Quote:

---

So either approach the questions I've raised before, that you couldn't answer, such as how Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae can be mostly responsible for the economic crash when they don't lend to any end customers, or drop the issue, and stop dragging it into every single thread in the hopes that a lie repeated often enough, will be mistaken for the truth.

---

Quote:

---

You're a very UNfunny version of Monty Python's bit on arguing.

I implore you, leave the funny stuff to the professionals. Just because you talk w/ a funny accent doesn't mean you're funny.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I proved I was right LONG ago, you just never admitted it.

Understandable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
you've never ASKED a question, you've only posed ridiculous claims under the guise of asking questions, eg: " Have you stopped beating your wife ? "

If you honestly have a question, then ask it, and drop the B.S.

I'll answer.

---

Quote:

---

Fannie and Freddie -

You probably know that between the two, they guarantee or hold about half the mortgages in the United States. (That's somewhere near $6 trillion worth of mortgages.)

So but what happened?

What these two institutions do is buy mortgages from actual financial service institutions. They were formed to actually create these troublesome "debt instruments" that have caused such trouble—they hold the mortgages in securities as their own financial portfolio or sell them. And they sold them to the likes of Bear Stearns, and Citigroup, and Lehman Brothers.

Along the way, they politicked extremely well to not be overseen. They put George W. Bush's old business partner on the board; they hired Bill Clinton's former budget chief.

Furthermore, they are guaranteed low interest rates. And they have the right to borrow money, like any other financial service—and they did so extravagantly.

In exchange for buying these mortgages, they take on the risk of mortgage default. Uh oh! When mortgages began defaulting en masse, the companies simply didn't have the money on hand to repay their loans.

And so their heads were summoned to Washington, after a few months of evaluation—the government hired Morgan Stanley to figure things out—and told they could give control to the feds or control could be taken. Morgan Stanley's team had figured out, "Using assessments about what would happen to the housing market over the next 18 months...that the companies were in need of as much as $50 billion." (And if you read only one story about how all this went down, read that one.)

And that wasn't going to happen. In part, because meanwhile, foreign banks, which owned much of the companies' debt, were calling up the U.S. Treasury secretary in a panic.

The government conservatorship of the two fiscal behemoths is unusual in that it may totally stiff the shareholders of the companies. They won't get dividend payment on their shares. And the government also has a right to buy up the vast majority of their stock for pennies.

This is presumably going to be murder on shareholders—though this statement is from back in June, and holdings may have changed—the likes of Merrill Lynch, with 41 million shares in Fannie Mae, could get pounded.

Also this is having several cascading effects on world markets. For one thing, foreign markets—which make sport of U.S. debt, because they own so much of it—are up today! And now the credit-default swap market has gone totally nuts, but that is way too complicated for you to even try to understand.
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/09/the-fannie-mae-and-fredd
ie-mac-bailout-explained.php

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
There is no such thing as " predatory lending ". Folks feign ignorance when they can't pay their mortgages, saying bull shit like " they didn't know the details of our loan! ". Can't get a decent loan ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Guess what, you don't deserve a house, that's what SHOULD have happened. But no, the Democrats and ACORN bullied and pressured the banks and FORCED them to take high risk loans.

---

Quote:

---

“State and local governments nationwide must expand their efforts to ensure that every family in America has the opportunity to own a home. The more Americans we have owning homes, the stronger our economy and the greater the benefit.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The banks went overboard, thinking the Feds would back up their bad loans, and approved en mass. The Dems got what they asked for, and it bit them in the ass.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Predatory lending gave people loans that then defaulted because people couldn't pay them. ... People defaulted on their loans because of risky lending, which isn't down to anyone but the lenders that made those risky loans, and the deregulators that allowed them to do so.

---

Quote:

---

There is no such thing as " predatory lending ".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

There is no such thing as " predatory lending ".

---

Yet another RapFact™!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
More like 99.999 % Democrats, and the rest Republican.

obama and acron sued Citibank under CRA to get those loans so minorities could " afford " houses.

FACT

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It DISPROVES the very thing you were attempting to lie about, and that was that the Dems weren't responsible for this mess, when clearly, they are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
You're laying the blame for defaulted loans on the lenders and regulators, but is there no responsibility on the part of borrowers? A loan is a two way contract and both parties have to come to some kind of agreement on its viability. I tend to think a consumerist mentality and shortsighted greed on the part of borrowers was a large part of the problem as well, given that a lot of these people were getting in over their heads with plans of "flipping" the house for a profit.

---

Quote:

---

Also, I'm curious what you mean by "predatory lending" and how, in your view, regulators fit in. I'm all in favor of honest dealings and I see a role for regulators to prevent lenders from lying to borrowers or otherwise bilking them with deceptive practices, but you seem to be suggesting that regulators should be in the business of preventing risky loans. As long as both lender and borrower agree to the terms of the loan - and accept the risks of it not working out - I don't think the government has any business interfering.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
... Lets remember one thing, the borrower is going to an expert for advice on a mortgage, that expert is being paid, via commission, for that advice. If that expert gives the borrower bad advice knowingly, in order to increase their commission, bonus or whatever, knowing that the shit will hit the fan long after they're gone, you're damn right it's predatory.

---