Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Once again dear readers... Desh runs away from FACTS and instead LIES about what the rules mean.
long impasse between the SEC and banks regarding the appropriate interpretation
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
evince
Truthmatters
the banks wen without rules on how they could act as brokers you fucking idiot
then he Bush admin fought all the states to keep them from making laws to protect consumers from predatory lending.
and here you are trying to pretend this is all about me ?
oh yeah your not a republican ass licking fucking slave
then he Bush admin fought all the states to keep them from making laws to protect consumers from predatory lending.
and here you are trying to pretend this is all about me ?
oh yeah your not a republican ass licking fucking slave
cawacko
Well-known member
Which banks acted as brokers that caused the crash?
evince
Truthmatters
http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...level-pre.html
Thursday, February 14, 2008
State Level Predatory Lending Rules Were Blocked
Eliot Spitzer says some states tried to pass rules to limit predatory lending, but the Bush administration blocked the efforts:
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime: How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers, by Eliot Spitzer, Commentary, Washington Post: Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. ... These ... practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets. ...
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? ... Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents...
The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks..., an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration... In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit... Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. ..
Thursday, February 14, 2008
State Level Predatory Lending Rules Were Blocked
Eliot Spitzer says some states tried to pass rules to limit predatory lending, but the Bush administration blocked the efforts:
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime: How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers, by Eliot Spitzer, Commentary, Washington Post: Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. ... These ... practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets. ...
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? ... Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents...
The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks..., an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration... In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit... Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. ..
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
quote the rule you are referring to Desh. Then define the word 'broker'.
I am not pretending anything of the such. I am asking YOU to explain what rules would have prevented the crash. The above is nothing more than your idiotic attempts to AVOID THE FACTS. The above has NOTHING to do with the SEC rules that you CLAIM would have prevented the crash.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes dear reader, Poor little Desh continues to run away from the FACT that she doesn't understand what the rules even mean. This, dearest of readers, is why poor little Desh continues to post links to things that have nothing to do with the broker rules.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
lmao... you are such a pathetic little hack. YOU are the one claiming they would have prevented the crisis. Yet YOU refuse to discuss the rules and what they mean.
Why is that Desh? Are you too stupid to comprehend what they are about??
YOU made the claim. It is up to YOU to back it up. But we both know you will run away again.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
But at least Desh can post articles from a highly biased idiot who got busted paying prostitutes for sex... I mean clearly he is honorable and all.
cawacko
Well-known member
After all her cussing and irony of calling others dumb she's asking for the basis of her argument to be explained. Only Desh. She must be from Michigan.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
His saying it doesn't alter the fact that he is a partisan hack like you. Add in that, like you, he is also dishonorable and his comments are sad. Especially given his lack of understanding on the banking system... just like you.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I know. I have been mocking her stupidity on this topic for years. Yet she keeps bumping old threads or starting new ones on the same topic. It is as if she is too dumb to remember every other time she has been proven moronic on this topic.
cawacko
Well-known member
The ultimate irony is she has brought this topic to other boards where even liberal posters have said she is wrong. You'll notice too no liberal posters here have jumped in and argued her position.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
That could be due to the FACT that even a third grader could be made to understand why she is wrong. Unfortunately for Desh, she isn't that bright.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Bill Clinton