What the 2012 election taught us

Nov 6, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Washington Post

We've been scouring the data for clues as to what we should learn from what happened tonight as President Obama relatively easily claimed a second term.

Comments
3,161 - 3,180 of 10,324 Comments Last updated Oct 1, 2013

“Liberal Teachers ruin Kids”

Since: Mar 09

Paradise Valley Arizona

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3566
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bellweather wrote:
<quoted text> You have no clue. I rolled out of bed and found myself working as a Neighborhood Team Leader for Obama for America... then I rolled out of bed everyday for over a year working on the campaign. Believe me, it took alot of hard work to wake up the Dems enough to realize that voting is not an option, it's mandatory.
Why do black people vote Democrats?Democrats started the kkk
Man oh Man you folks are indeed so very stupid.
Democrats keep your people inside the ghetto, and you are just too stupid to realize it, You get played by the liberals every day of your life.
You deserve what you get...Period

“life under BO”

Since: Sep 12

buena vista

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3567
Nov 27, 2012
 
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
First, we don't have 30,000,000 illegal aliens. Second, most people on public assistance work. It is low wages that keep them drawing money. In most states a single, able bodied adult is ineligable for public assistance under any circumstances except unemployment.
You might find one or two that are doing what you claim. I can find more Repoublicans claiming it is the reality than it is the exception. Governor Mike Huckabee Sunday before last said you were wrong and did not have a grasp of the real problem.
OK, we only have 29 million of them. The big problem is women who have been impregnated by worthless men and then abandoned.

“life under BO”

Since: Sep 12

buena vista

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3568
Nov 27, 2012
 
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Both Gates and Buffet started off upper-middle class. Gates was fortunate to go to a HS sponsored by IBM and got to tinker with computors and write code while in HS. In college he was fortunate to meet a couple of more people. Without either of these two events it is highly unlikely that Bill would be known at all.
Buffet was guided into business almost as much as Romney. Romney was given a deal he could not resist. His boss offered to set up with Bain. When Romney hesitated his boss made a deal where Mitt could not possibly lose a dime of his own money.
Now I am not an absolutist. Everyonce in a while someone from no where makes it to the upper world. But it happens so seldom in America as to be practically non-existent.
Life is a bitch and then you die. I started my life in terrible circumstances, saw that if i wanted better I would have to make it happen and I did. Thru much hard work and effort.
hahahahahaha

Carmel, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3569
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>not just your factless opinion...the ranting of a lunatic.
i hope you do well with your thorazine treatments...
Well it seems apparent you have first hand knowledge on the effects of thorazine. While I'm sure it is distressing to hear the truth about your racist scumbag leader, you must learn to deal with the fact he is despised by a great many. Many of us think he is a nitwit who has admitted he can't even do 7th grade math which certainly explains why he is too embarrassed to disclose his school records. No doubt a moron like oscumma would appeal to a lunatic like yourself.

“life under BO”

Since: Sep 12

buena vista

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3570
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Until then you have demonstrated how willingly you want to believe fairy tales.
This is no fairy tale, note the CRA's role:
San José State University
Department of Economics
applet-magic.com
Thayer Watkins
Silicon Valley
& Tornado Alley
USA
The Nature and the Origin
of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis
There has been a long term American policy of promoting home ownership. This entailed making the financing of home purchases as easy as possible. Various financial institutions were set up over time to make the securing of a mortgage quick and convenient. There once were Savings and Loan Associations that were savings institutions which could only invest in home mortgages. Fannie Mae (the Federal Nation Mortgage Association FNMA) was set up in 1938 to provide a secondary market for home mortgages. This meant that if a bank granted a mortgage to someone and later the bank needed funds the bank could readily sell the mortgage to Fannie Mae. However, in order for lending institutions to have access to the secondary mortgage market of Fannie Mae they had to abide by Fannie Mae's rules.
In the past Fannie Mae prohibited the lenders it was dealing with to engage in the practice of red lining. Red Lining meant that a bank would refuse to finance a home purchase in neighborhoods it consider high risk even if the prospective borrowers were themselves good credit risks. In part, this was because the bank did not want, in the event of default and foreclosure, to become the owner of property in a risky neighborhood. The deeper roots of the problem go back to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
In the 1990's under the administration of Franklin Raines, a Clinton Administration appointee, Fannie Mae began to demand that the lending institutions that it dealt with prove that they were not redlining. This meant that the lending institutions would have to fulfill a quota of minority mortgage lending. This in turn meant that the lending agencies would have to lower their standards in terms of such things as down payments and the required incomes. These subprime borrowers would be charged a higher interest rate. Having put the lending agencies into the position of granting subprime mortgages Fannie Mae then had to accept lower standards in the mortgages it purchased. That set the ball rolling. If a bank granted a mortgage to a borrower that was not likely to successfully pay off the mortgage then all the bank had to do was to sell such mortgages to Fannie Mae. The banks typically earned a loan origination fee when the mortgage was granted. The lending agencies could then make substantial profits dealing in subprime mortgages.
Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made a market for subprime mortgages the lenders did not have to worry about of the soundness of the mortgage contract they wrote. Thus the lenders could write the mortgages as adjustable interest rate mortgages knowing full well that an upturn in the interest rates could easily throw the borrower into insolvency. For example, when the interest rate is 6 percent the mortgage payment for a 30-year $200,000 mortgage is $1199 per month. If the interest rate goes up to 7 percent the mortgage payment would increase by $131 per month, an 11 percent increase. For many of the subprime borrowers living on the edge of insolvency this would be enough to push them over the edge. The guilt for the subprime mortgage financial crisis lies both with the lenders who knowingly put borrowers into booby trapped mortgages and the management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for making a market for such booby trapped mortgages thus giving the lenders the incentive for writing them.

“life under BO”

Since: Sep 12

buena vista

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3571
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

There is the experience of the junk bond market that collapsed once investors realized that the higher rate of interest on the junk bonds was not sufficient to compensate for their higher risk.

The presumption was that although there would be a higher default rate at the higher interest rates there would be some lenders large enough to pool these mortgages and even with their higher default rates make a higher rate of return. This was the logic behind junk bonds market created by Michael Milken at Drexel Burnham Lambert. In the case of the junk bonds the higher interest rates were not enough higher to compensate for their higher risk and the junk bond market collapsed. A similar sort of thing occurred with the subprime mortgages. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pooled the subprime mortgages and then created securities which were sold around the world. When the subprime borrowers defaulted on their mortgage payments that led to the real estate market being flooded with houses for sale. The subsequent decline in housing prices then led even prime borrowers to walk away from mortgages where the mortgage debt exceeded the market value of the property. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were inundated by default claims from the mortgage default insurance they had provided. When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were declared bankrupt by their managers there was an instantaneous loss in value for not only the subprime mortgages but also the prime mortgages. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had provided default insurance on approximately one half of all American home mortgages. Thus the bankruptcy of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have led to the bankruptcy of any major holder of mortgages or securities based upon mortgages.

In 1968 Fannie Mae was turned into a private company in large part because Congress wanted to separate Fannie Mae from its own budget accounting. Fannie Mae up until that time had had a virtual monopoly in the secondary mortgage market. Having privatized Fannie Mae it was appropriate for the Federal Government to create competition in the secondary mortgage market. It did this in 1970 when it created the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC). Since the FNMA had the euphonic nickname of Fannie Mae the FHLMC was given the catchy but illogical name of Freddie Mac. Freddie Mac was intended for expanding the secondary mortgage market.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both not only purchased mortgages they also provided payment insurance, for a fee, for other mortgages. They also created pools of mortgages and issued securities based upon the revenue received. This procedure was called securitization and the securities created were called collateralized debt obligations, CDO's. Such securities allowed investors to invest in the mortgage market by diversifying the risk. If such investors purchased a single mortgage there would have been too much risk concentrated in that single mortgage but if they, in effect, purchase one percent of a hundred such mortgage their risk would be diversified.

Not only did Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other institutions create diversification through securitization but they created securities that partitioned the risk. One security would have first claim to the mortgage payments, another second claim; i.e., that security would receive payments only after the first claim security's obligations had been met. And so on down the line. The security last in line was the most risky and came to be known as toxic waste. Thus this partitioned securitization created some securities that were riskier than the original mortgages. It was difficult to ascertain what values the various securities should have.
hahahahahaha

Carmel, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3572
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Bellweather wrote:
<quoted text> You have no clue. I rolled out of bed and found myself working as a Neighborhood Team Leader for Obama for America... then I rolled out of bed everyday for over a year working on the campaign. Believe me, it took alot of hard work to wake up the Dems enough to realize that voting is not an option, it's mandatory.
I have no doubt it was difficult for you to roll out of bed, I'm sorry for that.

“life under BO”

Since: Sep 12

buena vista

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3573
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
CRA had nothing to do with our recent economic calamity and it has nothing to do with anything resembling reparations. Anyone with any knowledge of CRA knows that.
Tell you what though, you show me where Dimon and the other big financial executives are calling for reform of CRA instead of or with changes to Dodd-Frank and you might have something to use as a foundation to draw your sense from. Until then you have demonstrated how willingly you want to believe fairy tales.
Read carefully:

"In the past Fannie Mae prohibited the lenders it was dealing with to engage in the practice of red lining. Red Lining meant that a bank would refuse to finance a home purchase in neighborhoods it consider high risk even if the prospective borrowers were themselves good credit risks. In part, this was because the bank did not want, in the event of default and foreclosure, to become the owner of property in a risky neighborhood. The deeper roots of the problem go back to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.

In the 1990's under the administration of Franklin Raines, a Clinton Administration appointee, Fannie Mae began to demand that the lending institutions that it dealt with prove that they were not redlining. This meant that the lending institutions would have to fulfill a quota of minority mortgage lending. This in turn meant that the lending agencies would have to lower their standards in terms of such things as down payments and the required incomes. These subprime borrowers would be charged a higher interest rate. Having put the lending agencies into the position of granting subprime mortgages Fannie Mae then had to accept lower standards in the mortgages it purchased. That set the ball rolling. If a bank granted a mortgage to a borrower that was not likely to successfully pay off the mortgage then all the bank had to do was to sell such mortgages to Fannie Mae. The banks typically earned a loan origination fee when the mortgage was granted. The lending agencies could then make substantial profits dealing in subprime mortgages.

Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made a market for subprime mortgages the lenders did not have to worry about of the soundness of the mortgage contract they wrote. Thus the lenders could write the mortgages as adjustable interest rate mortgages knowing full well that an upturn in the interest rates could easily throw the borrower into insolvency. For example, when the interest rate is 6 percent the mortgage payment for a 30-year $200,000 mortgage is $1199 per month. If the interest rate goes up to 7 percent the mortgage payment would increase by $131 per month, an 11 percent increase. For many of the subprime borrowers living on the edge of insolvency this would be enough to push them over the edge. The guilt for the subprime mortgage financial crisis lies both with the lenders who knowingly put borrowers into booby trapped mortgages and the management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for making a market for such booby trapped mortgages thus giving the lenders the incentive for writing them. "

It's my opinion and San Jose States Economic dept. that the CRA started all of these future things rolling.

“life under BO”

Since: Sep 12

buena vista

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3574
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
CRA had nothing to do with our recent economic calamity and it has nothing to do with anything resembling reparations. Anyone with any knowledge of CRA knows that.
Tell you what though, you show me where Dimon and the other big financial executives are calling for reform of CRA instead of or with changes to Dodd-Frank and you might have something to use as a foundation to draw your sense from. Until then you have demonstrated how willingly you want to believe fairy tales.
I, thru San Jose State have laid it all out, argue their points.

“life under BO”

Since: Sep 12

buena vista

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3575
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Play it any way you want as long as you are consistent. When taxes go up Republican have 50% of Congress without giving them an ounce of credit in the Senate. However, consider that with 40+ Senators, the Republican party blocked more bills in the Senate in the last ~4 years than were blocked in the 50s, 60s and 70s combined.
Also not one dime was spent this year that was not explicitely approved by the Republican House. So all that deficit spending is 50% their fault as well.
And wasn't it nice that under Reagan the Democrats cut our taxes? And under bush it was the Republican tax cuts? And under Obama it is the Republican/Democrat tax cut extension.....until it becomes the Republican/Democrat tax hikes?
Like I said, any way you want to play it is fine with me.
And speaking of the CRA, during ~12 years of a Republican controlled Congress how many bills did they pass to change the CRA?
These sites can make the case more eloquently than I can:

Bush and McCain each tried to reform Fannie Mae. Democrats ...
americanelephant.wordpress.com/.../bush-and-m... ...
Sep 17, 2008 – September 11, 2003– The Bush Administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry ...

Bush Administration Tried to Reform Freddie and Fannie Five Years ...
cnsnews.com › News
Feb 19, 2009 –( CNSNews.com )– Why didn't the Bush administration sound the alarm on the unstable housing market that began to unravel on his watch?
Bush administration repeatedly tried to reform Fannie Mae and ...
www.mcculloughsite.net/.../bush-administratio... ...

Feb 21, 2009 – The fact is that the Bush administration, beginning in 2001, tried a number of times to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were heavily ...
Democrats Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac - YouTube
&#9658; 8:37&#9658; 8:37

www.youtube.com/watch... 29, 2008 - 9 min - Uploaded by gradearawk
Top Comments. I left out reform. Bush tried to&#65279; reform Freddie and Fannie 11 times , but was shot down
hahahahahaha

Carmel, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3576
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lol wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a good thing that anyone making 250k will see no increase in taxes under this administrations plan.. Should leave us plenty to live on. Maybe even keep gas in the boat and plane for those of us living in the midwest.
I'll pay an additional tax on typically a little less than 75-100k, so maybe an extra 5k per year, to say that would keep me from hiring anyone is completely ludicrous.
To say it will impact my lifestyle or cripple my business is even more ridiculous.
You talk like you believe what your saying, that scares me the most. The brainwashing is complete.
You obviously don't run a business or have the slightest clue how oscumma policies will slow the economy and keep businesses from hiring. I happen to know about several businesses who have over 50 employees who are downsizing so they can avoid paying what they can't afford.

No doubt your class envy has made you a very bitter and jealous person.

“life under BO”

Since: Sep 12

buena vista

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3577
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Play it any way you want as long as you are consistent. When taxes go up Republican have 50% of Congress without giving them an ounce of credit in the Senate. However, consider that with 40+ Senators, the Republican party blocked more bills in the Senate in the last ~4 years than were blocked in the 50s, 60s and 70s combined.
Also not one dime was spent this year that was not explicitely approved by the Republican House. So all that deficit spending is 50% their fault as well.
And wasn't it nice that under Reagan the Democrats cut our taxes? And under bush it was the Republican tax cuts? And under Obama it is the Republican/Democrat tax cut extension.....until it becomes the Republican/Democrat tax hikes?
Like I said, any way you want to play it is fine with me.
And speaking of the CRA, during ~12 years of a Republican controlled Congress how many bills did they pass to change the CRA?
These sites seem to contradict your claims of republican support for Obama's spending and deficits.

House Votes 414-0 to Reject Obama's Budget Plan | Video - The Blaze
www.theblaze.com/.../house-votes-414-0-to-rej... -...

Billy Hallowell

by Billy Hallowell - in 229 Google+ circles - More by Billy Hallowell
Mar 29, 2012 – The House also voted 414-0 Wednesday to reject Obama's budget, with ... of more than $40 trillion that would still be spent during that period.
0-414 vote: House clobbers budget proposal based on Obama's ...
thehill.com/.../house/218931-house-clobbers-o... ...
Mar 28, 2012 – The House on Wednesday night unanimously rejected an alternative budget proposal based on President Obama's 2013 budget plan,...

House easily rejects Obama budget in tactical vote | Fox News
www.foxnews.com/.../gop-run-house-easily-reje...
Mar 28, 2012 – House easily rejects Obama budget in tactical vote ... March 22, 2012: House Speaker John Boehner speaks during a news conference on ...
House and Senate Unanimously Reject Obama Budgets — Or Do ...
abcnews.go.com/.../house-and-senate-unanimous... ...

Jake Tapper

by Jake Tapper - in 36,916 Google+ circles - More by Jake Tapper
May 16, 2012 – The White House today reacted to news that representations of President Obama's budget had been voted down by the House and Senate

White House On Defense After Failed 99-0 Budget Vote | TPMDC
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../senate-republ... ...

Sahil Kapur

by Sahil Kapur - in 51 Google+ circles - More by Sahil Kapur
May 17, 2012 – White House: Senate Budget That Failed 99-0 Wasn't Ours ... President Obama's budget failed 99-0 in the Senate, the White House pushed back ... under consideration in the Senate is not presenting a vote on the President's ...
Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate - Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com/.../obama-budget-defe... ...

Stephen Dinan

by Stephen Dinan - in 98 Google+ circles - More by Stephen Dinan
May 16, 2012 – Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.
Obama budget defeated 414-0 - Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com/blog/.../obama-budget...
by Stephen Dinan - in 98 Google+ circles - More by Stephen Dinan
Mar 28, 2012 – President Obama's budget was defeated 414-0 in the House late ... The vote came as the House worked its way through its own fiscal year 2013 budget ... Reid, McConnell open tiny window for compromise during filibuster ...

“life under BO”

Since: Sep 12

buena vista

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3578
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And Warren Buffet doesn't have a problem with that. He's said so himself.
If Buffet really meant that , he already would have paid a higher rate, voluntarily. He didn't, I don't believe him, easy to talk big when you have billions in the bank.

all those on here who would like their taxes raised, raise your hands.

crickets chirping

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3579
Nov 27, 2012
 
hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text> Well it seems apparent you have first hand knowledge on the effects of thorazine. While I'm sure it is distressing to hear the truth about your racist scumbag leader, you must learn to deal with the fact he is despised by a great many. Many of us think he is a nitwit who has admitted he can't even do 7th grade math which certainly explains why he is too embarrassed to disclose his school records. No doubt a moron like oscumma would appeal to a lunatic like yourself.
you're making the assumption i support Obama. like most of your fact findings, you ended up with the wrong conclusion... it must actually take some hidden talent to be wrong so consistently...not useful talent but a tlent nonetheless...
hahahahahaha

Carmel, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3580
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh WOW! They're willing to give up more of their money for that good of us all and you're actually faulting them for it and saying it's for publicity. You're a sad, pathetic sack.
Oh Wow! Youre a sad pathetic mooch and loser who relies on handouts rather than making it happen yourself.

The stupid just don't recognize the fact that when someone has to announce their generosity, you know it's insincere. It's the folks who humbly engage themselves in charity without the need for recognition and praise.....who are the real deals.

The libs know how easy the stupid are to brainwash and manipulate.
hahahahahaha

Carmel, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3581
Nov 27, 2012
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you're making the assumption i support Obama. like most of your fact findings, you ended up with the wrong conclusion... it must actually take some hidden talent to be wrong so consistently...not useful talent but a tlent nonetheless...
No doubt you have some serious issues based on the bizarre comments you've made already. Maybe you should consider taking your schizoid self to a professional who can help you.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3582
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text> I have no doubt that you wouldn't understand. It was apparent the stupid, moochers and lazy didn't want to know. They don't want to work and rather enjoy living off the taxpayers. The numbers of sloths have increased and have become a very strong voting base for the liberal elites. The peasants enjoy living modestly in exchange for very little work, if any at all. They will gladly roll out of bed and vote every two and four years in order to keep their rulers in power.
lol! And I have no doubt you can only give me your opinion son.

And that would pretty much end your dissertation!
hahahahahaha

Carmel, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3583
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

sage won wrote:
<quoted text>
If Buffet really meant that , he already would have paid a higher rate, voluntarily. He didn't, I don't believe him, easy to talk big when you have billions in the bank.
all those on here who would like their taxes raised, raise your hands.
crickets chirping
Did Buffet invest in GE which ended up in oscumma's welfare bag of tricks? Is this dear old generous man the same one who has disowned his own flesh and blood? Is he the guy who said, "I’ll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It cost a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It’s addictive. And there’s a fantastic brand loyalty." This kind hearted and generous soul made money on the addictions of the stupid. He prospered on death and KNEW it was addictive and deadly. Wow, what a guy! No wonder the libs prop this guy up as a saint!Has he given away all his riches yet or is this the same hot air he's been blowing out his fat azz for years now?
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3584
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

sage won wrote:
<quoted text>
Read carefully:
"In the past Fannie Mae prohibited the lenders it was dealing with to engage in the practice of red lining. Red Lining meant that a bank would refuse to finance a home purchase in neighborhoods it consider high risk even if the prospective borrowers were themselves good credit risks. In part, this was because the bank did not want, in the event of default and foreclosure, to become the owner of property in a risky neighborhood. The deeper roots of the problem go back to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
In the 1990's under the administration of Franklin Raines, a Clinton Administration appointee, Fannie Mae began to demand that the lending institutions that it dealt with prove that they were not redlining. This meant that the lending institutions would have to fulfill a quota of minority mortgage lending. This in turn meant that the lending agencies would have to lower their standards in terms of such things as down payments and the required incomes. These subprime borrowers would be charged a higher interest rate. Having put the lending agencies into the position of granting subprime mortgages Fannie Mae then had to accept lower standards in the mortgages it purchased. That set the ball rolling. If a bank granted a mortgage to a borrower that was not likely to successfully pay off the mortgage then all the bank had to do was to sell such mortgages to Fannie Mae. The banks typically earned a loan origination fee when the mortgage was granted. The lending agencies could then make substantial profits dealing in subprime mortgages.
Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made a market for subprime mortgages the lenders did not have to worry about of the soundness of the mortgage contract they wrote. Thus the lenders could write the mortgages as adjustable interest rate mortgages knowing full well that an upturn in the interest rates could easily throw the borrower into insolvency. For example, when the interest rate is 6 percent the mortgage payment for a 30-year $200,000 mortgage is $1199 per month. If the interest rate goes up to 7 percent the mortgage payment would increase by $131 per month, an 11 percent increase. For many of the subprime borrowers living on the edge of insolvency this would be enough to push them over the edge. The guilt for the subprime mortgage financial crisis lies both with the lenders who knowingly put borrowers into booby trapped mortgages and the management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for making a market for such booby trapped mortgages thus giving the lenders the incentive for writing them. "
It's my opinion and San Jose States Economic dept. that the CRA started all of these future things rolling.
lol!.... with a lot of help from Republicans.

Too bad San Jose State refuses to explain whey it didn't all start way back in 1977, but only after GLB was passed and Glass–Steagall was repealed.

Must be a glitch in that SJSU thinking.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3585
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

hahahahahaha wrote:
<quoted text>No doubt you have some serious issues based on the bizarre comments you've made already. Maybe you should consider taking your schizoid self to a professional who can help you.
i have seen from past posts how facts can confuse you... i'd stick to parroting the media talking points you do not undertstand if i were you...you only look moderateley foolish that way.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••