Sanders - Hit Everybody

[jdshock]

Deleted to save space

So there’s a lot here, and it’s tough to talk about this without becoming long-winded since it’s easy to right a thesis on this topic. Right off the bat, though, I appreciate your large block quote. I think the second one is wholly unpersuasive. A single statement from one of the most conservative sources you can find with no reasoning behind it fails to convince me of anything.

First, that article does not suggest government regulation caused the subprime lending. The purchasing of the AAA tranches of subprime loans was the direct result of unregulation. Government regulation, even those cited in the article, did not cause a single bank to invest $1 in AAA tranches of subprime loans. That just didn’t exist. In fact, the lack of regulation on rating agencies is why those loans received high investment grades despite being subprime lending. There was no congressional mandate that those loans receive high investment grades. So, aside from any discussion of CRA or Fannie Mae or whatever, it’s just silly to argue that government regulation caused people to invest in subprime loans that were rated highly or caused the rating agencies to rate them highly.

Second, the idea that the CRA caused the subprime lending crisis is also laughable. To start, CRA was thirty years old by the time of the financial crisis, so hardly a “government in the 90s” anecdote. Also, even if President Clinton is partially to blame for the crisis, President Bush has to be as well. You act like it’s silly to argue that he caused it since he was president at the time. That’s not silly at all: according to the article you cited, the vast majority of subprime loans were purchased from 2005-2007 (after CRA had been weakened during the Bush presidency and immediately prior to the crisis). Further, the data just doesn’t support the idea that CRA radically increased the subprime lending. “More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies” which would have been unregulated by CRA. The Federal Reserve, for example, found that “only six percent” of the higher priced loans at fault for the Great Recession were made by CRA covered lenders.

So, to recap, the lack of government regulation on rating agency’s very clearly caused massive problems regarding the investment grade level of subprime tranches. And, the government regulation that conservatives say caused the Great Recession, had basically no impact at all.

[wufan]

Sorry for not posting the link previously. I can't find it now.

I don't know ANYTHING about the banking business. However, my Father was the president or VP of several regional and national banks in the Midwest between 1984 and 2000. At one time his major responsibility was buying and selling loans. Previous to that, he was a government bank auditor. While I was in high school in the 90s and trying to figure out what to do, I suggested I follow in his footsteps, after all, he made good money. I remember very vividly when he said, "don't do what I do. The government keeps telling us we have to give huge loans to people and they can't pay them back. If we don't give them loans then we get fined and sued. Someday there's not going to be any money left to loan and banks are going to get stuck with the bill." It stuck with me and he explained in more detail in 2008, but the details escape me.

Obviously none of what I just said proves a damn thing, but I'd stick by it as more accurate than most accounts that can be found on the web.

[jdshock]

Sorry for not posting the link previously. I can't find it now.

I don't know ANYTHING about the banking business. However, my Father was the president or VP of several regional and national banks in the Midwest between 1984 and 2000. At one time his major responsibility was buying and selling loans. Previous to that, he was a government bank auditor. While I was in high school in the 90s and trying to figure out what to do, I suggested I follow in his footsteps, after all, he made good money. I remember very vividly when he said, "don't do what I do. The government keeps telling us we have to give huge loans to people and they can't pay them back. If we don't give them loans then we get fined and sued. Someday there's not going to be any money left to loan and banks are going to get stuck with the bill." It stuck with me and he explained in more detail in 2008, but the details escape me.

Obviously none of what I just said proves a damn thing, but I'd stick by it as more accurate than most accounts that can be found on the web.

I don't doubt your account of what your father said. Further, he sounds like a good man. The vast majority of bankers' eyes turned to cartoon dollar bill signs between the mid 90's and the start of the recession. If he believed it was wrong to lend to those people, and he called it in the nineties, that's an impressive thing that few were able to do and few were willing to say was wrong because there was so much money to be made.

I still don't believe there is evidence the government required subprime lending (this is because of what I posted earlier. The law is old, and the data doesn't support the theory). Even if there were evidence that the government required it, (and this is where your dad and I would agree) the banks should not have had to make those loans (I mean, it was a bad decision to make those loans. It was bad for the economy). And around 2005, banks were engaged in significantly more subprime lending than possibly could be attributed to government regulations. What your dad would've had a problem with around 95 would've been ten times as bad in the mid 00's.

[tropicalshox]

Poll out today has Sanders ahead in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Clinton and her daughter both
stronging attacking Sanders today. I think Clinton knows she's in trouble.

[MoValley John]

Poll out today has Sanders ahead in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Clinton and her daughter both
stronging attacking Sanders today. I think Clinton knows she's in trouble.

Hillary spent too much time in the bunker. She sat on the guaranteed annointment of her as the nominee. Sanders didnt have to attack her, he just stayed on point while she hid in the bunker. Now she has to fight back, all the while defend ever increasing criticism of her email.

Bill was called into Iowa and is now actively campaigning. If Hillary loses Iowa, this whole thing opens up.

[ShockTalk]

Poll out today has Sanders ahead in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Clinton and her daughter both
stronging attacking Sanders today. I think Clinton knows she's in trouble.

Hillary spent too much time in the bunker. She sat on the guaranteed annointment of her as the nominee. Sanders didnt have to attack her, he just stayed on point while she hid in the bunker. Now she has to fight back, all the while defend ever increasing criticism of her email.

Bill was called into Iowa and is now actively campaigning. If Hillary loses Iowa, this whole thing opens up.

If happens, Hello Biden?

[tropicalshox]

Joe almost sounded like a Sanders supporter today. He's not going to change his mind about not running. But if he does, he will assure a Sanders' nomination.

[jdshock]

The latest polls have Sanders ahead of Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire: http://time.com/4189537/bernie-sande...ton-poll-iowa/

[Kung Wu]

Just like what happened with Clinton vs Obama, there appears to be a massive movement away from Clinton at the moment of truth.

[SB Shock]

democrats have a win-win situation ---- they get either a Sanders or Trump victory.

[tropicalshox]

After this Bernie ad Clinton might as well give it up.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bernie-sanders-invokes-simon-garfunkel-for-new-campaign-ad-20160121

[JJClamdip]

A very good ad.

Like I have said this is going to be the most entertaining presidential election ever.

The republicans are now officially pissing down both legs with the thought of Trump actually winning the nomination.

Great fun to sit back and watch.

[_kai_]

Just like what happened with Clinton vs Obama, there appears to be a massive movement away from Clinton at the moment of truth.

My theory is that as time nears the election, more and more moderates and voters who don't pay attention until the primaries get involved. They've not been polled before, and now they're adding numbers that weren't accounted for before. I think Hillary is a very polarizing figure, and easily the most polarizing of the Democratic candidates. I think the people saying they were voting for Hillary were the ones who are Hillary Groupies, and that group isn't getting larger, it may be getting smaller as she keeps stepping on land mines. I think this is the worst time for her to keep stumbling because there are bunch of moderates and undecideds making decisions right now, especially in Iowa. If she loses Iowa, she's done. I think Bernie just keeps picking up traction, and he'll start winning 60%+ of the votes.

[jdshock]

My theory is that as time nears the election, more and more moderates and voters who don't pay attention until the primaries get involved. They've not been polled before, and now they're adding numbers that weren't accounted for before. I think Hillary is a very polarizing figure, and easily the most polarizing of the Democratic candidates. I think the people saying they were voting for Hillary were the ones who are Hillary Groupies, and that group isn't getting larger, it may be getting smaller as she keeps stepping on land mines. I think this is the worst time for her to keep stumbling because there are bunch of moderates and undecideds making decisions right now, especially in Iowa. If she loses Iowa, she's done. I think Bernie just keeps picking up traction, and he'll start winning 60%+ of the votes.

If she continues to lose ground as the moderates start to be accounted for in the polls, it shows just how poorly she handled this election. If she can't gain votes against Bernie from the moderates, she absolutely deserves to lose.

[DwShock]

How can people honestly vote for someone who is a self appointed socialist? Do they not read or understand history?