Who will become the next Senator from Delaware?

[hotpprs]

It started with the Community Reinvestment Act and groups that would make sure banks complied.
But I do agree banks themselves were complicit towards the end of the crisis.
Once some genius figured they can package the loans and sell them and the bad risk as investments, they gladly went along with it.

[Brittain33]

We know how banks were intimidated into giving mortgages to individuals that couldn't afford them, and where that led.

Yes, during the Clinton and Bush years, and it was hardly through intimidation.  The banks sought a quick buck, and that backfired on the entire economy.  Oops!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

That has nothing to do with the explosion of subprime mortgages 20+ years later, when small banks (not the big guys affected by CRA) realized they could make a killing on bad loans to credit risks, and they were bought up or copied by the big banks because it was an extremely profitable market niche and customers were ill-informed enough to accept massive fees and interest rate hikes. Banks needed no government encouragement at all, they jumped in with both feet. It was profitable until they got stuc holding the bag in 2008.

[Brittain33]

Exactly, the banks were giving loans to people that they knew weren't good risks. It's hard to see how the government forces banks to make poor business decisions.

Giving loans at high rates to bad risks, and then quickly selling off the loans to investors, was an excellent business decision for banks. It's when they were stuck with loans they couldn't sell, or bought someone else's bad mortgages, that they got in trouble.

[Brittain33]

It started with the Community Reinvestment Act and groups that would make sure banks complied.
But I do agree banks themselves were complicit towards the end of the crisis.
Once some genius figured they can package the loans and sell them and the bad risk as investments, they gladly went along with it.

When do you date the beginning of the crisis, according to this framework, where banks only become complicit "toward the end"?

[??????????]

O'Donnell winning the primary has concerned me enough into finally starting an account on this forum, I can't see her winning in November under any scenario. Other than that its great to finally be a member on this site and im looking forward to it.

Your concerns and then looking at your screen name made me chuckle a bit.

[Beet]

It started with the Community Reinvestment Act and groups that would make sure banks complied.
But I do agree banks themselves were complicit towards the end of the crisis.
Once some genius figured they can package the loans and sell them and the bad risk as investments, they gladly went along with it.

This has nothing to do with the Community Reinvestment Act. The entire subprime housing market melted down, and when you look at the proportion of those broken loans that were CRA loans, they were a very small proportion. A vast majority of the subprime meltdown was in non CRA loans.

The even more absurd thing though is... if CRA was the cause... how do you explain the Commercial Real Estate Bubble? How do you explain the Spanish and Irish and British bubbles happening at the same time? This has nothing to do with the CRA. "Blame the CRA" is a lie invented by totalitarian propagandists because was ideologically convenient.

[Smash255]

Well Opebo has one thing in common with O'Donnell.   Think Condemns are evil, or in O'Donnell's case "anti-human"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42288.html#ixzz0zl3e0X36

[??????????]

Well Opebo has one thing in common with O'Donnell.   Think Condemns are evil, or in O'Donnell's case "anti-human"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42288.html#ixzz0zl3e0X36

It does prevent life which is true. And circumcision brings down the AIDs rate.

[??????????]

she's raised $1.3 million as of this hour

http://christine2010.com/

Isn't it horrible that she doesn't support the sexual looseness of America? G-d forbid!

[??????????]

G-d forbid!

what are you, Jewish?

Oy vey!

[Beet]

she's raised $1.3 million as of this hour

http://christine2010.com/

Still no indication from Coons' site of how much he has raised, but earlier today a new estimate for Coons from HuffPo:

"Daniel McElhatton, a spokesman for Democratic Senatorial candidate Chris Coons, told the Huffington Post on Thursday that in the 24 hours since O'Donnell's win, more than 1,000 online donations had been made to their campaign bringing in more than $125,000. This falls well short of O'Donnell's haul. But Coons's people didn't make a broad fundraising push. And the County Executive's campaign has yet to be granted the same type of national spotlight as his competitor."

The numbers we have for Coons is more sketchy and has to be readjusted based on when news reports came out. This is why I conservatively estimated a 10 to 1 fundraising gap in my original report despite my own numbers showing 20 to 1 (note to wormguy). $1 million to $125k is about 8 to 1.

Also, it should be noted what Rachel Maddow blogged- most of O'Donnell's support was from out of state and that has certainly continued.

[hotpprs]

It started with the Community Reinvestment Act and groups that would make sure banks complied.
But I do agree banks themselves were complicit towards the end of the crisis.
Once some genius figured they can package the loans and sell them and the bad risk as investments, they gladly went along with it.

This has nothing to do with the Community Reinvestment Act. The entire subprime housing market melted down, and when you look at the proportion of those broken loans that were CRA loans, they were a very small proportion. A vast majority of the subprime meltdown was in non CRA loans.

The even more absurd thing though is... if CRA was the cause... how do you explain the Commercial Real Estate Bubble? How do you explain the Spanish and Irish and British bubbles happening at the same time? This has nothing to do with the CRA. "Blame the CRA" is a lie invented by totalitarian propagandists because was ideologically convenient.

I'll tell you my theory. The banks or financial institutions were stuck writing these sure to lose mortgages forced on them as a quota of their loans by the CRA, and like "smart" capitalists, they figured a way to dump their almost certain losses onto other entities. But it all started with government meddling in private enterprise.

[Beet]

It started with the Community Reinvestment Act and groups that would make sure banks complied.
But I do agree banks themselves were complicit towards the end of the crisis.
Once some genius figured they can package the loans and sell them and the bad risk as investments, they gladly went along with it.

This has nothing to do with the Community Reinvestment Act. The entire subprime housing market melted down, and when you look at the proportion of those broken loans that were CRA loans, they were a very small proportion. A vast majority of the subprime meltdown was in non CRA loans.

The even more absurd thing though is... if CRA was the cause... how do you explain the Commercial Real Estate Bubble? How do you explain the Spanish and Irish and British bubbles happening at the same time? This has nothing to do with the CRA. "Blame the CRA" is a lie invented by totalitarian propagandists because was ideologically convenient.

I'll tell you my theory. The banks or financial institutions were stuck writing these sure to lose mortgages forced on them as a quota of their loans by the CRA, and like "smart" capitalists, they figured a way to dump their almost certain losses onto other entities. But it all started with government meddling in private enterprise.

I'll tell you my theory. The earth was created by green fairies who went around sprinkling fairy dust everywhere. I have no evidence that this theory has a basis in external fact (that is, external to my cranium), but it's my theory and I'll tell it to you.

[Brittain33]

I'll tell you my theory. The banks or financial institutions were stuck writing these sure to lose mortgages forced on them as a quota of their loans by the CRA, and like "smart" capitalists, they figured a way to dump their almost certain losses onto other entities. But it all started with government meddling in private enterprise.

No offense, but this is wrong and has no basis in reality. There are facts out there about what happened, there's no need to make up theories. There's a great book called Broke, U.S.A. that I recommed to you if you're genuinely interested in which banks started this trend, how, and why.

[Oakvale]

Just goes to show how progressives want to emulate Obama and the Democrats who don't believe in our basic freedoms.
Freedom to eat what we want, choose our health care,companies to do business the way they want. It's all about bullying and intimidation, that's how 3rd world dictators keep the peons in line. It's all about threats when they don't get their way.

That is some weapons grade hyperbole right there.

Also, this thread makes it clear that Beet really is the Dick Morris of uselectionatlas.org.

[hotpprs]

I'll tell you my theory. The banks or financial institutions were stuck writing these sure to lose mortgages forced on them as a quota of their loans by the CRA, and like "smart" capitalists, they figured a way to dump their almost certain losses onto other entities. But it all started with government meddling in private enterprise.

No offense, but this is wrong and has no basis in reality. There are facts out there about what happened, there's no need to make up theories. There's a great book called Broke, U.S.A. that I recommed to you if you're genuinely interested in which banks started this trend, how, and why.

Well, read this link which supports my theory.

http://limitedmodifiedhangout.blogspot.com/2010/02/cause-of-2008-mortgage-crash-according.html

We can go on and on posting references to who is correct, but obviously history is going to show no one is. It was a little bit of both of their faults.
But the fact that liberals are spending so much time defending the government role in this, shows how they have no intention in dropping these types of policies in the future.
New home buyers should have to put down 20% on their homes like the old days, and have a qualified income.
Also, they should have to pay the same property taxes as everyone else. There has been a circuit breaker proposal in NY where they want certain individuals to pay much lower taxes  based on documented income. (I stress documented income, what a joke).
Well, didn't NY learn that people that can't afford a house, are going to get into financial ruin now matter how long you try to prop them up? Which creates a bigger mess and higher taxes for everyone else down the road.

[Badger]

We know how banks were intimidated into giving mortgages to individuals that couldn't afford them, and where that led.

Yes, during the Clinton and Bush years, and it was hardly through intimidation.  The banks sought a quick buck, and that backfired on the entire economy.  Oops!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

So the financial panic of 2008-09 wasn't caused by lax regulation of the derivatives market and traders playing fast and loose, but but a legislation that had been in effect for over 30 years??
How much are conservatives and Republicitarians willing to spin reality to make this a case against increased regulation of Wall Street?   

Conservatives defending lassiz-faire economics as the cure rather than cause for the crash are kind of like the parent of a teenager who wrecks the car. Instead of grounding junior and more closely monitoring when and where he drives, though, conservatives would by him a new car and sign the title over to him. After all, its the parent's partial oversight that obviously caused the wreck in the first place. If they'd placed fewer restrictions on junior in the first place then natural market forces would clearly make him a more cautious driver.

[Badger]

Well Opebo has one thing in common with O'Donnell.   Think Condemns are evil, or in O'Donnell's case "anti-human"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42288.html#ixzz0zl3e0X36

It does prevent life which is true. And circumcision brings down the AIDs rate.

So the government should be allowed to ban contraception devices like condoms as some states did until the early 60's?

BTW: I'm perfectly happy with Christine's fundraising numbers. Every dollar she raises now is a dollar less likely to back Buck in Colorado or Angle in Nevada between now and November.

[CatoMinor]

John Oliver of The Dailey described how he feels the dems will f**k things up in Delaware

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We know how banks were intimidated into giving mortgages to individuals that couldn't afford them, and where that led.

Yes, during the Clinton and Bush years, and it was hardly through intimidation.  The banks sought a quick buck, and that backfired on the entire economy.  Oops!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

So the financial panic of 2008-09 wasn't caused by lax regulation of the derivatives market and traders playing fast and loose, but but a legislation that had been in effect for over 30 years??
How much are conservatives and Republicitarians willing to spin reality to make this a case against increased regulation of Wall Street?   

Conservatives defending lassiz-faire economics as the cure rather than cause for the crash are kind of like the parent of a teenager who wrecks the car. Instead of grounding junior and more closely monitoring when and where he drives, though, conservatives would by him a new car and sign the title over to him. After all, its the parent's partial oversight that obviously caused the wreck in the first place. If they'd placed fewer restrictions on junior in the first place then natural market forces would clearly make him a more cautious driver.

Speaking of lassiz-faire economics, I hear the Kasichy future I foretold is looking more and more like a reality. I shall hope you don't react to drastically and take the path you said you would in the Budget committee thread in the Fanasty Gov't Board.


How did I miss this ridiculous debate about the financial crisis.

Really there were atleast three separate problems that combined to form the crisis.

1. Growth of shadow banking and trading of CDS and MBS and the dependence of economic growth upon the capital created in that market (around $1 Trillion in 2007 after the tightening of the credit markets had begund, only $155 Billion in 2009).

2. Unsustainable worldwide surge in Real-estate prices. Probably the best explanation of the cause of this that I have seen, so far, was given by Alan Greenspan. A graph, posted by Beet, I beleive shows the lack of correlation between deviance from the Taylor Rule and the size of the surge in prices, which takes Greenspan and the Fed off the hook to a degree, and confirms Greenspan's explanation of why it occured.

3. Use of homes and home equity as just another credit card.



I hear a independent Watchdog group is calling for criminal investigation into Christine O'Donnell. Can anyone confirm this?

[Alcon]

It does prevent life which is true. And circumcision brings down the AIDs rate.

Condom use is virtually 100% effective and relatively cheap.  We should abandon that completely in favor of something with <50% efficacy, that costs much more, and would result in more unneeded children?  Especially when there's no reason they can't be used in conjunction?  That's absurd.

It would be great if we could reasonably expect Africans to be completely sexually abstinent, but condoms are by far the most effective policy, in terms of life saved per dollar.  If you have theological hang-ups about them, that's fine, but the trade-off is that more people in Africa die in their absence.  Empirics show that there is no indication that there are more cost-effective solutions.  Period.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've mentioned this to a couple of people privately, but I might as well add it here as well. No matter what happens later, this primary will probably turn out to be one of the most significant for decades. It might even be up there with the defeat of Howard Smith in 1966. It was ordinary voters that did this. O'Donnell is - in theory at least - completely unelectable, and it was ordinary voters that selected her regardless. Usually when lunatics of this sort become official candidates in winnable seats it's because they're part of a group that has taken over local party structures, or because they're a useful tool of local party structures. But here we have the lynchpin of the local party establishment beaten by someone unfit to catch rats at public expense. This is amazing.

[Beet]

I've mentioned this to a couple of people privately, but I might as well add it here as well. No matter what happens later, this primary will probably turn out to be one of the most significant for decades. It might even be up there with the defeat of Howard Smith in 1966. It was ordinary voters that did this. O'Donnell is - in theory at least - completely unelectable, and it was ordinary voters that selected her regardless. Usually when lunatics of this sort become official candidates in winnable seats it's because they're part of a group that has taken over local party structures, or because they're a useful tool of local party structures. But here we have the lynchpin of the local party establishment beaten by someone unfit to catch rats at public expense. This is amazing.

Jesus, the most significant in decades? Why??? Are candidates "unfit to catch rats at public expense" somehow going to start winning GOP primaries around the country? I suppose the story of Howard Smith was that conservative southern voters were shifting to the GOP while the Democratic party was becoming liberal in the south. But what's the story out of this?

[Хahar 🤔]

Are candidates "unfit to catch rats at public expense" somehow going to start winning GOP primaries around the country?

This seems rather more reasonable than your "the sky is falling" theory.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Al is right. This is basically on the level as if that joke candidate Flyers supported in 2006 beat Bob Casey in the primary.