Carson: 4 point plan to destroy America

The Republicans really want a black Presidential candidate. The ignorant belief being that they will be able argue they are not racist.

 

Wall Street's 2 point plan to destroy America

1-Operate under hedge fund like conditions even when you are supposed to act like a retail bank.
2-Chuckle and snort while the peasants pay for your bonuses, and the debt crisis you created is blamed on GSEs.

 

My point is that Republicans and conservatives are awfully good at celebrating simple 4-point plans, and therefore, concurrently bad at coming up with policy solutions to issues that matter. Maybe if they focused more on, say the 2-point plan and not derping hard on that one issue, they'd have more credibility on creating solutions to problems of import, and fiscal responsibility.

As it is, zilch.

Remember kids, complexity is not a vice.

also---

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/03/business/la-fi-wall-street-donors-20121103

 

The CRA amendments created the financial environment for a lot of the toxic loans. The GSEs scooped up a good number of them, knowing they were toxic at a time when the GSE capitalization requirement had been slashed. The GSEs are not completely to blame for the mess, but they sure added to it by being undercapitalized for the risk they were assuming.

 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HistoryOfTheUSSR

 

What about it? You just stated that Wall Street gave more to Obama than Romney, which is not only false, but not even remotely close to being true. Why would anyone have debate with someone who just randomly makes stuff up?

 

1. Make us more like Europe.
2. Adopt the euro.
3. Go broke.
4. Seize all deposits.
5. Have Russia bail us out in return for our gas fields.
6. I haven't seen Red Dawn so I don't know what happens next.

 

Maybe it is just me but I think the Conservatives should spend less time coming up with plans to destroy America.

 

why would a racist want a black presidential candidate?

 

That's why many Democrats voted for Obama. Including Batman Jones.

So your logic is not sound

 

Lol, you're all DOOMED... hahahahahahahah.

 

The party that is constantly talking about who's a "Real American" or where "Real America" is shouldn't have it's members accusing others of creating division amongst the people.

 

I find the first two points enlightening, the next two not so much.

You mean the primary dealers of the Federal Reserve system which are now currently buying up the non-blameworthy debt of the GSEs?

 

It's a circle that turns round and round, and it turned way before 1913.

 

This has come in handy so many times---

I just want to discredit that whole notion that the Community Reinvestment Act and GSEs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were somehow significantly responsible for 2008. It seems to be a popular conservative talking point.

First of all, CRA was really principally targeted at race-based redlining, which had to be one of the most f**ked up scenarios this side of the Civil Rights Act.

Quote:
Redlining is the practice of denying, or increasing the cost of services such as banking, in certain, often racially determined areas.

During the heyday of redlining, the areas most frequently discriminated against were black inner city neighborhoods. For example, in Atlanta, through at least the 1980s, this practice meant that banks would often lend to lower-income whites but not to middle- or upper-income blacks.
Second of all, CRA-mandated loans were such a small part of the subprime mortgage pool. Most subprime mortgages were driven by pure profit by unregulated shadow banks. CRA has been shown to have no empirical relationship with 2008---

Quote:
Some economists, politicians and other commentators have charged that the CRA contributed in part to the 2008 financial crisis by encouraging banks to make unsafe loans. However, every empirical study that has looked at CRA loans has concluded that they were safer than subprime mortgages that were purely profit driven, and CRA loans accounted for a tiny fraction of total subprime mortgages.

Quote:
The Federal Reserve, having examined the evidence, holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis. At the FDIC, Chair Sheila Bair delivered remarks noting that the majority of subprime loans originated from lenders not regulated by the CRA, calling it a "scapegoat" and declaring it "NOT guilty."

Quote:
Nobel laureate Paul Krugman noted in November 2009 that 55% of commercial real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being completely unaffected by the CRA. According to Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner, the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending" was contrary to their experience, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim. In a Bank for International Settlements (BIS) working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust", relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event.

Third of all, even if banks had been "forced to lend to poorer lenders" (Which the evidence clearly shows they weren't, with market-driven demand that was purely unassociated with CRA regulations being the driving force behind most subprime loans (Issuances of private-label mortgage-backed securities increased dramatically from 2001 to 2007), and the peak periods of explosive subprime growth being more correlated with Greenspan violating the Taylor rule in unspeakable ways, and cheap credit, than any change in CRA regulations), nothing excuses the fact that the banking system was filled with moral hazard and fraud as these crappy products were passed along. Nothing excuses the fact that banks were so deregulated in their handling of financial products and counter-party risk, that they almost sank the system on stupid bets. Nothing excuses the insane leverage ratios that allowed subprime to take such a dent out of the shadow banks in the first place.

Finally, as to the role of GSEs in 2008---

Quote:
"Unfortunately, Fannie Mae-quality, safe loans in the subprime market did not become the standard, and the lending market moved away from us. Borrowers were offered a range of loans that layered teaser rates, interest-only, negative amortization and payment options and low-documentation requirements on top of floating-rate loans. In early 2005 we began sounding our concerns about this "layered-risk" lending. For example, Tom Lund, the head of our single-family mortgage business, publicly stated, "One of the things we don't feel good about right now as we look into this marketplace is more homebuyers being put into programs that have more risk. Those products are for more sophisticated buyers. Does it make sense for borrowers to take on risk they may not be aware of? Are we setting them up for failure? As a result, we gave up significant market share to our competitors."

Quote:
Following their mission to meet federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing goals, GSEs such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) have striven to improve home ownership of low and middle income families, underserved areas, and generally through special affordable methods such as "the ability to obtain a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a low down payment... and the continuous availability of mortgage credit under a wide range of economic conditions." (HUD 2002 Annual Housing Activities Report) Then in 2003-2004, the subprime mortgage crisis began. The market shifted away from regulated GSEs and radically toward Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) issued by unregulated private-label securitization conduits, typically operated by investment banks.

As mortgage originators began to distribute more and more of their loans through private label MBS, GSEs lost the ability to monitor and control mortgage originators. Competition between the GSEs and private securitizers for loans further undermined GSEs power and strengthened mortgage originators. This contributed to a decline in underwriting standards and was a major cause of the financial crisis.

I realize it is an incredibly popular position (especially among conservatives) to demonize and scapegoat the poor for every failure that occurs, but if you're still doing it for 2008, then it occurs to me that perhaps the fantasy world is yours---where the poor, unconstrained by asymmetric information, somehow once again caused the failure of America by causing unregulated shadow banks to take on more risk than they ever could. You seem to posit, as many of your thinking do, that by merely existing, the poor are incentives to madness, counter-party risk, 30:1 leverage ratios, and shoddy loans. I guess that fits well into your narrative of the poor as parasites, but you should be keenly aware that empirically speaking, that thread of thought is at best a misrepresentation of the facts, at worst a delusion that will make worse the problems revealed by 2008, rather than cure them.

 

He's dead wrong. Republicans don't want a black nominee and it won't happen. Many of them do want a non-white candidate, which is why Marco Rubio gets so much attention (for now). Eventually, everyone will figure out he isn't worth a dime and a white guy will get the nomination. I predict Rubio, Jindal or a woman will be selected as running mate (especially if Hillary is the Dem nominee).

There is a 99.5% chance the 2016 GOP ticket will not be two white guys. My guess is a white governor + a woman or minority (a Hispanic or Jindal).

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/19ZxJVnM5Gs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>