans from a legal standpoint.

:hatsoff:

I don't mean to trivialize your involvement in the financial profession but you are one man with one opinion and I don't believe that your evidence should be considered strictly anecdotal.

And I have no issue with that. My stories of days gone by are anecdotes. As people age they tend to do that. My girl keeps Sprinsteen's "Glory Days" cued up on her iPhone for when I start talking about "the good old days" to her nephew. But the evidence here is not anecdotal. It is based on statistical studies and research papers done by the Fed, FNMA, FHLMC and other bodies.

I have no reason to try to mislead anyone with anything that I'm saying. It just is what it is... and it isn't what it isn't.

"I reviewed several hundred [subprime] loans recently for our wholesale division," said Allen Hardester, regional director of development for mortgage-broker, Guaranteed Rate, "and all of them, with one exception, qualified for a prime-rate loan."

Freddie Mac, a government-sponsored mortgage-loan buyer, estimated that borrowers of 15 to 35 percent of all subprime loans it bought in 2005 could have qualified for prime-rate loans.

Fannie Mae, another government-sponsored loan buyer, estimated up to 50 percent of the borrowers, whose subprimes it bought that year, had credit profiles that could have qualified them for prime rates.

Why??? OK, maybe I was off by suggesting that they were stashing cash to pay for a Jag or Porsche - some likely bought BMWs or Mercedes.

I am certain the cost of long and drawn out litigation and the millions of dollars that it would cost to defend against claims of discrimination weighed heavily on Citigroup et al and all of their decisions to relax requirements. You know the money business , but believe me when I tell you that just the threat or possibility of the Feds coming down on them makes them quake in their boots.

Have you taken a look at the lawsuits they're facing now?! We're not talking millions these days, we're talking billions. And if public pressure was such a key driver, why have they still refused to open up lending to qualified small businesses??? That's one of the very few things that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress can agree on. And if Obama had all this power as a community organizer, why isn't his power as President of the most powerful nation on Earth enough to make them do what the people want and need... especially since we bailed out the money center banks??? No one was forced to make no doc, low doc, interest only or Alt-A mortgages. And yes, on the other side of the coin, no one was forced to accept one either. I'm not arguing that these borrowers were all victims. Yes, greed cut both ways in many cases.

I also understand how greed played a huge part in lenders preferring to originate subprime loans as opposed to conforming if given the chance. And the fact that the regulations were such that made this possible can be laid at the feet of many. I have had lengthy discussions with a few people in the banking industry who feel that this was started back in the 70's and the torch was reignited in the early 90's coming to a head 4 years ago. Both Republicans and Democrats can be blamed for this mess and I take issue with the head in the sand mentality of the Obama administration blaming all of this on Republicans. I do have some familiarity with some of the things you have gone through in the past 10 years i,e, predatory lending laws and realize that the money business has been tough going the past few years. We will have to disagree as to culpability, as all flames start with a single spark.

As I stated above, I also believe that fault or blame can be laid at the feet of many: Fannie, Freddie, Congress, the Fed, borrowers, Realtors, appraisers, the money center banks (many regional and local banks NEVER originated or traded subprime mortgages), etc. The only issue that I believe we disagreed on was the claim that Obama had some role in "forcing" banks to make mortgages to unqualified borrowers - sounds like we may have cleared that up.

And yeah, some things that happened in the 70's did form the basis of the banking and S&L crisis of the 1980's - and maybe as an off-shoot, that did contribute to what happened later. There was pressure on banks to close their lending gaps to certain groups. But pressuring banks to not redline or discriminate, thereby making the same loans to qualified minority applicants as were made to qualified White applicants - even if the lending standards were relaxed across the board, is ten miles from what has been suggested by this chain email based claim (that I have seen many, many times). It is, as Snopes concluded, largely an urban myth.

That's really all I was pointing out.