UT alum

10 hours ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

No of course not. But there should be way to keep govt equal. Let's start by getting rid of lobbyist and corrupt politicians. I proposed term limits to force Congress to make progress while they are there.

Citizens United case turned money into votes. That ain’t good for anyone without that kind of dough, be you liberal or conservative. 

On 1/21/2019 at 10:47 PM, Kountzer said:

The group that invented socialism and communism pretty much run this country.  They have been running things for a long time.

Marx and Engels have been dead over 100 years.

8 hours ago, Hagar said:

Blacks and liberals love to make the racist allegation.  On the basketball thread tonight, one poster referred to Silsbee Coach & players as African- American - that’s find, but then that same poster referred to everyone in Ltown as Lily-White.  I’m fairly certain the poster is a colored man, but I’m tired of this one way racial sensitivity.  

Btw, if the racist happens to read this, you can referred to me as a Caucasian, Anglo-Saxon, or a European-American, but I don’t appreciate racial slurs like lily-white.

I don’t use the racist term lightly, nor do I use it often, and certainly not to delineate political affiliations. I think sometimes prejudice and racism are mistaken for the same thing. Prejudice is a pre-conceived judgement without just grounds or sufficient information . Racism is the idea that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Neither is an attractive trait, but they are not interchangeable terms. In my time, going back to my youth, I have heard many white people proclaim that they were not equal with a black person, but superior. I have never heard a black person claim racial superiority, only an insistence that they were equal, not less than. Black people in my experience are not racist, but deeply prejudiced. There’s a big difference. All prejudiced people are not racist, but all racists are prejudiced.

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

And was the "daughter" not permitted to speak her peace( note the correct spelling of peace)?  If a daughter launches an accusation ( at the urging of others) does that make it automatically true/accurate?

You spell check, too? Well, check Merriam Webster. It lists my usage of “piece” as a proper way to spell the word in the context used. Sheesh.

6 minutes ago, stevenash said:

And was the "daughter" not permitted to speak her peace( note the correct spelling of peace)?  If a daughter launches an accusation ( at the urging of others) does that make it automatically true/accurate?

Not automatically.

Hey, let's lighten up a minute. Did ya'll see where Prince Philip rolled his Toyota Landrover? Ninety-seven, and the guy walked away.  The vehicle looked like it took a pretty good beating.

6 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

What if it was your son. Blasted on National News. Condemened by over half the country. Without a shred of evidence and a testimony that was laughable. Spare me.

I would believe my son, and tell him to tough it out.  I would also believe my daughter and tell her to speak her piece.

28 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

I think an accuser who don't know where she was, who she was with, when it happened, or how she got home should be ignored. When she waits 30 years, to wait for this guy to get nominated to the highest court in the land, who mysteriously goes away as soon as he is confirmed should be ignored. She didn't even know what year lol yeah she should be ignored.

 

What if it was your daughter? Would you lol then?

26 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

Yeah I gotta agree with Reagan. Where is the outrage for blatantly trying to ruin a man's life to save a seat? Without evidence Democrate after Democrat continued to slander that man in front of the nation. Where is your outrage? 

I don't think that the Senate hearings were allowed enough evidence or testimony to decide if the man's character was suitable for the Supreme Court.  It was ugly, no doubt, but you think the accuser should have just been ignored?

18 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

They all agree there is a crisis at the border and illegal immigration is major problem. They have all been documented saying such. Trumps 5.7 proposal is a drop in the pond.. They agree there is a crisis, the money is not an issue at all, but they are obstructing his agenda. They are obstructing so bad, they are okay with a million workers working for free as long as Trump don't get what he wants, and what they agree with. 

So, your idea of negotiation is give your side everything they want or walk away?  A bill passed both houses with 1.7 billion in border security funding. Both houses.  McConnell didn't know Trump was going to throw him under the bus with a veto.  Trump screwed the pooch not realizing the Senate Majority leader is responsible for bringing any bill to vote in the Senate. He's  painted himself into a corner, and I can't wait to see how he gets out of it.

8 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

And the Democrats aren't doing the same exact thing? Where is the outrage? But the Republicans did it first? We can go back and forth with it all day..

Explain how Democrats are doing exact same thing?

5 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

We can't engage in a conversation about disrespect to a presidency. How did you not just "choke". Even Biden agreed, a lame duck president, in an election year, should wait until after the election for a nomination. 

But never denied anybody a hearing.  You don't hear what I'm saying.  I don't recall a Democrat Senate Majority Leader ever announcing on inauguration day that his/her only objective was to make the President a one termer.  That is obstructionism prima facie.

27 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

"Joe Biden argued that President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer."

Bitching about the same crap Democrats do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Democrats have ever refused to even hear a Republican president's nominee.  That was a great disrespect to the presidency, not just President Obama, when they refused to even listen to Garrick Marland whether the vote happened or not. 

7 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Did anyone choke when the Judge Kavanaugh total joke effort was made? 

Merrick Garland

2 hours ago, Tigers2010 said:

Yeah, that sucks. Would be nice if Nancy wasn't trying to take another vacation.

Democrats are being obstructionist. Plain and simple. 

I can't see how a Republican doesn't choke on the word "obstructionist".

On 1/16/2019 at 10:57 AM, stevenash said:

I am sure you will be told that "that's one point of view"

 Actually, sir, Texas has work requirements for welfare recipients and I support them. They do work, and, heaven forbid, I propose that option be removed from the states. And to think conservatives rant and rave constantly about “liberal bias”. Give me a break.

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

I am very familiar with Krugman.  I guess this is where you would say "that's one point of view".  I also know that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize but we can discuss that another day.  Please go back to your scholarly efforts and explain to me, in laymans terms, how a bank/.mortgage company gives a loan to someone with insufficient income and down payment, the customer later defaults, and then we blame that on someone or something other than the FACT that the borrower did not live up to his contract.  I would also like to know why you would accept the words of a group of academics over the words of a man who was a member of the crisis committee?  Is it safe to assume that you  have declared the economist with whom I was in contact, to be unworthy of consideration along with Peter Wallison  and, on the other side of the coin, Mr. Krugman is fully credible and beyond question?  Does the FACT that he is a columnist for the New York Times impact his credibility?

first off, I make no claims to be a scholar, just an average Joe who tries his best to make sense of the world around me.  As for the defaults, predatory lending practices are one way people are enticed (it does take a bit of a sense of greed on the borrower, as well).  When the money people push the value over the edge of what's reasonable and the market crashes, what are people to do? Unemployment at 13%, house worth half what you paid, what you think's gonna happen.  That does not absolve the mortgagee of their responsibilities.  I reckon many a good credit score was ruined.  The main point I wanted to make was, don't blame it all on government policy or poor people trying to game the system to live beyond their means.  Middle and upper income groups amassed most of that foreclosure debt, greed being a motivator there as there were people buying and flipping like crazy riding that wave.

A for my opinion of economists, I look to them for sources of information, opinions, and ideas. I might just look up Mr. Wallison's book and give it a go.

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

I happen to have access to a leading economist and I sent him an email enclosing a copy/paste of this comment by you: 

-  Sloan School of Management- The reduced down payments and other incentives by the fed applied only to properties in the community reinvestment zones.- a small percentage of total foreclosures.  The derivatives market provide the prime vehicle to fuel the greed. 

 

this individual speaks  on CNBC multiple times each month and is a member of the Academic Advisory Council to the Federal Reserve.  Upon reading the copy/paste statement regarding your Sloan School of Business claim, he responded as follows.

 

"Totally disagree.  It’s a long answer and it would be great if the individual read Wallison’s book.  He was on the Crisis investigation committee.   Can’t remember the actual name of it, but it was put together by the government.  I haven’t seen the Sloan piece.  "

 

I suspect he "hasn't seen the Sloan piece because there probably is no piece but rather a comment from someone affiliated with Sloan that you cherry picked.  Am I right?  If not, please send me the link and I will forward to him.

 

I will say once more that securitization of mortgages through derivative devices is not what caused people to default on their loans .  If the loans performed, the associated securities performed.

 

I have also emailed a close personal friend who has been a business professor at Stern School of Business at NYU for over 40 years and will pass on his response if an when I receive it.

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't address down payment and lessening of regs, but it does make a convincing argument that the upper and middle class earners drove the default crisis, not the lower income people whom the Community Reinvestment Act was meant to help.

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

I happen to have access to a leading economist and I sent him an email enclosing a copy/paste of this comment by you: 

-  Sloan School of Management- The reduced down payments and other incentives by the fed applied only to properties in the community reinvestment zones.- a small percentage of total foreclosures.  The derivatives market provide the prime vehicle to fuel the greed. 

 

this individual speaks  on CNBC multiple times each month and is a member of the Academic Advisory Council to the Federal Reserve.  Upon reading the copy/paste statement regarding your Sloan School of Business claim, he responded as follows.

 

"Totally disagree.  It’s a long answer and it would be great if the individual read Wallison’s book.  He was on the Crisis investigation committee.   Can’t remember the actual name of it, but it was put together by the government.  I haven’t seen the Sloan piece.  "

 

I suspect he "hasn't seen the Sloan piece because there probably is no piece but rather a comment from someone affiliated with Sloan that you cherry picked.  Am I right?  If not, please send me the link and I will forward to him.

 

I will say once more that securitization of mortgages through derivative devices is not what caused people to default on their loans .  If the loans performed, the associated securities performed.

 

I have also emailed a close personal friend who has been a business professor at Stern School of Business at NYU for over 40 years and will pass on his response if an when I receive it.

 

 

 

 

 

Wow. Didn't know I was going to be held up to scholarly evaluation.  Paul Krugman is a Nobel winning economist, and I'll bet you wouldn't agree to much of anything he had to say about economics. So, expert schmexpert.

I couldn't find reference to the 300 lender statement other than by quote.  If you want to read the research piece by the MIT school of management, however, it's right here:

44 minutes ago, stevenash said:

And I want to know how the derivatives caused the mortgagees to not honor their obligations?

44 minutes ago, stevenash said:

And I want to know how the derivatives caused the mortgagees to not honor their obligations?

Securitization of mortgages through derivative devices fueled a bubble that wound up driving housing prices to unsustainable levels.  Add the Great Recession and voila.  What I don't like is way that the role Community Reinvestment Act was distorted.  That only gives conservative pundits I've heard their "cred" to blame the poor - their favorite targets. As for "Hidden in Plain Sight", I would prefer something a little more objective than what a shill for the American Enterprise Institute writes.

27 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Please point me toward an article regarding your 300 mortgage lenders who crashed.  Even before I look into it, I am strongly convinced that many of those lenders made those loans based on FHA guarantees.

The expansion in risky mortgages to underqualified borrowers was encouraged by the federal government. The growth of "creative" nonprime lending followed Congress's strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act, the Federal Housing Administration's loosening of down-payment standards, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's pressuring of lenders to extend mortgages to borrowers who previously would not have qualified   Please do me a favor and read " Hidden in Plain Sight" by Peter Wallison.  Fannie Mae and Freddie mac owned 76% of ALL SUBPRIME debt

Sloan School of Management at MIT. 

The reduced down payments and other incentives by the fed applied only to properties in the community reinvestment zones - a small percentage of total foreclosures.  The derivatives market provided the prime vehicle to fuel the greed.

18 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

My coworker was a credit analyst for one of the largest lending companies in Houston during that time. He says they lied on documents and knew people couldn't afford it. But the government was throwing so much money to get these people hooked in. That it was crazy not to take advantage of the situation. 

Of thee top 300 mortgage lenders who crashed, none participated in the CRA program. The vast majority of foreclosures occurred in geographic areas not eligible for CRA participation. I think that the derivatives market and the rise of credit default swaps which arose in an unregulated financial environment brought in a lot more capital ( money) to throw aroundthan the fed government did. That’s another point of view.

14 minutes ago, stevenash said:

It is precisely what happened.   

So the feds put a gun to the mortgage lenders’ heads and made them follow unsound business practices?

43 minutes ago, Reagan said:

You do realize that the Postal Service operates at a deficit of billions and billions of dollars every year?  Does this not bother you?  Private companies do a much better job.  If it was eliminated, then postal workers can go to work for the private companies.  You know, deal with he real world for a change.

That’s real easy to say when you’re talking about someone else’s job.

14 minutes ago, stevenash said:

at the behest of the fed and the guidelines they instituted 

The expansion in risky mortgages to underqualified borrowers was encouraged by the federal government. The growth of "creative" nonprime lending followed Congress's strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act, the Federal Housing Administration's loosening of down-payment standards, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's pressuring of lenders to extend mortgages to borrowers who previously would not have qualified.

Meanwhile, the government-supported mortgage lenders, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, grew to own or guarantee about half of the United States' $12 trillion mortgage market. Congressional leaders pointedly refused to moderate the distortions created by the government's implicit guarantee that the firms would not be allowed to fail, which was the catalyst for their rapid expansion. Instead, Congress pushed them to promote "affordable housing" through expanded purchases of nonprime loans to low-income applicants.

That’s one point of view. 

10 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Pretty brief comment.  Are you telling me that the reason so many people defaulted on their home loans is due to some inadequate documentation?  I am quite anxious to discuss that complete scenario with you.

That’s the best example of how irresponsible the banking system became during the frenzy.