Leftists, Poor People Caused Financial Crisis

[Capitalist Lawyer]

A 1999 article discussing the future ramifications of loosening credit standards and lending practices to poor people.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60&sec=&spon=





In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.


We see that the motivation behind loosening credit was to give more loans to minorities. Leftists failed to consider that these minorities were inherently bad credit risks, because we all know that credit standards are how the white racist majority keeps the black man down.



Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
We see that the Democratic Clinton Administration was pushing for looser credit to help minorities. There's also a mention of stock holder profits. It was wrong that anyone was profiting from the implicit assumption that the government would stand behind bad Fannie Mae debt. It's an example of making money through value transference--transferring value from the taxpayers to Fannie Mae.


[Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer, and also a black man, said:] ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
"Too many" borrowers have bad credit. So the solution to this perceived social problem is not to change the behavior of the borrowers (if that's even possible given their genetic deficits), but to just lower lending standards.


Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
Yes, lending standards be racist.


''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
A conservative warns of the problem, but he is ignored by Democrats because Democrats and liberals know that the conservative is motivated by racism.


The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.
It's all clear. The big financial mess we're in today was due to failure of liberals and Democrats to acknolwedge the genetic deficits of the poor. Proper lending standards are called "racial discrimination," and something had to be done about it.



I know this isn't a Democratic Party board, but you all share the same principles of being anti-racist, pro-working class, anti-class discrimination and pro equality of opportunity regardless of class, etc.

[Plagueround]

We don't believe in the democrats idea of expanding markets out to people who can't afford it for more business profit...all the while ignoring or band-aiding the situations that make them unable to pay loans like that. That's why they do it, not because they care, but because they believe in a slightly more bottom up economy than the republicans do. We also don't believe people should be able to make ridiculous profits off of "future money" that essentially never existed in the first place.

We don't support putting a smiley face on capitalism and pretending everything is all better. When you say the democrats share the same principles as us, you're doing yourself a disservice considering how right wing the dems are now.

As a side note, you'll hardly find defense of democrats on this board, but to ignore that republicans and right wingers, as well as the lenders themselves, were responsible for much of the deregulation and greed that lead to this crisis is simply putting one part of the situation under the magnifying glass and carrying it over here in an attempt to make a point. Yawn.

[Dean]

If the banks weren't demanding excessive returns, the loans wouldn't be so bulky. It is the worst goddamn argument to say "the poor people couldn't pay the price that the bank put on their house, so it's the poor person's fault!"

[Trystan]

Did you know that they can actually vote, too? Lordy, what a state our world is in.

[Demogorgon]

Didn't you reveal yourself as a troll a few months ago?

[trivas7]

If the banks weren't demanding excessive returns, the loans wouldn't be so bulky. It is the worst goddamn argument to say "the poor people couldn't pay the price that the bank put on their house, so it's the poor person's fault!"
Indeed, blaming the victim has a long pedigree.

[TheRedRevolutionary]

Yes blaming the poor victim who faces foreclosure instead of the capitalist predators that made big money off it! How very capitalist!

[CaptainCapitalist68]

If the banks weren't demanding excessive returns, the loans wouldn't be so bulky. It is the worst goddamn argument to say "the poor people couldn't pay the price that the bank put on their house, so it's the poor person's fault!"

fuckign A....

Dude that shit was on paper and they sign it therefore its their fault because they agreed to it.. They were only thinking about themselves when they were buying this homes so fuck them.

And I dont think the banks are responsible for putting prices on this homes. They were simply forced to lean money to poor people.

Its not like they were put in this homes by force and forced to pay up as you would be in a communist society.....

I mean how stupid can a person be to try and buy something they can't afford is beyond me. Its unbelievable to me how we have so many dumb fucks in our society.

I am not all that smart but I am only 1,500 in depth but I learned my lesson and now I believe it is my responsibility to pay back this money i owe.

WHAT The fuck is so hard about takign responsibility for your own actiosn instead of blaming others?

[TheRedRevolutionary]

"taking responsibility" just like the wall street capitalists are now when they're asking for massive multi-billion dollar handouts from the government??

This is where the bourgeois concept of "personal responsibility" comes to a deafening silence.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

"taking responsibility" just like the wall street capitalists are now when they're asking for massive multi-billion dollar handouts from the government??

This is where the bourgeois concept of "personal responsibility" comes to a deafening silence.

Have you been paying attention to anything? The Bailout didn't go though so more then likely they will have to pay for it and take responsibility for their own actions...

They were told to give home loans to poor people by the government. They should've objected but they didn't.

ANd because they didn't then I believe they should all get fired.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Ok now lets talk about poor people taking responsibility for their own actions. If a person goes in dept and buys stuff they can't afford shouldn't they take responsibility for their own actions?

If a poor person drinks beer, smokes and does drugs and fucks up his life shouldn't he take responsibility for his own actions instead of having society take care of this person?

[Mindtoaster]

[quote=CaptainCapitalist68;1251815]fuckign A....

Dude that shit was on paper and they sign it therefore its their fault because they agreed to it.. They were only thinking about themselves when they were buying this homes so fuck them.

Oh no! How dare they try to not live under a box! Surely these people who have received little to no education must have understood the implications buying their house would have on the mortgage industry when they were told by their brokers, "Don't worry, everything will be just fine :)"



Its not like they were put in this homes by force and forced to pay up as you would be in a communist society.....


Except you wouldn't have to pay for a home in a communist society. Troll.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Ok now lets talk about poor people taking responsibility for their own actions. If a person goes in dept and buys stuff they can't afford shouldn't they take responsibility for their own actions?

If a poor person drinks beer, smokes and does drugs and fucks up his life shouldn't he take responsibility for his own actions instead of having society take care of this person?

so are you seriously considering that all poor people do this, and this is why there is an economic crisis?

[GPDP]

If souls exist, Objectivists sure as hell don't have one. None of that tripe is worth responding to.

How does it feel to mire yourself in hatred?

[Dean]

WHAT The fuck is so hard about takign responsibility for your own actiosn instead of blaming others?

You're right. The tenents should defending their homes from the banks at all costs.

[Decolonize The Left]

It's all clear. The big financial mess we're in today was due to failure of liberals and Democrats to acknolwedge the genetic deficits of the poor. Proper lending standards are called "racial discrimination," and something had to be done about it.

Genetic? Really? There's a gene for material wealth? Wow... :thumbdown:

- August

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I know this isn't a Democratic Party board, but you all share the same principles of being anti-racist, pro-working class, anti-class discrimination and pro equality of opportunity regardless of class, etc.
Yeah, and we also universally oppose profits, interest, and rent. We oppose all capitalist banking practices, liberal or conservative.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

A 1999 article discussing the future ramifications of loosening credit standards and lending practices to poor people.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60&sec=&spon=



We see that the motivation behind loosening credit was to give more loans to minorities. Leftists failed to consider that these minorities were inherently bad credit risks, because we all know that credit standards are how the white racist majority keeps the black man down.
We see that the Democratic Clinton Administration was pushing for looser credit to help minorities. There's also a mention of stock holder profits. It was wrong that anyone was profiting from the implicit assumption that the government would stand behind bad Fannie Mae debt. It's an example of making money through value transference--transferring value from the taxpayers to Fannie Mae. "Too many" borrowers have bad credit. So the solution to this perceived social problem is not to change the behavior of the borrowers (if that's even possible given their genetic deficits), but to just lower lending standards. Yes, lending standards be racist. A conservative warns of the problem, but he is ignored by Democrats because Democrats and liberals know that the conservative is motivated by racism. It's all clear. The big financial mess we're in today was due to failure of liberals and Democrats to acknolwedge the genetic deficits of the poor. Proper lending standards are called "racial discrimination," and something had to be done about it.



I know this isn't a Democratic Party board, but you all share the same principles of being anti-racist, pro-working class, anti-class discrimination and pro equality of opportunity regardless of class, etc.
It wasn't the poor who lent out the money.

[Sendo]

The head of NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, a non-profit) was on DN! talking about this. A joe named Bruce Marks, said at a Congressional hearing 8 years ago that aloowing subprime mortgages would end in collapse. He claimed that if he knew this the industry big wigs surely knew, and that they had been banking on the Feds bailing them out when that time came.

I'd say it's all capital's fault. Some blame the poor for buying into the hollow but heavily promoted housing market, when we know capitalism requires constant expansion even in the face of falling wages. Thus, credit becomes needed to mop up bonus production.

[rednordman]

lol at this post:lol: of course the poor is at fault for the disasterous state of the US economy, because they are obviously experts on the subject (degrees n all):rolleyes::lol: It is the banks fault for being to greedy and eager for cash, coupled with the state being way too summisive to big buisness and a for a de-regulated economy (God forbid critizise the free-market). OK in a perfect world everyone would share the knowledge and responsibility of a financial expert, but that isn't reality and people are greedy nowadays (more so than ever before) so yes, the person does sign the contract that the bank gives them for the loan, but that hasnt stopped the banks from encouraging them to do this and the state hasnt regulated the banks in the interest of the people so you could say their ALL at fault. But one might argue that the bank is out for a profit and that is all, where as average person is just in it due to the illusion of bettering themselves. Thats the main problem with capitalism in todays 'westernised' societies, it gives people the idea that they can afford things that they clearly cannot, and that they the 'individual' is all that matters so fuck everyone else. Well in this case this is exactly what has happened (saw ass an all), and I hate to say it, but i do worry about the state of affairs worldwide if the white house does not pass that bailout bill that has caused so much controversy.

[Killfacer]

I think everyone, apart from the idiot dolt who started the thread, agrees that it was poor trading and irresponsible loaning from the banks. Now people stop speaking to this idiot before he claims some other stupid thing like "if you have a number 3 haircut then your to blaime for the credit crunch"

[Dean]

I think everyone, apart from the idiot dolt who started the thread, agrees that it was poor trading and irresponsible loaning from the banks. Now people stop speaking to this idiot before he claims some other stupid thing like "if you have a number 3 haircut then your to blaime for the credit crunch"

I don't think he'll be a problem anymore. :cool:

[jasmine]

if you have a number 3 haircut then your to blaime for the credit crunch


Actually I think hairdressers are the real problem - after all they are the ones cutting hair. If you want to see the proof here it is::crying:

http://www.haircut.net/news/v5/v180.htm

[Dust Bunnies]

Captain Capitalist, if you are trying to troll you failed majorly.

Here (from what I've heard, I'm just a political novice) is what I heard what happened.
A poor person wanted a house so he goes to a bank and says, that he wants to buy a house, how can he afford it? The bank says that they will give him a great low mortgage (I believe it is an ARM Mortgage, Adjustable Rate Mortgage), the poor person is excited because the bank says the poor person can afford it. The banks make a pretty little penny, and when they need to they raise the rate on the ARM, the poor person has to leave the house and the bank didn't care to say that the rates are subject to change.

The person to blame is the lender, stating that the poor person can do it, not caring to tell what else happens.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

A poor person wanted a house so he goes to a bank and says, that he wants to buy a house, how can he afford it? The bank says that they will give him a great low mortgage (I believe it is an ARM Mortgage, Adjustable Rate Mortgage), the poor person is excited because the bank says the poor person can afford it. The banks make a pretty little penny, and when they need to they raise the rate on the ARM, the poor person has to leave the house and the bank didn't care to say that the rates are subject to change.

The person to blame is the lender, stating that the poor person can do it, not caring to tell what else happens.


"..and then, the evil banker pulled a gun out from under his top hat, and he screamed at us: Take the bigger house! And, and we tried to say no...but he put the gun to my child's head! What was I to do? I had no choice!"

All right, first, they don't just "raise the rate" when they feel it's convienient. In most cases, that's done by the Fed. Second, the banks aren't making a pretty penny, there paying up the ass because they took these people at their word that they'd be able to pay. Obviously, they shouldn't have. Thirdly, the customer who made the purchase of the house is responsible for paying it off. If they're too enfatuated with a 3-car garage to actually try and understand their mortgage, let alone hoard money for a year of two to be able to get a decent mortgage, tough.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I think everyone, apart from the idiot dolt who started the thread, agrees that it was poor trading and irresponsible loaning from the banks. Now people stop speaking to this idiot before he claims some other stupid thing like "if you have a number 3 haircut then your to blaime for the credit crunch"

Yes, selling to people who aren't wealthy enough to actually be able to afford what they buy is stupid. But on more than one level.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Captain Capitalist, if you are trying to troll you failed majorly.

Here (from what I've heard, I'm just a political novice) is what I heard what happened.
A poor person wanted a house so he goes to a bank and says, that he wants to buy a house, how can he afford it? The bank says that they will give him a great low mortgage (I believe it is an ARM Mortgage, Adjustable Rate Mortgage), the poor person is excited because the bank says the poor person can afford it. The banks make a pretty little penny, and when they need to they raise the rate on the ARM, the poor person has to leave the house and the bank didn't care to say that the rates are subject to change.

The person to blame is the lender, stating that the poor person can do it, not caring to tell what else happens.

WHat business does a poor person have in buying a house? ADJUSTABLE rate mortgage. HMMMMM You know I don't know much about relestate but I knwo that the word Adjustable means that that mortgage can and most probably will change. This isn't brain science....

But its never the poor persons fault! People are poor because the rich somehow took all their wealth away!

Nah man, this people weren't thinking about a house payments or responsibility. All they gived a shit abotu was buying a house.

I mean, just take your communist glasses off and look at reality for like 5 mins. People everywhere are always buying beyond their means using credit cards and buying cars and shit. If you're stupid enough to take the bait and buy what your heart desires while ignoring self responsibility then you desire what happens to you.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

So Cap'n, what we drinkin tonight?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

[quote]

Oh no! How dare they try to not live under a box! Surely these people who have received little to no education must have understood the implications buying their house would have on the mortgage industry when they were told by their brokers, "Don't worry, everything will be just fine :)"



Except you wouldn't have to pay for a home in a communist society. Troll.

You know what dude, if you signed papers you don't understand then you desire whats coming for you.

What excuse is there? We live in the information age for cryign out loud..... Why can't people simply be smart enough to do some freaking research before getting into something they know little about?!?!? Freakign talk to people in buying a house forum, buy a freakign book on purchasing a home, read a fucking article. LOOK WHAT YOU ARE JUMPING IN BEFORE YOU LEAP!



We don't nee

[CaptainCapitalist68]

So Cap'n, what we drinkin tonight?

is buying stuff that you can't afford stupider?

[Labor Shall Rule]

"..and then, the evil banker pulled a gun out from under his top hat, and he screamed at us: Take the bigger house! And, and we tried to say no...but he put the gun to my child's head! What was I to do? I had no choice!"

All right, first, they don't just "raise the rate" when they feel it's convienient. In most cases, that's done by the Fed. Second, the banks aren't making a pretty penny, there paying up the ass because they took these people at their word that they'd be able to pay. Obviously, they shouldn't have. Thirdly, the customer who made the purchase of the house is responsible for paying it off. If they're too enfatuated with a 3-car garage to actually try and understand their mortgage, let alone hoard money for a year of two to be able to get a decent mortgage, tough.

No, you asshat.

The banks profit off of people buying exclusively on credit (fictitious capital), so the selling of outright fraudulent sub-prime mortgages is fine, even if the holders quickly find themselves unable to meet the payments, and have to default on their loans. There was no 'infatuation' or 'stupidity' involved, “safe” mortgage debt was created by years of banks lending money that they knew they didn't even have, which built up their debt to a point of them knowing that they couldn't even pay it off.

In 1995, the Federal Reserve aborted the fractional reserve ratio - it allowed banks to no longer back assets with "broad money", so they could print more cash and give out more loans. The problem started - and is being finished - with the banks. Robert Steel (after the bankruptcy of Wachovia) walked away with millions in his pocket, while homeowners and employees found themselves fucked.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

No, you asshat.

The banks profit off of people buying exclusively on credit (fictitious capital), so the selling of outright fraudulent sub-prime mortgages is fine, even if the holders quickly find themselves unable to meet the payments, and have to default on their loans. There was no 'infatuation' or 'stupidity' involved, “safe” mortgage debt was created by years of banks lending money that they knew they didn't even have, which built up their debt to a point of them knowing that they couldn't even pay it off.

In 1995, the Federal Reserve aborted the fractional reserve ratio - it allowed banks to no longer back assets with "broad money", so they could print more cash and give out more loans. The problem started - and is being finished - with the banks. Robert Steel (after the bankruptcy of Wachovia) walked away with millions in his pocket, while homeowners and employees found themselves fucked.

The most annoying thing about this website is the level of shit that is spoken.

Anyway, yes, the banks profit by people buying more house than they can afford. And now that those assets are worth nil they're going out of business.

Secondly, the shareholders of Wachovia should have found some better leadership. Now they're paying for it. :laugh:

Thirdly, no homeowner is being fucked because of Wachovia's going out of business. Yes, it is a buyers market and yes, many people who had more house than they should have gotten will lose it. But my parents, for example, have a mortgage with Lehman Bros and when I talked to them yesterday they told me they're not joining the homeless.

Lastly, nobody forced the consumer to take on massive amounts of personal debt. The excuse that "it's not their fault, they had to" is ridiculous. What all the people who would simply blame the evil banker and not the consumer unintentially do is reassert that people should not be free enough to make tough financial decisions regarding themselves. Once again, if you're too enfatuated with a big pool to fully comprehend the ramifications of what you're doing-putting yuorself tens, even hundreds, of thousands of dollars in debt-than you deserve a little humbling ass-kicking when it comes along.

That said, I agree that we can't allow banks to make the loans they have with such a small amoun hard assets. Also, the system AIG was using with mortgage-backed insurance was just stupid, in my opinion.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Wachovia and Lehmen Brothers handed out a lot of sub-prime mortgages - the homeowners that took such out fraudulent loans, and the employees that were laid-off as a result of such greedy, deliberate bull-fuckery, are now getting a glimpse of poverty.

And I don't see how it's their fault, when their declining purchasing power and wages (which came from companies exporting capital to other countries, shutting down plants) meant that they can not afford a house or car on their own income. They thought they could of paid off the loan, because the banks said they could - the sudden rise in rental properties was not expected by anyone. That's what lawyers call 'fraud' - and the 'fraud(ed)' normally aren't informed of how they are being fucked over while it's occurring.

[Bud Struggle]

The banks profit off of people buying exclusively on credit (fictitious capital), so the selling of outright fraudulent sub-prime mortgages is fine, even if the holders quickly find themselves unable to meet the payments, and have to default on their loans. There was no 'infatuation' or 'stupidity' involved, “safe” mortgage debt was created by years of banks lending money that they knew they didn't even have, which built up their debt to a point of them knowing that they couldn't even pay it off.


Well not exactly. What happened in this case is that the commercial banks STOPPED lending money for mortages. They became originators of mortages--for a fee. They didn't hold onto the mortages themselves. The banks shipped them off to big investment banks to be securitized as interest paying debt and then bought back the securities and their high paying interest to pay for the deposits people put into the banks.

The problem is that the banks and the mortage companies weren't lending their own money--they were lending someone elses that were then bundled up, cut, divided, parsed and filleted and then sold as high interest investments.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Lastly, nobody forced the consumer to take on massive amounts of personal debt. The excuse that "it's not their fault, they had to" is ridiculous. What all the people who would simply blame the evil banker and not the consumer unintentially do is reassert that people should not be free enough to make tough financial decisions regarding themselves. Once again, if you're too enfatuated with a big pool to fully comprehend the ramifications of what you're doing-putting yuorself tens, even hundreds, of thousands of dollars in debt-than you deserve a little humbling ass-kicking when it comes along.You defending the fraudulent practice of utilizing teaser rates against people who are not all that astute with financial matters is sickening. These bankers should be in a jail cell. The entire banking industry is built on a hyperbole called the American Dream.

Coercion and consent aren't implicit. There isn't some magical line in the sand. Yet another flaw with capitalism is that exploiting someone's ignorance can get you more money.

The funny thing about all of this is that it demonstrates why a system geared towards profit and not need is inferior. We obviously had the capacity to provide low-income earners with better houses than they would have got 20 years ago, even in an elaborate price system. We had the resources and manpower, but now the profit-system is contracting because we did too much. Whether it was the market or the government, or more likely a combination of both, I can't help but to laugh at the fact you guys can't see this.

[Armand Iskra]

Well...
These Capitalists are trying to underestimate the American masses simply by blaming the poor people and the left for financial crisis. Why? So that they would say that if the entire income belongs to theirs there is no crisis?

American Society is like a triangle. Like in the song Tatsulok:

Habang may tatsulok, at sila ay nasa tuktok
Hindi matatapos itong gulo!

english translation:

As long as there's a pyramid and they are at the top,
This conflict will never ever end!

Those at the top are the capitalists, the corrupt bureaucrats, the landlords, the comradors whom running the entire american society even today. The disastrous state of the American economy must be blamed by theirs since they used to be eager for cash as well as the prevailing racism and class discrimination from economy, politics and culture. Perhaps, America needs a revolution.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Wachovia and Lehmen Brothers handed out a lot of sub-prime mortgages - the homeowners that took such out fraudulent loans, and the employees that were laid-off as a result of such greedy, deliberate bull-fuckery, are now getting a glimpse of poverty.

In America, there's usually some room between well-paid bank executive and pauper.


And I don't see how it's their fault, when their declining purchasing power and wages (which came from companies exporting capital to other countries, shutting down plants) meant that they can not afford a house or car on their own income. They thought they could of paid off the loan, because the banks said they could - the sudden rise in rental properties was not expected by anyone. That's what lawyers call 'fraud' - and the 'fraud(ed)' normally aren't informed of how they are being fucked over while it's occurring.

Once again, we're talking about people making the most important financial decision of their lives. If they allow themselves to get talked into a bad deal, tough.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You defending the fraudulent practice of utilizing teaser rates against people who are not all that astute with financial matters is sickening. These bankers should be in a jail cell. The entire banking industry is built on a hyperbole called the American Dream.

Taking on massive amiunts of debt to impress you friends/family is the American Dream. Or, at least, it's quite normal.



Coercion and consent aren't implicit. There isn't some magical line in the sand. Yet another flaw with capitalism is that exploiting someone's ignorance can get you more money.

The funny thing about all of this is that it demonstrates why a system geared towards profit and not need is inferior. We obviously had the capacity to provide low-income earners with better houses than they would have got 20 years ago, even in an elaborate price system. We had the resources and manpower, but now the profit-system is contracting because we did too much. Whether it was the market or the government, or more likely a combination of both, I can't help but to laugh at the fact you guys can't see this.

No, this proves that people are too stupid to make important financial decisions regarding themselves, as you pointed out in the second paragraph.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So Cap'n, what we drinkin tonight?

Meths, it seems. I wonder what will blind him first - his thirst for window cleaner or his constant self-abuse. You can tell he types one-handed.

[Dean]

Captian (housing) Crunch!