Obama: lowest annual real GDP growth post WW2 = still worst

[Rod1]

Glass Steagall was put in place because thousands of banks failed in the great depression. It was created for the sole purpose of keeping commercial and investment banking separate entities, with the hope of preventing a repeat of the same mistake.

The Gramm/Leach/Biley act undid it, and allowed investment banks to merge with commercial banks and insurance companies. It's what allowed Citibank to merge with Traveler's Group. The same Citigroup that needed tax payers to bail them out. It's what allowed Bank of America to merge with NationsBank. Same Bank of America that also had to be bailed out. These companies shared information, and allowed high risk investments to be pushed to low risk clients. This repeal made these banks to big to fail, and made them fall in love with MBS/CMOs.

The very guy who pushed for Gramm/Leach/Biley during his time as Clinton's Secretary of Treasury, Robert Rubin, also served on CitiGroup's board when they made they were knee-deep in MBS/CMO strategies. They ignored all internal advice, and pushed it until it popped. They got rich, government bailed them out. Rubin took the blame, resigned, and fell on his sword.

There were a couple of other things that occurred during Bill Clinton years. Commodity Futures Modernization Act made credit default swaps a reality. Clinton also made changes to the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995, which forced banks to lend more in lower income neighborhoods. You can see how these little pieces contribute to the final result.

What people need to understand is that this is not a Bush or Clinton problem, it's a greedy politician problem. Both of these guys took bags of wall street money, and supported these mickey mouse schemes that got their friends (and themselves) RICH, then in the end made the taxpayers bail them out.

We need to learn who these people are, and stop listening to them. The same Robert Rubin who thought Gramm/Leach/Biley Act was a good idea, the same Robert Rubin who encouraged aggressive MBS/CMO lending in Citigroup is now speaking on how we need to save our economy from Climate Change.

Yes, Citigroup failed but other commercials banks didn't, it also allowed commercial banks to rescue investment banks.

1. How many banks who merged failed vs banks that didnt merged that failed? Lehman never merged and it failed. Did it contributed? yes in one case, was it the cause? no it wasnt since there were other banks that failed. It also made some banks avoid failure through mergers.

2.- Low income lending were not the cause of the crisis, speculators were the cause and speculators arent buying in low income neighborhoods.

3.- I agree that its larger than Bush or Clinton.

 

[Rod1]

I gave you FOUR different sources ALL from credible sources (BI, WSJ, Time and Forbes) ALL claiming the same thing, that the CRA did play a roll -- AND used a part from YOUR own source that counter your claim using a study done by the National Bureau of Economic Research that shows the CRA did play a role in the Crisis.... if you actually read my responses, you would know that

http://www.nber.org/digest/may13/w18609.html

"Using data that track loan performance, the authors also show that loans originated by treatment-group banks around CRA exams are 15 percent more likely to be delinquent one year after origination than loans originated by control-group banks. Thus the evidence shows that around CRA examinations, when incentives to conform to CRA standards are particularly high, banks not only increase lending rates but also appear to originate loans that are markedly riskier."

Also, because you fail to acknowledge the other sources:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877322,00.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323477604579000571334113350

http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html#

But, yes -- i surely did burry my head by using 4 sources an established study to show that the CRA, did have an impact.

1.- Again, you are quoting opinions, i quoted a congressional study.

2.- You are unable to understand what you are quoting, whether CRA compliant loans are more likely to fail is irrelevant because these were not the ones failing in 2008. These CRA banks were not the ones that went down in flames.

3.- A journalist piece is not a scientific source.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

1.- Again, you are quoting opinions, i quoted a congressional study.

2.- You are unable to understand what you are quoting, whether CRA compliant loans are more likely to fail is irrelevant because these were not the ones failing in 2008.

3.- A journalist piece is not a scientific source.

The National Bureau is a reputable source that refutes the congressional source.

They were failing during the crisis - read the NBER study - http://www.nber.org/papers/w18609.pdf




And those 4 sources are reputable -- but again, Rod...write them an email explaining to them why they are wrong! That would be some bragging rights for you -- go ahead, prove them wrong.

 

[Rod1]

The National Bureau is a reputable source that refutes the congressional source.

They were failing during the crisis - read the NBER study


And those 4 sources are reputable -- but again, Rod...write them an email explaining to them why they are wrong! That would be some bragging rights for you -- go ahead, prove them wrong.

1.- The NBER isnt saying that CRA caused the crisis or that it was a significant factor thats a case of you being unable to understand what you are reading. CRA banks didnt failed, Lehman and Bears didnt had to comply with the CRA.

2.- You are quoting 4 journalistic pieces, if i come with 5 that say the opposite will you shut up?

3.- I dont have to write them emails, their opinion is theirs alone.

If you are unable to think for yourself why are you arguing with me? you are basically saying that your dad can beat my dad.

You claim CRA caused banks to fail, yet most of the banks that failed werent compliant, neither were they mergers.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

1.- The NBER isnt saying that CRA caused the crisis or that it was a significant factor thats a case of you being unable to understand what you are reading. CRA banks didnt failed, Lehman and Bears didnt had to comply with the CRA.

My point is that the CRA itself didnt cause the crisis, but in conjunction with Clinton's other two initiatives, played a significant role. YOU said it played no role it whatsoever, obviously you are clueless or lack reading comprehension

2.- You are quoting 4 journalistic pieces, if i come with 5 that say the opposite will you shut up?

If you post any sources outside of wikipedia, i would read them and take you seriously

3.- I dont have to write them emails, their opinion is theirs alone.

You are claiming they are wrong -- why not show them up. Would be impressive if a construction worker proved 4 respected publications wrong -- go for, it. Write them a rebuttal -- show them up, Rod

If you are unable to think for yourself why are you arguing with me? you are basically saying that your dad can beat my dad.

oh, so you wrote that congressional study or are you quoting others? Is that thinking for yourself??? I'm doing the same thing, using sources to prove a point -- so far you just copied and paste others work -- so, are you able to think for yourself?

You claim CRA caused banks to fail, yet most of the banks that failed were not compliant, neither were they mergers.

Show me where i claimed that?? I said it was a factor the in crisis -- not the cause of it.

 

[Rod1]

My point is that the CRA itself didnt cause the crisis, but in conjunction with Clinton's other two initiatives, played a significant role. YOU said it played no role it whatsoever, obviously you are clueless or lack reading comprehension





If you post any sources outside of wikipedia, i would read them and take you seriously



You are claiming they are wrong -- why not show them up. Would be impressive if a construction worker proved 4 respected publications wrong -- go for, it. Write them a rebuttal -- show them up, Rod


oh, so you wrote that congressional study or are you quoting others? Is that thinking for yourself??? I'm doing the same thing, using sources to prove a point -- so far you just copied and paste others work -- so, are you able to think for yourself?



Show me were i claimed that?? I said it was a factor the in crisis -- not the cause of it.

1.- Again, it makes zero sense CRA is for depositary banks, the crisis was caused by investment banks. the NBER isnt even criticizing the CRA its criticizing the banks for studying for the test. It doesnt talks about scope or significance of the economy as a whole.

2.- Wikipedia has links that you can follow and read, but ill look into them i just need 5 to shut you up, which is going to be easy.

3.- Publications dont emit opinions as a whole and you seem to put more weight on journalist than actual Nobel economists, Fed Chairmen and Congress comissions, if CRA caused the crisis, why is there no risk of crisis since CRA wasnt repealed? Why is there no risk of crisis if Steagall is still repealed?

4.- Im thinking for myself since im actually pushing forward questions for you to answer instead of relying on sources.

5.- Again how was it a significant factor when it was investment banks the ones that failed not depositary banks? do you know what the CRA actually is?

 

[BruceLeeOnTRT]

Yes, Citigroup failed but other commercials banks didn't, it also allowed commercial banks to rescue investment banks.

1. How many banks who merged failed vs banks that didnt merged that failed? Lehman never merged and it failed. Did it contributed? yes in one case, was it the cause? no it wasnt since there were other banks that failed. It also made some banks avoid failure through mergers.

2.- Low income lending were not the cause of the crisis, speculators were the cause and speculators arent buying in low income neighborhoods.

3.- I agree that its larger than Bush or Clinton.

Some banks were saved through these mergers, but at what cost? In 2008 I was still working for BAC, Ken Lewis was running things, and we had picked up Merrill Lynch around this time. Right after the merger was pretty much all but complete, ML execs had a meeting to determine yearly bonuses. The merger was going through, but ML Q4 results were not released yet. BAC was in the dark, and ML execs gave out almost 4 billion dollars worth of bonuses, despite the fact they were 27 billion dollars in the hole.

BAC had no idea this had taken place and got hustled. ML execs cashed out and rode into the sunset. Ken Lewis took his millions and resigned as well. BAC got bailed out by taxpayers.

This merger allowed ML to be one of those banks to be saved, but it didn't benefit anyone but the people who's names were on those deals. So I still don't see the benefit of these repeals man.

Low income housing loans weren't the sole cause, I agree. But they were a contributing factor towards the greater picture.

The whole housing market crash was a carefully planned wealth redistribution project that spanned several decades and included cooperation between both parties. It was designed to cripple both the lower and middle class, and it worked. Lower class bought into the fantasy of home ownership through affordable loans and the middle class thought they struck gold by flipping houses. These guys lost everything. Guys like Robert Rubin, Ken Lewis etc did not have to pay for their mistake. Some of them are still key players today.

 

[Happiness]

So you have no dispute with my facts...cool.

Obama has had a steady SHITTY economy

Oh, Obama also had the WORST ECONOMIC RECOVERY IN THE MODERN ERA

1) Aging population - not Obama's fault.
2) American population now incredibly debt burdened - decades of policy.
3) Stagnant wages and stratification of wealth meaning the middle class and lower have constantly diminishing spending power - decades of policy
4) Slow down of technological innovation in the consumer market - not Obama's fault
5) quarterly revenue models causing corporations to invest less in new products to further pay outs to shareholders aided by tax reforms - decades of policy.

I could go on, but you don't seem to enjoy actual convetsations about complicated matters. You just want to blame the black democrat.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

1.- Again, it makes zero sense CRA is for depositary banks, the crisis was caused by investment banks. the NBER isnt even criticizing the CRA its criticizing the banks for studying for the test. It doesnt talks about scope or significance of the economy as a whole.

Because lax lending requirements (like those encouraged by the CDR) coupled with interest rates drove prices through the roof -- which made mortgaged back loans and CDO seem like a better investment. Basically all these individual mortgages granted by "depository bank" were being bought up BY the large firms and bundled together.

Another fault, was that rating agencies shit the bed and said that the MB's were safe investments -- basically lying and saying the subprimes and bad mortgages were on par with those from proper vetting. Obviously since this caused a boom -- lenders were even more motivated to to acquire bad investments - aided, provided and spurned on by factors like THE CRA. Had that act be regulated or hardlined to not encourage taking on bad risks in loans (BA for example reported in 2008 that its CRA portfolio, which constituted 7% of its owned residential mortgages, was responsible for 29 percent of its losses) then there would me more stopgaps to prevent increased risk lending.

This is all part of the Clinton involvement -- had he not rewritten the CRA and not backed it with CFMA there would be less incentive and outlets for greed bankers to give houses to people who wouldnt qualify for a costco membership -- resulting in MBL and CDS being implemented like crazy

LIKE I SAID -- the CRA was not the main cause but a significant cog in the wheel.

2.- Wikipedia has links that you can follow and read, but ill look into them i just need 5 to shut you up, which is going to be easy.

sure, source away -- at least it would make you a better poster (somewhat)

3.- Publications dont emit opinions as a whole and you seem to put more weight on journalist than actual Nobel economists, Fed Chairmen and Congress comissions, if CRA caused the crisis, why is there no risk of crisis since CRA wasnt repealed? Why is there no risk of crisis if Steagall is still repealed?

Again, the CRA didnt cause the crisis -- it was an enabler for lenders to grant as many mortgages as they can, backed by faulty credit ratings in order to entice investment firms to buy them up by the millions.

"why isnt there no risk of crisis since CRA wasnt repealed?" Huh?? You mean another crisis in the future?? Not sure what you're asking there.

Let me ask you this: Which loans defaulted first? We know that a lot of mid level loans did default, but was it AFTER the high risk loans did, resulting in a bubble pop? Resulting in middle class people being upside down on the mortgage (houses worth less than their principal) and thus defaulting under exacerbation -- otherwise, they would keep making payments.

4.- Im thinking for myself since im actually pushing forward questions for you to answer instead of relying on sources.

LOL, Nice try, Rod. You made a claim, didn't source it till you were asked to, and then got on your typical sanctimonious schtick -- you didnt think for yourself once, just parroted others thoughts. You didn't ask questions until just now -- but, again, nice try.

5.- Again how was it a significant factor when it was investment banks the ones that failed not depositary banks? do you know what the CRA actually is?

Because the depositary banks were the ones okaying the risk loans in order to sell to the investment banks -- the investment firms were not the ones dealing with cletus and mary-lou downtrodden -- giving them the loans. They were the ones buy the loans from the smaller banks. Basically, when Clinton rewrote the act in 99, he made provisions to allow commercial (depository) banking institutions that once meet satisfactory or outstanding grades from bank examiners to be exempt from further reviews for 4-5 years. That allowed banks who had the ability and blessing from the CRA to partake in loans to risky clientele to be under less frequent scrutiny. So, when the money started flowing in from MBL's, but the supply didnt meet the demand, banks dealing with CRA regulations were prime to issue absolute shit loans in order to feed the demand.

You dont think it was a little convenient that these subprime loans becoming way more popular after the CRA was amended by Clinton?

and, yes, i do know what the CRA is -- and its history with shit practices (warning, im going to give you another source -- i know you dislike them, but trust me, it won't hurt you)

The CRA Implications of Predatory Lending

 

[Rod1]

Because lax lending requirements (like those encouraged by the CDR) coupled with interest rates drove prices through the roof -- which made mortgaged back loans and CDO seem like a better investment. Basically all these individual mortgages granted by "depository bank" were being bought up BY the large firms and bundled together.

Another fault, was that rating agencies shit the bed and said that the MB's were safe investments -- basically lying and saying the subprimes and bad mortgages were on par with those from proper vetting. Obviously since this caused a boom -- lenders were even more motivated to to acquire bad investments - aided, provided and spurned on by factors like THE CRA. Had that act be regulated or hardlined to not encourage taking on bad risks in loans (BA for example reported in 2008 that its CRA portfolio, which constituted 7% of its owned residential mortgages, was responsible for 29 percent of its losses) then there would me more stopgaps to prevent increased risk lending.

This is all part of the Clinton involvement -- had he not rewritten the CRA and not backed it with CFMA there would be less incentive and outlets for greed bankers to give houses to people who wouldnt qualify for a costco membership -- resulting in MBL and CDS being implemented like crazy

LIKE I SAID -- the CRA was not the main cause but a significant cog in the wheel.


sure, source away -- at least it would make you a better poster (somewhat)



Again, the CRA didnt cause the crisis -- it was an enabler for lenders to grant as many mortgages as they can, backed by faulty credit ratings in order to entice investment firms to buy them up by the millions.

"why isnt there no risk of crisis since CRA wasnt repealed?" Huh?? You mean another crisis in the future?? Not sure what you're asking there.

Let me ask you this: Which loans defaulted first? We know that a lot of mid level loans did default, but was it AFTER the high risk loans did, resulting in a bubble pop? Resulting in middle class people being upside down on the mortgage (houses worth less than their principal) and thus defaulting under exacerbation -- otherwise, they would keep making payments.



LOL, Nice try, Rod. You made a claim, didn't source it till you were asked to, and then got on your typical sanctimonious schtick -- you didnt think for yourself once, just parroted others thoughts. You didn't ask questions until just now -- but, again, nice try.



Because the depositary banks were the ones okaying the risk loans in order to sell to the investment banks -- the investment firms were not the ones dealing with cletus and mary-lou downtrodden -- giving them the loans. They were the ones buy the loans from the smaller banks.

and, yes, i do know what the CRA is -- and its history with shit practices (warning, im going to give you another source -- i know you dislike them, but trust me, it won't hurt you)

The CRA Implications of Predatory Lending

1.- Again, you dont seem to understand the scope of the CRA, which applies ONLY to investment banks, subprime mortgages for the most part were not covered by CRA banks.


2.- You are providing single examples of bad practices by a few depositary banks, which again were not really in much trouble compared to investment banks which are not regulated by the CRA.


3.- CRA and subprime mortgage crisis are not correlated, subprime mortgage crisis was caused by investment banks, not regulated by the CRA.


4.- Predatory lending, which is indeed a problem is not what its being implied, that banks were forced to give bad loans to insolvent people, but actually to give bad loans to people that otherwise would qualify for a better loan.

Clinton didnt caused the crash, Bush didnt either, but Bush actions certainly made shit much, much worse. Running massive deficits when the economy was already at full gear was like throwing fuel to the fire, policies that exarcerbated income inequality did too.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

1.- Again, you dont seem to understand the scope of the CRA, which applies ONLY to investment banks, subprime mortgages for the most part were not covered by CRA banks.


2.- You are providing single examples of bad practices by a few depositary banks, which again were not really in much trouble compared to investment banks which are not regulated by the CRA.


3.- CRA and subprime mortgage crisis are not correlated, subprime mortgage crisis was caused by investment banks, not regulated by the CRA.


4.- Predatory lending, which is indeed a problem is not what its being implied, that banks were forced to give bad loans to insolvent people, but actually to give bad loans to people that otherwise would qualify for a better loan.

Clinton didnt caused the crash, Bush didnt either, but Bush actions certainly made shit much, much worse. Running massive deficits when the economy was already at full gear was like throwing fuel to the fire, policies that exarcerbated income inequality did too.

you missed my edit where i addressed that point:

Because the depositary banks were the ones okaying the risk loans in order to sell to the investment banks -- the investment firms were not the ones dealing with cletus and mary-lou downtrodden -- giving them the loans. They were the ones buy the loans from the smaller banks. Basically, when Clinton rewrote the act in 99, he made provisions to allow commercial (depository) banking institutions that once meet satisfactory or outstanding grades from bank examiners to be exempt from further reviews for 4-5 years. That allowed banks who had the ability and blessing from the CRA to partake in loans to risky clientele to be under less frequent scrutiny. So, when the money started flowing in from MBL's, but the supply ddid not meet the demand, banks dealing with CRA regulations were prime to issue absolute shit loans in order to feed the demand.

You dont think it was a little convenient that these subprime loans becoming way more popular after the CRA was amended by Clinton?

CRA deals with three main guidelines -- Lending, investment and service -- all to low income areas. They have a lot of flexibility how to implement measures in order to serve that community -- so, after clinton reduced the frequency of Federal exam review -- that is when we start to see an incline to subprime loans -- a CDR compliant institution could've opened new branches, did community investment -- and still made shit loans to shit clients and still maintain their rating.

Seems odd that Subprime loans started to take off after clinton's amendments -- and, surely, you can see how the big firms and commercial lenders can capitalize on the measures of the CRA

Yes, investment banks took the brunt, especially when they started credit default swaps -- but they would be selling bombs had smaller banks not loaned to people who created those bombs.

CRA rewrite giving easier ability to give shit loans > Commercial banks giving and selling shit loans, but are still backed by AAA ratings > investment banks buying and bundling, then selling shares of investment of said loans > money flowing because market goes up > subprime loans catch up > deafults from that and the housing market crash causing good credit people to ditch their homes -- and boom, mortgage crisis of 2007 leading to the crisis of 2008.

 

[Rod1]

you missed my edit where i addressed that point:

Because the depositary banks were the ones okaying the risk loans in order to sell to the investment banks -- the investment firms were not the ones dealing with cletus and mary-lou downtrodden -- giving them the loans. They were the ones buy the loans from the smaller banks. Basically, when Clinton rewrote the act in 99, he made provisions to allow commercial (depository) banking institutions that once meet satisfactory or outstanding grades from bank examiners to be exempt from further reviews for 4-5 years. That allowed banks who had the ability and blessing from the CRA to partake in loans to risky clientele to be under less frequent scrutiny. So, when the money started flowing in from MBL's, but the supply ddid not meet the demand, banks dealing with CRA regulations were prime to issue absolute shit loans in order to feed the demand.

You dont think it was a little convenient that these subprime loans becoming way more popular after the CRA was amended by Clinton?

CRA deals with three main guidelines -- Lending, investment and service -- all to low income areas. They have a lot of flexibility how to implement measures in order to serve that community -- so, after clinton reduced the frequency of Federal exam review -- that is when we start to see an incline to subprime loans -- a CDR compliant institution could've opened new branches, did community investment -- and still made shit loans to shit clients and still maintain their rating.

Seems odd that Subprime loans started to take off after clinton's amendments -- and, surely, you can see how the big firms and commercial lenders can capitalize on the measures of the CRA

Glad to see you are now putting forth arguments ill certainly read it and give it thoughts, certainly im not an expert in this area.

To my understading subprime loans were made simply because there was too much money around being thrown into the American financial institutions, with oil rising, Bush borrowing like nuts, tax cuts, repatriation of foreing held assets and the Feds not pressing the brakes.

It seemed to me that a bubble would had happened whether it was subprime mortgages or another thing, an overflow of money and sheer greed.

 

[11_others]

Obama administration has definitely been anti-business. More specifically, anti-American business.

 

[11_others]

Obama certainly did a lot of work to fix it, and so did Bernanke.

Bhahaha.
Economies go up and down. Recession was inevitable and crooks got rich on 2007 bubble. Economy was bound to come up.
Obama and Bernanke gave more tax money to bail out those crooks. Now, JP Morgan and Chase is richer than it ever was. Nobody even went to jail for the trillions in fraud.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Glad to see you are now putting forth arguments ill certainly read it and give it thoughts, certainly im not an expert in this area.

To my understading subprime loans were made simply because there was too much money around being thrown into the American financial institutions, with oil rising, Bush borrowing like nuts, tax cuts, repatriation of foreing held assets and the Feds not pressing the brakes.

It seemed to me that a bubble would had happened whether it was subprime mortgages or another thing, an overflow of money and sheer greed.

To me, it was because treasury bonds were paying shit returns, so mortage back loans offered a low buy, high payout return. So, investment banks were buying them like crazy -- eventually, all the good safe mortgages were owned, but, we still want more -- which lead to the surge of subprime loans being issued by commercial banks (in part because the CDA made it easier) -- eventually they were just buying duds -- and you cant payout your investors when people dont pay their mortgage -- so the whole thing came crumbling down once the houses become worth less than the loans.

You're right, that bubble could had happened regardless, but the size and scope could've been much less -- and really, the MBL's were not a bad thing -- it was the excess greed to start issuing to bad risks that set it off.

My point is, the CRA made pathways to bad loans so much more easier.

The CRA in itself is not bad and did not cause the crisis, though. It was taken advantage of by shady people and a bad rewrite by clinton.

And, yes the surplus of money in the early 2000's provided a shit load easy access credit -- which lead to the connection between home owners, brokers, lenders and the investors.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

The financial collapse was all Bushes fault now? Lol wut?

I was gonna ask this too


lolwut?

 

[Sir Galahad]

Yes, us with a brain know that Obama is the worst president ever. Now facts strike once again. He has proven to had the worst annual real gdp growth post ww2......GWB stomps him here as well.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/obamas-historically-bad-economy/article/2003730

 

[RockstarChris]

the housing bubble is about to burst like in 2008 and they will blame it on Trump.

 

[snakedafunky]

If people think Obama was the worst president ever or a bad one.
What do you feel he should have done different? Considering the political climate starting from 2008?

Also how much do you think the current state of the world but into a historic context effects his political performance.
Before the 90's the US economically only had to compete with Japan and Europe.
While now you have 2 Billion+ Asian and 1 Billion Indian's, Eastern Europeans, south Americans all wanting their slice of the pie and stepping up to directly compete with the US.

 

[silicavaginitis]

Yes, GWB had larger gdp growth, but that is not always a good thing...remember what happened at the end of Bush's term?

Yeah...Obama got elected.America really fucked up then.