Obama admin pushing banks to offer sub-prime mortgages again...

[Thomas Rogers]

KL,



The guy with the title has the only ownership, so his is the greater ownership.



The taxpayers don't own part of the truck anymore than I as a taxpayer own part of a road, a bridge, or a public building. I pay taxes for crap I can't use, don't have rights to all the time.



TJR

 

[H D]

5. Are we sure a fact can't have happen yet. IE: am I going to die. Now, I believe that to be true and a fact, it is also my opinion based on the fact that every living thing on earth has die. I don't think there are enough extension cords in the world to keep me plugged in until the end of time. So is it a good idea to get part B?

I never said that a fact, or at least meant to say that a fact isn't a fact until it happens. There are certainties in life that most would call facts. Is it a fact that we are all going to one day die? Sure, that's a safe fact to assume. We can assume facts, but they aren't really facts if we assume them, now are they? Do I know for a fact that if I jump off a 40 story building without a parachute or other aid to protect me that I will die? Not for a fact. Pretty safe to say I will though.

This is the form of fact I have been using in my argument. So, maybe you won't absolutely call it fact (I will, though), but we can "pretty safely say" that sub-prime mortgages will result.



If anybody remembers way back, when you were told to write a persuasive essay as a child (maybe not until senior year of high school for some), were you expected to write "I think," or "it may come to pass," etc? No, you state your observations or persuasions as fact. Otherwise, why are you writing? I'm not asking for questions in my observations; I am telling you the facts. Interpret them as you will. Or tell me I'm wrong; I can handle that. But please don't tell me how to choose my diction.

 

[Richard L]

KL,

I'm still waiting for some return on my "investment" as a taxpayer in GM. I don't care that GM is paying back all of the money--they took my money for an extended period of time, and I demand recompense for that. The government having to kick cash over to GM furthers the debt, which furthers my "burden" as a taxpayer, thus the recompense is justly deserved. Banks charge interest on loans, and I my "interest rate" certainly wasn't 0%!

I like your logic in that statement....Tongue and cheek, yes, but it still has a lot of stinging truth to it. :grin:



I find that the governement plays both sides of the fence. When they are concerned about the budget/deficit, they speak in terms of "The taxpayers money". But when they want to spend the tax money in a reckless fashion, it suddenly is not longer taxpayer's money...it's their money, their revenue.



I think we have come full circle in regards to "Taxation without representation". We can elect representives into office, but once they get into office they do what they want, or cannot over rule those who only want to tax and spend. Certainly the folks in Congress and the Senate have not represented the wishes of the majority of American citizens for many years.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh said:

This is the form of fact I have been using in my argument. So, maybe you won't absolutely call it fact (I will, though), but we can "pretty safely say" that sub-prime mortgages will result.

And that brings up another point of contention.



Yes, I agree that the future will likely hold some sub-prime mortgages given to peoples in some of these areas. That is a belief, not a fact. It may come to pass as a factual event.



What I don't think anyone will be able to prove as a conclusive "fact" is whether or not those future sub-prime mortgages granted will have been granted due to the fact that there was some pressure by these agencies.



It is much like rate of cancer statistics. I think most would agree that smoking has been shown to cause cancer. However, do we know for a given case of lung cancer within a smoker that it was "in fact" smoking that caused the cancer? Answer: we do not. We have a confidence in the cause, but we don't know it for a fact.



All that we have that is factual are statistic that show an increased rate of cancer for certain conditions (smokers, those exposed to asbestos, whatever). This increased rate of occurrence equates to what most agree is an increased liklihood for those exposed to the agent, condition, etc. Still, that is an "increased liklihood", which is not a fact either.



So, if we see more sub-prime loans granted on-average during a quarter, or a year (or whatever) in areas where these agencies looked into lending practices then there may be a "likely" correllation. Then again, maybe other factors caused the increase in loans given (availability of credit, freeing up of the ability to resell sub-prime loans, etc).



Again, I'm not saying more sub-prime loans won't be granted, or an increased number won't be granted. I'm just saying it is very difficult to "factually" determine the root cause (or causes) if those things happen. But, we can believe, or infer such causes...but then we are back to areas that aren't really facts.



TJR

 

[H D]

Yes, I agree that the future will likely hold some sub-prime mortgages given to peoples in some of these areas. That is a belief, not a fact. It may come to pass as a factual event.



What I don't think anyone will be able to prove as a conclusive "fact" is whether or not those future sub-prime mortgages granted will have been granted due to the fact that there was some pressure by these agencies.

So, the "future will likely hold some sub-prime mortgages in some of these areas." The only factor changing the behavior of the banks is the pressure by these agencies. Or, like I have already mentioned, the banks change their practices of free will and good intentions without regard to their history in the area (the bank in the article NEVER serviced that area) and the pressure is not a factor.



What other reason could you conclude that the banks might possibly start offering sub-prime mortgages in those areas?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh said:

The only factor changing the behavior of the banks is the pressure by these agencies.

I think what you are saying above is:



"The only factor that will change the future behavior of the banks with regards to sub-prime lending in these areas is the pressure of these agencies."



If that is what you are saying, then frankly, I don't believe that to be a fact. There are a number of possible conditions that could influence the banks willingness (or unwillingness) to give sub-prime loans.



For example, banks could start offering (more) sub-prime loans in a given area because the climate for sub-prime loans opens up. If banks can more readily sell the loans they take on, then that would be one reason. A particular bank could want to take on sub-prime loans to meet some short-term revenue and lending goals (meet forecasts, projections) and may be willing to do that even though it might introduce more longer term risk. There are several possible reasons.



Again, I am not saying what the banks will or won't do. I'm just saying that no one can with 100% certainty:



a: predict what the banks will or won't do



b: determine why they did or didn't do what they did in a., above, once they have done it (or didn't do it).



We can pontificate what the banks might or might not do, and why, and we can even narrow in on what we agree would be very likely. Still, that doesn't make any of it "factual", regardless what one wants to call it.



TJR

 

[H D]

If I'm understanding the direction of this thread, here are the new rules for this board:



One line scientifically proven facts are the only acceptable posts. No discussion should result and the Off-Topic Board is now a board to now list only universally accepted facts.



Prepare for your sentences to be altered to ensure they match the "facts" of other members. This shall not result in a discussion (per previous rule) but only serve to rearrange words that they may more closely resemble the "facts" as others rule them to be.

 

[Richard L]

Hugh,

I don't think anyone is saying that you are not entitled to your opinion, but when you post a message title with a grabber headline that clearly states that Obama Admin is pushing for more Sub Prime loans, when the article clearly does not say that...you can expect to get some flak. Even if people agree that the there may be sub prime loans in the future, that article does not really say that. It mearly reports that there is/was an investigation into the banking practices that involved redlining certain zones or area that were poor and primarlily black. I see that as more of a racial question than a sub prime issue...but that is just my opinion. I would not post that article and say anything that the banks were racist because it did not say that.



The only one who even mentioned sub prime loans was the author talking about the previous fiaso. That certainly does not mean that Obama is pushing for sub prime loans.



Yes, it is possible that we may have some new renamed, modified, new and improved version of the sub prime loan, but because you, I or TJR thinks that may happen, does not mean it will and it may be far different than the old infamous sub prime loans of the past.



I think any new loans for these impoverished areas will require carefull scrutiny by the banks and insure that everything submitted on the loan application is true and accurate, and that alone means that many people will not qualify. I only objected to the Redlining by the banks, and the Title you attached to the article when you posted it here.



You seem to be more interested in predicting the future? I don't believe in prognosticators or people like Nostrodamus who think they can predict the future. If you can predict the future you can tell us the exact dates, times, places, names, etc of everybody involved, and you could have warned us about the previous Sub Prime/Banking fiasco.



Even if your prediction comes true and that there will be a new sub prime loan, so what? Nobody will know if it was it a prediction or just a lucky guess? Either way you still have a 50/50 shot at being right, and that's better odds then you get at Vegas. Of course, it doesn't pay you much.



Now if you could do the same predictions at the BlackJack table or slot machines, then you have got something going for you and you would a very wealthy guy. Since I don't think you have the gift of prophecy, I will just assume that if you are right, that it was just a lucky guess



...Rich

 

[H D]

I am a political scientist. Policy analysis is my interest. I considered the policy and analyzed it's effects. I make no comparisons about myself to Nostradamus. There is a difference in policy analysis and mystical predictions about the future.



I assume you have some feelings about the health care bill and the effects it will have when in full force. You should keep those to yourself until things pass lest you be called a prognosticator. Never provide an analysis of policy until you fully see the results lest you be called a sensationalist. You also shouldn't provide any input on which president will be the best choice in the next election, because you surely cannot know such a fact.



You also confuse a guess with an analysis.



So, to get somebody to provide what I have been after this whole time, if my analysis is incorrect, provide your own analysis of the actions the agencies are taking. Or we can continue to argue over what constitutes a fact or who can predict the future. Your call. I'm done with the latter, though.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



In your "new rules" post 2 above you seem to be a little miffed. I'm not sure why. I have been both rational and calm in my discussions. I have been respectful. If you are frustrated then I shouldn't be the source of that frustration, IMHO. If I am a little wordy, well then that's just my communication style.



Other than that, well, I agree with with Richard said.



Please calm down for a second, if you can, and if you need to and recognize that from my POV you seem to be continually missing the point of what I and Richard have been saying.



Consider where you said:

I assume you have some feelings about the health care bill and the effects it will have when in full force. You should keep those to yourself until things pass lest you be called a prognosticator.

Well, again, you seem to be dismissing all the places where I said that prognostication and discussion itself is not bad, and that practice is not what I am disagreeing with.



The issue isn't that you discuss, analyze, or progosticate. The issue is that you do those things and claim with some certainty that the things you pontificating on will with certainty come to pass. You do that when you continue to use words like "will" and "fact". That's my issue; the choice of fete complete words, not the discussion itself.



You also said:

Never provide an analysis of policy until you fully see the results lest you be called a sensationalist. You also shouldn't provide any input on which president will be the best choice in the next election, because you surely cannot know such a fact.

Again, no one is saying don't discuss, don't analyze. I am simply encouraging that we all try to limit the sensationalized thread titles and and try to present our opinions on likely future events as speculation, likely or not, and not try to present them as fact...as things that WILL happen.



As for new rules, well, I think the best new rule, is the one that has always been around on the internet and in real life, and that rule is:



"Don't start none, won't be none."



Which means if everyone here tries their best to not post things that essentially have one ASKING to be corrected or debated, then there much less likely be corrections or debating.



Posting a sensationalized thread title that is seemingly meant to bait people into reading an article; an article that when read doesn't really justify the "matter of fact" title will likely and arguably often cause a stir. I suspect you don't think that is what you did. It's an introspection thing, IMHO.



TJR

 

[H D]

I'm more than calm. Actually enjoying a few Yuenglings and trying my hand at smoking a meatloaf while enjoying the beautiful weather. It doesn't get much more calm than that. This is what I do for fun, ya know. I signed up for college classes that promised such banter.



You should know that I create titles that I think will lead to discussion and debate. At 100+ posts, I think I succeeded. That's journalism 101. So, yeah, I'll own up to that. People read it, and started discussing it. Then, I was disappointed when the title became the main focus and an attempt at defining "facts" became the brunt of discussion.



I'm still waiting for a policy analysis differing from my own.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



I already explained several times why I think a resurgence of sub-prime loans in any great, threatening numbers in the near future is very unlikely.



TJR

 

[H D]

That says why my theory might be wrong.



What do you think outcome of the agencies' investigations and citations will be? Is it simply more access to loans in underprivileged areas? Are there no negative consequences?



I think more people will get loans that should be getting loans but were previously denied because of their local. I also think it will result in sub-prime mortgages again. These two sentences pretty much sum up everything I have tried to get across in this thread.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh asked:

What do you think outcome of the agencies' investigations and citations will be? Is it simply more access to loans in underprivileged areas? Are there no negative consequences?

Here is what I think will likely happen given a set of logical assertions and conclusions.



1) These regulatory and oversight agencies will look into the lending trends and practices of financial institutions in these areas.



2) I would expect that the agencies will start by looking at trends and statistics related to those approved, per-capita, or per applicant for said areas and then compare and contrast those statistics with some other sample averages, possibly nationwide averages. If the area's trends are aligned with the expected samples, then I would expect the agencies will stop their analysis then and there.



3) However, if the comparitive analysis described above display possible anomolies then I expect the agencies will dig deeper and review actual applications. If it comes to that then upon their review they either find wrong-doing, or they won't. When I say "wrong-doing" they will find evidence that people that should have been granted loans were denied. Or, they will find no evidence of such wrong doing.



4) It is very possible (in my opinion) that no wrong-doing will be found. In other words, I expect that IF it is the case that there seems to be lower rates of lending going on in these areas it will probably be shown to be caused by a number of factors, including but not limited to:



a. those applying aren't qualified



b. there are fewer, on average, per-capita applying for loans (probably because they know they won't qualify)



c. these areas have a majority of renters and rental units, and far fewer actual homes for sale and far fewer people who want to be homeowners.



So, I expect that these agencies will do their job. I suspect they won't find any significant wrong-doing, and find that the lenders are acting in good faith, and because of that there will be no "call" by the agencies for the lenders to change anything. Thus, things will proceed as it is currently.



I don't agree with the premise that there are a lot of people that are being denied access to loans simply because of where they live. I suspect that more than likely where they live is an indicator of other things, and some of those things are the reasons that they were declined access to loans.



People would like to claim they are the subject of discrimination based on where they live, or the color of their skin, or the clothes they wear, or how they speak, or their fitness level (yeah, fat people are discriminated against)...whatever. However, the way I see it is that the unfair "reality" (in my mind) is that more often than not the person that is doing the discriminating is seeing past those superficial things and grasping at root cause reasons, and those reasons and factors are the reasons for the dismissing.



Like the lottery ticket winner example, the same decisions and factors that lead someone to live in a ghetto area (okay, that's what I called it), are the same factors that will work against them in getting a loan. Lower education, lower earning potential, poor or no credit, little or no cash on-hand, these things are often the case for people living in these areas. It is the rare exception that an educated, well-off person lives in these areas. Does that mean a lender should be allowed to deny loans to all that live in such areas, without looking at qualifications? Of course not. But by the same token, lenders that do deny shouldn't be assumed to be denying just because of where the applicants live.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

Hugh,

You also confuse a guess with an analysis

Actually, I do know the difference. A guess is just a wild-assed guess, while and Analysis is a guess based on some logic or forethought.



However, since you have a 50% chance of being right or wrong, then it's not much of an analysis since a monkey could make that same choice an still have a 50% chance of either being right or wrong. How would you feel about your analysis if you were wrong and the monkey was right? I'm sure you would have some excuse or just say that the monkey made a lucky guess.



I only mention the monkey because a few years ago they had a monkey that could pick better stocks than 3 or 4 knowledgable Wall Street stock analyst. I think they have even had a monkey pick the winner of the Kentucky Derby?



Also Obama's Administration cannot force or push banks to do anything. All banks are regulated by their state, and depending upon if they are part of the Federal Reserve system, they can also be regulated at the Federal level by one of these Agencies: the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Office of the Comptroler of Currency, The FDIC, The Office of Thrift Supervision, or The National Credit Union Administration.



Even though the Federal Reserve Chairman is appointed by the President, he is given a list of candidates from the an elite list of member banks, and he can only pick one from that list...so Obama and his administration still do not have any direct control over banking practices.



Just more food for your analysis...:grin:



...Rich

 

[H D]

Thanks, TJR. That's all I've been looking for.



Richard,

Also Obama's Administration cannot force or push banks to do anything. All banks are regulated by their state, and depending upon if they are part of the Federal Reserve system, they can also be regulated at the Federal level by one of these Agencies: the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Office of the Comptroler of Currency, The FDIC, The Office of Thrift Supervision, or The National Credit Union Administration.

Perhaps you shouldn't say that the administration cannot push banks to do anything in the same paragraph with a list including federal agencies charged with regulating banks.

 

[Richard L]

Hugh,

Perhaps you shouldn't say that the administration cannot push banks to do anything in the same paragraph with a list including federal agencies charged with regulating banks.

Why not? Are you implying that the Obama administration has any direct control over these agencies?



...Rich

 

[H D]

These agencies are what make up the Obama administration. As mentioned in this thread much earlier. These federal agencies are part of the executive branch. The executive branch is also known as the president's administration. Therefore, the agencies are the president's administration.

 

[Richard L]

Hugh,

Not true! They are not part of the President's administration and there are compelling reasons for that.



He does not appoint anyone to head up any these agencies, with the exception of Fed Reserve Chairman, and even then his can only pick from a list of candidates presented to him by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The President has never had any direct power over the Federal Reserve, or any of the other banking regulatory agencies.



The agency that handled the Sub Prime mortgage fiasco was Fannie mae which no longer exists, all the executives were fired or resigned, and I dont know if there is any agency that has replaced it.



All of the issue with Sub Prime mortgages was all related to home mortgages handled by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Clinton Administration pushed for more lenient home mortgage loans through Fannie Mae to boost the economy and that info was passed down to the bankers.



If Obama administration wanted to renew sub prime loans, going to the banks was not the place to go, or try to exert pressure. He would need to start with whatever Federal agency is overseeing Home Mortgagesbut it is not the banking regulatory agencies.



Even the subject of Sub Prime mortgages is a toxic subject and the Obama administration would be committing suicide if they even mentioned new sub prime mortgages. A single sub prime mortgage granted under the Obama administration would be the end any chance he has for reelection!



I think if any part of the article is true, it is based on the Obama Administrations concern that the banks are Redlining certain areas that were predominately black , which appears to be a possible form of racism by the banks.



I actually think that whole article was more conservative propaganda like the "Obama rejects IBM's free MEDICARE fix since it did not appear in any other media.



Rich

 

[H D]

The Office of the Comptroller of Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision are part of Obama's administration and that is a fact. Any part of the executive branch is directly responsible to the President, if he so chooses to interject himself into their jobs.