another murder by the government

Superfreak said:
ROFLMAO... you may want to actually re-read that thread yourself. Your assertions were incorrect. I showed why you were incorrect. I even used your OWN links to show why you were wrong. After the post that did so... you disappeared. Failing to respond.

It is hilarious that you think you somehow 'handed me my head' in that discussion when all you did was chirp a few party line talking points and then fail to actually back them up or show that you understood what the links you were posting actually said.

Thanks for yet another laugh....
Click to expand...

You are a lying sack of shit.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz1MAkFbkzg
 
St. Adolphus said:
Sure. How many life sentences should I get for all this?
30392387488563338572198.jpg

37130436307033338572198.jpg

30392387488568338572198.jpg
Click to expand...

NONE. Legal ownership is not a crime.

But your question is just a smoke screen IMO...LOL

gorilla_beating_chest.gif
 
Bfgrn said:
You are a lying sack of shit.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz1MAkFbkzg
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO.... seriously, you should just quit while you can.

1) I did not lie about anything. You simply once again have shown you simply cut and paste articles without ANY understanding of what they are saying relative to what I have said.

2) You are using an article that cherry picked a few years out of the problem Subprime debt exploded starting in 1993 and continued on with an even greater explosion in 2000. Fannie and Freddie were a HUGE part of that explosion as they were the original big buyers of sub-prime and MBS (including CDO's). That said, investment banks did enter the arena in the 2004-2006 years, which caused the PERCENTAGE Fannie and Freddie were buying relative the whole market to go down in terms of pure sub primes bought on the secondary. But what you and the author fail to grasp is the FACT that the MBS portion of Fannie and Freddie's books exploded during that time. What were they buying? They were buying the AAA rated pieces of shit the investment banks were putting together. So they were indirectly buying up more and more subprime debt. Which is why they imploded and are continuing to have massive problems.

3) THAT said, I can't help but note you only cherry picked one tiny portion of my response to you and then proceeded to falsely accuse me of lying (which I attribute once again to your complete lack of understanding of the situation).

4) As I stated, Fannie and Freddie were a PART of the problem. There is much blame to go around. But bottom line, your assertion that it was predominantly the investment banks, greedy lenders and the 'wealthy' was absurd at best and highly partisan bullshit as you completely ignore all the other factors like Fannie, Freddie, buyers taking on more debt than they could afford, the repeal of Glass Steagall etc....

5) Thank you again for demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge on this topic. The fact that you are only capable of cutting and pasting articles and hoping they somehow might just possibly contradict me rather than formulating your own thoughts on this shows just how out of your league you are.
 
Bfgrn said:
NONE. Legal ownership is not a crime.

But your question is just a smoke screen IMO...LOL

gorilla_beating_chest.gif
Click to expand...
Is it now? That's not your previous position:
Bfgrn said:
Manufactures found ways around the ban. So what we need is a ban on all assault weapons. If you have one in your possession, you are put away for life. I have no problem with people having weapons for sport, hunting and to protect their home and family. NO ONE needs a weapon that can kill crowds of people.
Click to expand...
 
I don't know about having a head handed to him, but it looks like somebody's head got stuck on the bar...


​
30392387488563338572198.jpg
 
Superfreak said:
ROFLMAO.... seriously, you should just quit while you can.

1) I did not lie about anything. You simply once again have shown you simply cut and paste articles without ANY understanding of what they are saying relative to what I have said.

2) You are using an article that cherry picked a few years out of the problem Subprime debt exploded starting in 1993 and continued on with an even greater explosion in 2000. Fannie and Freddie were a HUGE part of that explosion as they were the original big buyers of sub-prime and MBS (including CDO's). That said, investment banks did enter the arena in the 2004-2006 years, which caused the PERCENTAGE Fannie and Freddie were buying relative the whole market to go down in terms of pure sub primes bought on the secondary. But what you and the author fail to grasp is the FACT that the MBS portion of Fannie and Freddie's books exploded during that time. What were they buying? They were buying the AAA rated pieces of shit the investment banks were putting together. So they were indirectly buying up more and more subprime debt. Which is why they imploded and are continuing to have massive problems.

3) THAT said, I can't help but note you only cherry picked one tiny portion of my response to you and then proceeded to falsely accuse me of lying (which I attribute once again to your complete lack of understanding of the situation).

4) As I stated, Fannie and Freddie were a PART of the problem. There is much blame to go around. But bottom line, your assertion that it was predominantly the investment banks, greedy lenders and the 'wealthy' was absurd at best and highly partisan bullshit as you completely ignore all the other factors like Fannie, Freddie, buyers taking on more debt than they could afford, the repeal of Glass Steagall etc....

5) Thank you again for demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge on this topic. The fact that you are only capable of cutting and pasting articles and hoping they somehow might just possibly contradict me rather than formulating your own thoughts on this shows just how out of your league you are.
Click to expand...

I fully understand what the numerous articles I posted say...I'm right and your are uninformed. What did you offer as backup and proof...chest beating and bluster?

Let's take a look at what I originally posted and what you originally posted in response OK?

Originally Posted by Bfgrn
Poor lending practices (predatory) played a huge role, but not to low income and first time buyers. And Fannie and Freddie were not to blame either. The Community Investment Act was not the culprit. It was middle class and wealthy buyers who were mostly speculators.

AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN

Reply by the Freak
1) The above is simply absurd. The 'wealthy' are not the ones being foreclosed upon. It is low income and moderate income families/individuals that are losing their homes.

2) It most certainly was in part due to the CRA.

3) Fannie and Freddie dramatically increased their ownership of 'sub prime debt' (which is again... NOT .... the wealthy)

4) yes, lending practices were predatory in some cases. In others it was buyers who were taking on too much debt relative to their income. Both the borrowers and lenders share blame. (along with the government and investment banks)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your original responses are not based on facts or economic acumen, they are based on what you 'feel', your lack of knowledge of the CAUSE and your lack of knowledge of the MAJOR perpetrators and culprits.

The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home. It was not caused by dead beat poor people. It was caused by a bunch of wealthy, greedy slime balls. If low income folks were foreclosed on, it was because those slime balls fed off the trust and lack of knowledge of honest, hard working people. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a large segment of buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from their mortgages, leaving people who bought homes to live in with lower values on their house and neighborhood.

The honest folks who were preyed upon tried like hell to hang onto their homes, when they SHOULD have walked away. Because those loans were not designed to help people buy a home, they were designed to swindle them out of every penny of they had earned or saved.

It makes me sick what has been happening in this country. We are seeing more and more where unethical business practices have become 'lawful' through regulatory capture and corporate lawyers writing laws that only benefit their corporate interests and fuck the people in the ass.

I addressed your ignorance already, here is some more proof...

Hand, meet head...LOL

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich
The Millionaire Foreclosure Club
Foreclosure double standard: Why the rich get away with defaulting
More Rich People Default On Mortgages
The rich bail faster on mortgages
Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich
Rich Borrowers More Likely to Default on Mortgage
Foreclosures & Walking Away: 60 Minutes Eyes an ‘Epidemic’
Speculation By Investors Largely Cause Of Foreclosure Crisis
How the Foreclosure Crisis Started: Investors, Speculators, Mortgage Fraud & Lax Lending Standards
 
I admit that St Alcoholus knows bars better than I do.

Here he is waiting for Yurt to finish what he started:


pantsdownks.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top