From a respected Madjacksport member
- Thread starter Skulnik
- Start date
Outrage! ISIS killers allowed to escape
Outrage! ISIS killers allowed to escape
Outrage! ISIS killers allowed to escape
August 17, 2016 |40 Comments
When it comes to combating Islamic terrorism, every choice boils down to two true options ? kill, or be killed.
So when a couple hundred vehicles filled with previously-surrounded Islamic State fighters were allowed to leave the battlefield peacefully ? all while U.S. and coalition drones watched from above ? it left some analysts confused.
According to reports, as U.S.-backed forces seized the northern Syrian city of Manbijin, they struck a deal with ISIS ? you can leave.
Military insiders confirm that coalition commanders under President Barack Obama approved the plan ? and it is playing right into ISIS? hands.
Letting such fighters flee back into the general population may be part of ISIS? grand plan. According to The New York Times, recent terror tactics by the group ?foreshadows a long and bloody insurgency ? as the group reverts to its guerrilla roots because its territory is shrinking in Iraq and Syria.?
A U.S. military official said Tuesday that some of the escaped ISIS fighters may have already made their way into Turkey, and many others are moving elsewhere in Syria. The official was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly so spoke on condition of anonymity.
Col. Chris Garver, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS, told Pentagon reporters that the decision to let the convoy leave the city was made by commanders of the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces. He said there were reports of civilians in the vehicles, and the military wanted to avoid casualties.
Garver said the coalition has been tracking and watching the vehicles as they headed north, but he declined to say where they were.
The Associated Press contributed to this article
Outrage! ISIS killers allowed to escape
Outrage! ISIS killers allowed to escape
August 17, 2016 |40 Comments
When it comes to combating Islamic terrorism, every choice boils down to two true options ? kill, or be killed.
So when a couple hundred vehicles filled with previously-surrounded Islamic State fighters were allowed to leave the battlefield peacefully ? all while U.S. and coalition drones watched from above ? it left some analysts confused.
According to reports, as U.S.-backed forces seized the northern Syrian city of Manbijin, they struck a deal with ISIS ? you can leave.
Military insiders confirm that coalition commanders under President Barack Obama approved the plan ? and it is playing right into ISIS? hands.
Letting such fighters flee back into the general population may be part of ISIS? grand plan. According to The New York Times, recent terror tactics by the group ?foreshadows a long and bloody insurgency ? as the group reverts to its guerrilla roots because its territory is shrinking in Iraq and Syria.?
A U.S. military official said Tuesday that some of the escaped ISIS fighters may have already made their way into Turkey, and many others are moving elsewhere in Syria. The official was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly so spoke on condition of anonymity.
Col. Chris Garver, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS, told Pentagon reporters that the decision to let the convoy leave the city was made by commanders of the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces. He said there were reports of civilians in the vehicles, and the military wanted to avoid casualties.
Garver said the coalition has been tracking and watching the vehicles as they headed north, but he declined to say where they were.
The Associated Press contributed to this article
RANT FROM THE BUNKER XXXVI
SCOURING THE NEWS, TROLLING THE INTERNET, AND FIGHTING POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, ONE STORY AT A TIME:
1. CLINTON CHUTZPAH: Clinton Crime, Inc. is at it again. This time the Clintons released their 2015 federal income tax return. It wasn't a good year for Bubba and Shrillary: they only took in $10.6 million. They were too busy campaigning to give their B.S. speeches for half a million dollars each.. The Clintons paid 34% in income taxes, and these two generous people donated $1,042,000 to charity. How nice of them! However, of the amount given to charity, $1,000,000 went to their own Clinton Foundation!!! These two shameless grifters donated a million dollars, TAX FREE, to themselves, thus putting an extra $340,000 in their greedy pockets!!! The grotesque Clintons have no shame.
2. Obama is crowing about the 4.9% unemployment rate. But, as TEA PARTY CRUSADERS notes, 94,333,000 Americans have given up looking for work, and these people are not counted when computing the unemployment rate. The real rate is well over 10%. As Abe Lincoln was fond of saying: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. But, you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
3. NF-ILL: The National Football League ruled that the Dallas Cowboys can not wear a logo on their helmets that supports the Dallas police. Shame on you, Commissioner Roger Goodell!!! The most over-paid man in America has again demonstrated why he is useless as a screen door on a submarine. BLUE LIVES MATTER, Commissioner!! It looks like Goodell is just trying to pander to his low IQ players.
4. For Obama so loved the poor that he created many millions more of them!
5. MEDICARE MADNESS: All of you Medicare beneficiaries should realize that Medicare does not cover everything. Bunker Boy found out the hard way that it does not. For three months I have been taking an IV antibiotic that is very expensive. When I was leaving the hospital, I learned that my prescription drug plan (which is very good) did not cover injectable drugs, and neither did Medicare. So I paid $700 out-of- pocket every ten days. (Do the math, Johnson, and it ain't pretty) Mr. American working sucker paid into this system for 48 years, and when he needed it, Medicare was not there. I was informed by several physicians that Obama took $765 million from Medicare (money that used to cover this) to pay for illegal aliens' health care. Oh well, as long as it went for a good cause.
6. HACKARAMA: Another day, another Democratic hack. This time a hacker got into Democratic politicians personal information, like phone numbers, addresses, etc. The last thing I need in life is Nancy Peolsi's home phone number. Her botox infused puss is tighter than a drum; you could bounce quarters off of her cheeks. Come on hacker, find some good Dem dirt, like Hillary's outing of spies who were killed, Benghazi gun running to al-Queda psychos, and Obama and Clinton willfully leaving our consulate defenders in Benghazi to die.
7. BITING THE HAND: The Clintons were not content with having reduced FBI Director James Comey from an honorable man to a lying, deceitful, dishonest, Democratic Party shill, thus stripping the man of any scrap of integrity, dignity, and honesty he ever had. Recently, there was degenerate liar, Bill Clinton, ripping Comey, saying that his investigation of Hillary was "the biggest load of bull I've ever heard." Comey had to remain quiet and take the insult like the beaten-down dog he has become. What was he going to say? "I'm the Clintons' butt-boy and I lied to the American people about Hillary's e-mails, in order to protect her from prosecution." Comey is like the cop who took a bribe, and then cannot open his mouth any more about the bribe giver, for fear of being exposed. Just chalk Director Comey up as just another victim used by the Clintons.
8. TWIN FALLS FEDERAL FIASCO: Twin Falls, Idaho used to be your typical small town America before it was ruined by the federal government. Then the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. started to pack the town with Muslim 'refugees.' Their Refugee Resettlement Program radically changed this little town for the worse. Last June, three young Syrian refugee boys were arrested for the sexual abuse of a five year old Idaho girl. The details of the attack are disgusting, and will not be reported here. Incredibly, the politicians and the media sided with the little girl's attackers. They engaged in a concerted effort to demonize the child's parents and their neighbors and friends. The media even went so far as to call the American citizens "racists" for supporting the victim. Well, it turns out that there are powerful forces that have a large financial interest in placing more and more foreign workers in Twin Falls: large companies like Chobani Yogurt are located there, and the federal government subsidizes the salaries of refugee workers. Just follow the money trail. In other words, there is a strong financial incentive for a company to hire foreign workers, and to not hire Americans!!!
To read all of the sickening details of federal bureaucratic hacks, local politicians, and the press providing cover for the Muslim refugees, you can go to to www.google.com and type in "Twin Falls child rape." WARNING: Take an extra blood pressure pill first. Breitbart News has been in the forefront of reporting this important story (www.breitbart.com).
9. GREAT RADIO: Lately I have been listening to the Patriot channel on Sirius Radio. The morning show with Alex Marlowe (6-9 A.M. EST) is very informative. Donald Trump just hired Marlowe's co- host, Stephen K. Bannon, as his campaign's CEO. A great move by Trump. The yearly subscription to Sirius Radio through your computer is very cheap. It is worth checking out. This is where I first heard of the story about Twin Falls. The evening show features the great David Webb.
10. I forced myself to watch one of Hillary Ratched Clinton's speeches to her moron base of non-taxpayers. She was ridiculing Trump by saying something like this: "Donald Trump says he has a plan to defeat ISIS, but he won't give any specifics." I sat there with my mouth agape, thinking "I know this woman sustained a serious head injury, but is she mentally defective?" Trump should say: "Using Clinton's logic, General Douglas Mac Arthur should have announced: 'I am invading the Philippines on October 20, 1944, and we are landing at Leyte Gulf with 200,000 men.' This dopey dingbat Democratic dolt wants to be our Commander-in-Chief? She couldn't lead a pack of Girl Scouts. If ISIS dangled a few million dollars in front of Rodham, she would sell our country out in a Noo Yawk minute.
11. ANGELA MERKEL is to Germany what HILLARY CLINTON is to America. Wake up, Americans! Don't give Clinton the chance to destroy our country with her sinister plan for massive Muslim immigration, like Merkel did to Deutschland.
12. INDIAN IDIOCY INDEED: I heard an audio clip of the phony Cherokee Indian the other day. Yes, I mean none other than MA Senator Elizabeth Warren. Chief Spreading Bull was ranting about Trump not being trustworthy, ridiculing his wealth, and filing for bankruptcy... This was hilarious coming out of the mouth of a woman who got a job at Harvard teaching one class for $350,000 a year, while she lives in a $5,000,000+++ house in Cambridge. And, she got that job by falsely claiming on her application that she was a Cherokee Indian from Oklahoma. Warren never created any jobs or ran a business. This Squaw Who Speaks With Forked Tongue is criticizing a man who started hundreds of businesses, and created thousands of jobs for Americans. Trump did have four businesses that filed for bankruptcy protection. But, please ask yourself: "Did everything I do in life result in success?" Methinks that Lieawatha should retreat to her millionaire's wigwam and keep her pie hole shut. Stick that in you peace pipe and smoke it, Senator!!!
13. Schwartz comes home from work early one afternoon and finds his wife packing her suitcase:
SCHWARTZ: Sadie, why are you packing your suitcase?
SADIE; I'm going to Las Vegas. My friend told me that a woman can get $400 for sex in Vegas.
SCHWARTZ (now frantically packing) Well, I'm going to Las Vegas, too!
SADIE: Why are you going?
SCHWARTZ: I want to see how you're going to live on $800 a year.
14. ETHICS vs HONESTY: People sometimes ask me what the difference is between "Ethics" and 'Honesty." Let's say that two gentlemen are partners in a men's clothing store. A customer comes in, buys a shirt, and hands one partner a crisp, new $50 bill. As the customer turns to leave, the partner notices that there are two $50 bills stuck together.
Honesty means: Should the partner tell the customer and give him back the other $50?
Ethics means: Should he tell his partner about the other $50?
15. AMERICAN HISTORY TRIVIA: A young man from a prominent Boston family enlisted in the army at the outset of the Civil War. He was made a Lieutenant in the 20th Massachusetts Regiment. The enlisted men under him were mostly Irish and German immigrants. This infantry officer was shot in the chest in the battle of Balls Bluff and recovered. At Antietam Creek the officer, now a Captain, was shot through the neck and left to die. A young German immigrant soldier picked up his wounded Captain and brought him to a medical aid station. The officer recovered, only to be wounded again at Chancellorsville. Despite his three wounds, this man survived the war and lived to be 95. Who was he? This was United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
16. Speaking of the Supreme Court, isn't it time to amend the Constitution to impose term limits on these judges? At the time the Constitution was ratified, the life expectancy of an American was about 49 years. Now we have these fossilized judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. A mask of her would be too frightening even for Halloween. Also, if we got a dim-witted younger judge, like the five watt bulb, Sonia Sotomayor, she could be sent packing after 12 years. This is an idea whose time has come.
17. CNN is also known as the Clinton News Network, and is one of HRC's most ardent boot-licking media lackeys. At a panel discussion on Anderson Cooper's show, the topic was about SIDDIQUE MATEEN, father of Orlando terrorist, being seated right behind Rodham and applauding for her. A Trump supporting panelist asked the Clinton supporter: "What attracted the father of the Orlando terrorist to your candidate?" The pro Clintonite answered: "He's a mentally ill individual." Well, that certainly confirms a lot of my suspicions.
18. LIVE FREE OR DIE (Laughing): Freedom force video shows New Hampshire Governor and U.S. Senate candidate, Maggie Hassan, being asked a question by Manu Raju. The Gov. was asked three times if she thought that Hillary Clinton was honest and trustworthy. Maggie refused to answer each time, and began tap dancing like Ginger Rogers!!! How pathetically sad when HRC's own supporters think she is a crook, but are going to vote for her anyway.
19. 2005, HURRICANE KATRINA: Press goes after Pres. Bush relentlessly for a perceived lateness in helping out Louisiana residents;
2016 MASSIVE FLOODING: Baton Rouge, LA..... Over 20,000 Americans were left homeless by massive floods. Pres. Obama plays golf on Martha's Vineyard. Not a word from Obama's lap dogs in the media.
20. I get a lot of my inspiration for the RANT from Boston Herald columnist, HOWIE CARR. There is great news today: HOWIE CARR is now on TV with his own show on NEWSMAX TV (Verizon Ch. 115). The show is on from 4-5 P.M. (EST). Mr. Carr is one of the greatest wits in the media. I hope you enjoy his show as much as I do. BTW, Howie is the man who first started calling Sen. Elizabeth Warren "Chief Spreading Bull."
REPORTING FROM THE BUNKER IN STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK August 19, 2016
SCOURING THE NEWS, TROLLING THE INTERNET, AND FIGHTING POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, ONE STORY AT A TIME:
1. CLINTON CHUTZPAH: Clinton Crime, Inc. is at it again. This time the Clintons released their 2015 federal income tax return. It wasn't a good year for Bubba and Shrillary: they only took in $10.6 million. They were too busy campaigning to give their B.S. speeches for half a million dollars each.. The Clintons paid 34% in income taxes, and these two generous people donated $1,042,000 to charity. How nice of them! However, of the amount given to charity, $1,000,000 went to their own Clinton Foundation!!! These two shameless grifters donated a million dollars, TAX FREE, to themselves, thus putting an extra $340,000 in their greedy pockets!!! The grotesque Clintons have no shame.
2. Obama is crowing about the 4.9% unemployment rate. But, as TEA PARTY CRUSADERS notes, 94,333,000 Americans have given up looking for work, and these people are not counted when computing the unemployment rate. The real rate is well over 10%. As Abe Lincoln was fond of saying: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. But, you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
3. NF-ILL: The National Football League ruled that the Dallas Cowboys can not wear a logo on their helmets that supports the Dallas police. Shame on you, Commissioner Roger Goodell!!! The most over-paid man in America has again demonstrated why he is useless as a screen door on a submarine. BLUE LIVES MATTER, Commissioner!! It looks like Goodell is just trying to pander to his low IQ players.
4. For Obama so loved the poor that he created many millions more of them!
5. MEDICARE MADNESS: All of you Medicare beneficiaries should realize that Medicare does not cover everything. Bunker Boy found out the hard way that it does not. For three months I have been taking an IV antibiotic that is very expensive. When I was leaving the hospital, I learned that my prescription drug plan (which is very good) did not cover injectable drugs, and neither did Medicare. So I paid $700 out-of- pocket every ten days. (Do the math, Johnson, and it ain't pretty) Mr. American working sucker paid into this system for 48 years, and when he needed it, Medicare was not there. I was informed by several physicians that Obama took $765 million from Medicare (money that used to cover this) to pay for illegal aliens' health care. Oh well, as long as it went for a good cause.
6. HACKARAMA: Another day, another Democratic hack. This time a hacker got into Democratic politicians personal information, like phone numbers, addresses, etc. The last thing I need in life is Nancy Peolsi's home phone number. Her botox infused puss is tighter than a drum; you could bounce quarters off of her cheeks. Come on hacker, find some good Dem dirt, like Hillary's outing of spies who were killed, Benghazi gun running to al-Queda psychos, and Obama and Clinton willfully leaving our consulate defenders in Benghazi to die.
7. BITING THE HAND: The Clintons were not content with having reduced FBI Director James Comey from an honorable man to a lying, deceitful, dishonest, Democratic Party shill, thus stripping the man of any scrap of integrity, dignity, and honesty he ever had. Recently, there was degenerate liar, Bill Clinton, ripping Comey, saying that his investigation of Hillary was "the biggest load of bull I've ever heard." Comey had to remain quiet and take the insult like the beaten-down dog he has become. What was he going to say? "I'm the Clintons' butt-boy and I lied to the American people about Hillary's e-mails, in order to protect her from prosecution." Comey is like the cop who took a bribe, and then cannot open his mouth any more about the bribe giver, for fear of being exposed. Just chalk Director Comey up as just another victim used by the Clintons.
8. TWIN FALLS FEDERAL FIASCO: Twin Falls, Idaho used to be your typical small town America before it was ruined by the federal government. Then the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. started to pack the town with Muslim 'refugees.' Their Refugee Resettlement Program radically changed this little town for the worse. Last June, three young Syrian refugee boys were arrested for the sexual abuse of a five year old Idaho girl. The details of the attack are disgusting, and will not be reported here. Incredibly, the politicians and the media sided with the little girl's attackers. They engaged in a concerted effort to demonize the child's parents and their neighbors and friends. The media even went so far as to call the American citizens "racists" for supporting the victim. Well, it turns out that there are powerful forces that have a large financial interest in placing more and more foreign workers in Twin Falls: large companies like Chobani Yogurt are located there, and the federal government subsidizes the salaries of refugee workers. Just follow the money trail. In other words, there is a strong financial incentive for a company to hire foreign workers, and to not hire Americans!!!
To read all of the sickening details of federal bureaucratic hacks, local politicians, and the press providing cover for the Muslim refugees, you can go to to www.google.com and type in "Twin Falls child rape." WARNING: Take an extra blood pressure pill first. Breitbart News has been in the forefront of reporting this important story (www.breitbart.com).
9. GREAT RADIO: Lately I have been listening to the Patriot channel on Sirius Radio. The morning show with Alex Marlowe (6-9 A.M. EST) is very informative. Donald Trump just hired Marlowe's co- host, Stephen K. Bannon, as his campaign's CEO. A great move by Trump. The yearly subscription to Sirius Radio through your computer is very cheap. It is worth checking out. This is where I first heard of the story about Twin Falls. The evening show features the great David Webb.
10. I forced myself to watch one of Hillary Ratched Clinton's speeches to her moron base of non-taxpayers. She was ridiculing Trump by saying something like this: "Donald Trump says he has a plan to defeat ISIS, but he won't give any specifics." I sat there with my mouth agape, thinking "I know this woman sustained a serious head injury, but is she mentally defective?" Trump should say: "Using Clinton's logic, General Douglas Mac Arthur should have announced: 'I am invading the Philippines on October 20, 1944, and we are landing at Leyte Gulf with 200,000 men.' This dopey dingbat Democratic dolt wants to be our Commander-in-Chief? She couldn't lead a pack of Girl Scouts. If ISIS dangled a few million dollars in front of Rodham, she would sell our country out in a Noo Yawk minute.
11. ANGELA MERKEL is to Germany what HILLARY CLINTON is to America. Wake up, Americans! Don't give Clinton the chance to destroy our country with her sinister plan for massive Muslim immigration, like Merkel did to Deutschland.
12. INDIAN IDIOCY INDEED: I heard an audio clip of the phony Cherokee Indian the other day. Yes, I mean none other than MA Senator Elizabeth Warren. Chief Spreading Bull was ranting about Trump not being trustworthy, ridiculing his wealth, and filing for bankruptcy... This was hilarious coming out of the mouth of a woman who got a job at Harvard teaching one class for $350,000 a year, while she lives in a $5,000,000+++ house in Cambridge. And, she got that job by falsely claiming on her application that she was a Cherokee Indian from Oklahoma. Warren never created any jobs or ran a business. This Squaw Who Speaks With Forked Tongue is criticizing a man who started hundreds of businesses, and created thousands of jobs for Americans. Trump did have four businesses that filed for bankruptcy protection. But, please ask yourself: "Did everything I do in life result in success?" Methinks that Lieawatha should retreat to her millionaire's wigwam and keep her pie hole shut. Stick that in you peace pipe and smoke it, Senator!!!
13. Schwartz comes home from work early one afternoon and finds his wife packing her suitcase:
SCHWARTZ: Sadie, why are you packing your suitcase?
SADIE; I'm going to Las Vegas. My friend told me that a woman can get $400 for sex in Vegas.
SCHWARTZ (now frantically packing) Well, I'm going to Las Vegas, too!
SADIE: Why are you going?
SCHWARTZ: I want to see how you're going to live on $800 a year.
14. ETHICS vs HONESTY: People sometimes ask me what the difference is between "Ethics" and 'Honesty." Let's say that two gentlemen are partners in a men's clothing store. A customer comes in, buys a shirt, and hands one partner a crisp, new $50 bill. As the customer turns to leave, the partner notices that there are two $50 bills stuck together.
Honesty means: Should the partner tell the customer and give him back the other $50?
Ethics means: Should he tell his partner about the other $50?
15. AMERICAN HISTORY TRIVIA: A young man from a prominent Boston family enlisted in the army at the outset of the Civil War. He was made a Lieutenant in the 20th Massachusetts Regiment. The enlisted men under him were mostly Irish and German immigrants. This infantry officer was shot in the chest in the battle of Balls Bluff and recovered. At Antietam Creek the officer, now a Captain, was shot through the neck and left to die. A young German immigrant soldier picked up his wounded Captain and brought him to a medical aid station. The officer recovered, only to be wounded again at Chancellorsville. Despite his three wounds, this man survived the war and lived to be 95. Who was he? This was United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
16. Speaking of the Supreme Court, isn't it time to amend the Constitution to impose term limits on these judges? At the time the Constitution was ratified, the life expectancy of an American was about 49 years. Now we have these fossilized judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. A mask of her would be too frightening even for Halloween. Also, if we got a dim-witted younger judge, like the five watt bulb, Sonia Sotomayor, she could be sent packing after 12 years. This is an idea whose time has come.
17. CNN is also known as the Clinton News Network, and is one of HRC's most ardent boot-licking media lackeys. At a panel discussion on Anderson Cooper's show, the topic was about SIDDIQUE MATEEN, father of Orlando terrorist, being seated right behind Rodham and applauding for her. A Trump supporting panelist asked the Clinton supporter: "What attracted the father of the Orlando terrorist to your candidate?" The pro Clintonite answered: "He's a mentally ill individual." Well, that certainly confirms a lot of my suspicions.
18. LIVE FREE OR DIE (Laughing): Freedom force video shows New Hampshire Governor and U.S. Senate candidate, Maggie Hassan, being asked a question by Manu Raju. The Gov. was asked three times if she thought that Hillary Clinton was honest and trustworthy. Maggie refused to answer each time, and began tap dancing like Ginger Rogers!!! How pathetically sad when HRC's own supporters think she is a crook, but are going to vote for her anyway.
19. 2005, HURRICANE KATRINA: Press goes after Pres. Bush relentlessly for a perceived lateness in helping out Louisiana residents;
2016 MASSIVE FLOODING: Baton Rouge, LA..... Over 20,000 Americans were left homeless by massive floods. Pres. Obama plays golf on Martha's Vineyard. Not a word from Obama's lap dogs in the media.
20. I get a lot of my inspiration for the RANT from Boston Herald columnist, HOWIE CARR. There is great news today: HOWIE CARR is now on TV with his own show on NEWSMAX TV (Verizon Ch. 115). The show is on from 4-5 P.M. (EST). Mr. Carr is one of the greatest wits in the media. I hope you enjoy his show as much as I do. BTW, Howie is the man who first started calling Sen. Elizabeth Warren "Chief Spreading Bull."
REPORTING FROM THE BUNKER IN STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK August 19, 2016
MEDIA IS LYING:
See The 5 Facts That Prove Trump Is ACTUALLY Beating Hillary Quite Badly
Donald Trump has been taking names and not taking prisoners. He is killing Hillary Clinton and has even had to do it by going up against the media?s rigged polls.The following five statistics that prove that Trump is really winning. Let?s take a look at the facts that the media completely ignores or covers up. Instead, they have been giving Clinton the lead despite the fact that she can?t get anyone to even show up to her rallies.Clinton Rally In Omaha where she used mostly High School kids to fill the gym where a lot of her statements were incorrectly read from her teleprompter.FACT #1:Trump has nearly three times the amount of followers on Facebook.Trump: 12,174,358 likes. Clinton:4,385,959 likes.Look what Trump?s live stream videos do when compared to Hillary?s.Trump Live Stream Post ? 21 hours ago: 135,000 likes, 18,167 shares, 1.5 million viewsClinton Live Stream Post ? 25 hours ago: 9,000 likes, 0 shares, 121,000 viewsThat does not look good at all for her! Fact #2:Trump has 18.6 million twitter followers.Hillary Clinton has only 6.1 million.The best part is that most of Hillary?s are actually fake. According to the Washington Examiner, 41 percent of Hillary?s ?followers? are not even real people.In contrast, The Daily Caller says that Trump?s followers are 90% real with 90% of them having a previous voting record. Fact #3:Trump averages 160k viewers per live stream.Clinton averages 400 viewers per live stream.Wow. That is bad. Trump also gets 5,000 percent more eyeballs focused on the screen than Clinton. Yep. She really is that boring to the folks. Fact #4:Instagram.Trump has 6.2 million followers.Clinton has 800,000 followers.Instagram is a platform with mostly all pictures and not much substance ? exactly what Hillary supporters love. And still she does very poorly in this medium. Fact #5:OnReddit.Trump: 297,696 subscribers Clinton: 21,429 subscribers But on Hillary for Prison: she gets 255,228 subscribers.Trump has more subscribers than Clinton on every major social media outlet but what is even funnier is that there are nearly 3 times as many people subscribed to ?Hillary for Prison? than there are subscribed to the Clinton page. The best part is that the DNC's leaked emails from WikiLeaks have proven that Clinton pays people to support her online. Trump supporters on the other hand willingly actually like and follow him on Social media.Trump actually has the support of the people. He is going to win this election come November no matter what the mainstream media would like you to believe. Right now, every single patriot needs to share this article with friends and relatives. We need to fight these rigged polls that seem to come out every day. Hillary Clinton has a big bag of tricks and is trying to trick the American public into voting for her. Let?s show America the truth. Can we share this e-mail with at least 10 friends. We have to fight against the mainstream media and their attempts to steal the election away from Trump.
See The 5 Facts That Prove Trump Is ACTUALLY Beating Hillary Quite Badly
Donald Trump has been taking names and not taking prisoners. He is killing Hillary Clinton and has even had to do it by going up against the media?s rigged polls.The following five statistics that prove that Trump is really winning. Let?s take a look at the facts that the media completely ignores or covers up. Instead, they have been giving Clinton the lead despite the fact that she can?t get anyone to even show up to her rallies.Clinton Rally In Omaha where she used mostly High School kids to fill the gym where a lot of her statements were incorrectly read from her teleprompter.FACT #1:Trump has nearly three times the amount of followers on Facebook.Trump: 12,174,358 likes. Clinton:4,385,959 likes.Look what Trump?s live stream videos do when compared to Hillary?s.Trump Live Stream Post ? 21 hours ago: 135,000 likes, 18,167 shares, 1.5 million viewsClinton Live Stream Post ? 25 hours ago: 9,000 likes, 0 shares, 121,000 viewsThat does not look good at all for her! Fact #2:Trump has 18.6 million twitter followers.Hillary Clinton has only 6.1 million.The best part is that most of Hillary?s are actually fake. According to the Washington Examiner, 41 percent of Hillary?s ?followers? are not even real people.In contrast, The Daily Caller says that Trump?s followers are 90% real with 90% of them having a previous voting record. Fact #3:Trump averages 160k viewers per live stream.Clinton averages 400 viewers per live stream.Wow. That is bad. Trump also gets 5,000 percent more eyeballs focused on the screen than Clinton. Yep. She really is that boring to the folks. Fact #4:Instagram.Trump has 6.2 million followers.Clinton has 800,000 followers.Instagram is a platform with mostly all pictures and not much substance ? exactly what Hillary supporters love. And still she does very poorly in this medium. Fact #5:OnReddit.Trump: 297,696 subscribers Clinton: 21,429 subscribers But on Hillary for Prison: she gets 255,228 subscribers.Trump has more subscribers than Clinton on every major social media outlet but what is even funnier is that there are nearly 3 times as many people subscribed to ?Hillary for Prison? than there are subscribed to the Clinton page. The best part is that the DNC's leaked emails from WikiLeaks have proven that Clinton pays people to support her online. Trump supporters on the other hand willingly actually like and follow him on Social media.Trump actually has the support of the people. He is going to win this election come November no matter what the mainstream media would like you to believe. Right now, every single patriot needs to share this article with friends and relatives. We need to fight these rigged polls that seem to come out every day. Hillary Clinton has a big bag of tricks and is trying to trick the American public into voting for her. Let?s show America the truth. Can we share this e-mail with at least 10 friends. We have to fight against the mainstream media and their attempts to steal the election away from Trump.
By BYRON TAUUpdated Sept. 5, 2016 11:23 p.m. ET1. Staff deleted emails after receiving subpoenaA technician took steps to delete an archive of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?s emails on a computer server after forgetting that he had been asked to do so earlier by a Clinton lawyer. But that action came after House lawmakers had demanded they be saved.2. Powell warned about disclosure possibilityColin Powell, who served as secretary of state in the George W. Bush administration, warned Mrs. Clinton two days after she became secretary that if her use of a Blackberry device became ?public,? her emails could become part of the ?official record and subject to the law.?3. Aides destroyed, lost or wiped clean devicesMrs. Clinton used 13 BlackBerry devices for emails and five iPads. None of her BlackBerrys could be located, and one aide said he destroyed some of Mrs. Clinton?s mobile devices by breaking them with a hammer. Technology staffers also used a software program called BleachBit to make data recovery more difficult.4. Confusion on classification markingsMrs. Clinton told the FBI she didn?t know the meaning of a small ?C? on a document that stood for confidential?a level of classification. She told the bureau that she believed it had to do with the alphabetical ordering of the paragraphs.5. Lack of detailsMrs. Clinton told the FBI she didn?t recall or remember crucial details nearly 40 times in the unredacted portions of the FBI report.?Byron Tauhttp://www.wsj.com/articles/key-findings-in-the-fbi-summary-1473131099
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ur4EZSVazdk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
:0074
:0074
DUCKS IN HEAVEN
Three women die together in an accident and go to heaven.
When they get there, St. Peter says,
'We only have one rule here in heaven: Don't step on the ducks!'
So they enter heaven, and sure enough, there are ducks all over the place.
It is almost impossible not to step on a duck, and although they try their best to avoid them,
the first woman accidentally steps on one.
Along comes St. Peter with the ugliest man she ever saw.
St.. Peter chains them together and says,
'Your punishment for stepping on a duck is to
Spend eternity chained to this ugly man!'
The next day, the second woman steps accidentally on a duck
And along comes St. Peter, who doesn't miss a thing.
With him is another extremely ugly man.
He chains them together
With the same admonishment as for the first woman.
The third woman has observed all this and, not wanting to be chained for all eternity to an ugly man, is very, VERY careful where she steps.
She manages to go months without stepping on any ducks,
But
One day St.Peter comes up to her with the most handsome man she has ever laid eyes on
..... Very tall, long eyelashes, muscular.
St. Peter chains them together without saying a word.
The happy woman says,
'I wonder what I did to deserve being chained to you for all of eternity?'
The guy says,
'I don't know about you, but I stepped on a duck.
Three women die together in an accident and go to heaven.
When they get there, St. Peter says,
'We only have one rule here in heaven: Don't step on the ducks!'
So they enter heaven, and sure enough, there are ducks all over the place.
It is almost impossible not to step on a duck, and although they try their best to avoid them,
the first woman accidentally steps on one.
Along comes St. Peter with the ugliest man she ever saw.
St.. Peter chains them together and says,
'Your punishment for stepping on a duck is to
Spend eternity chained to this ugly man!'
The next day, the second woman steps accidentally on a duck
And along comes St. Peter, who doesn't miss a thing.
With him is another extremely ugly man.
He chains them together
With the same admonishment as for the first woman.
The third woman has observed all this and, not wanting to be chained for all eternity to an ugly man, is very, VERY careful where she steps.
She manages to go months without stepping on any ducks,
But
One day St.Peter comes up to her with the most handsome man she has ever laid eyes on
..... Very tall, long eyelashes, muscular.
St. Peter chains them together without saying a word.
The happy woman says,
'I wonder what I did to deserve being chained to you for all of eternity?'
The guy says,
'I don't know about you, but I stepped on a duck.
So, the growth hasn't met your standards. That's fine. Was the recession the last Republican reign left us with better? That's where the "logic" breaks down for me. How can growth be worse than economic failure? I don't understand. If someone could present a case for it, I'm all ears. Reflog mentioned cutting off one's nose to spite itself, isn't that what every Republican supporter is essentially doing?
Last edited:
Posting an artist's rendering of you sucking your own dick might be the most accurate thing you have ever posted. Cheers!
Also: Feel free to answer my question. Is slow growth better than economic recession?
Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending
John Carney
Jun. 27, 2009, 9:33 AM
161,841
Earlier this week I noted that I had changed my mind on the Community Reinvestment Act.
Contrary to my initial conclusion, the evidence is overwhelming that the CRA played a significant role in creating lax lending standards that fueled the housing bubble. Once I realized this, I had to abandon my suspicion that the anti-CRA case was a figment of the rhetoric of Republicans attempting to distract attention from their own role in the mortgage mess.
So I laid out the facts and arguments that had convinced me to switch sides in the CRA debate. It was a long series of posts that generated hundreds of responses and counter-arguments. Felix Salmon?s response is here, Barry Ritholtz?s here, Mike Rorty's here, Ryan Chitum?s here, and Matthew Wurtzel?s here. All of my posts are here. Henry Blodget's earlier post on the CRA, with which I largely agreed until recently, is here. If you carefully run through these posts and the accompanying comments, I think you'll see that every argument raised by the "Defend CRA at all costs" crowd has been refuted.
For people with less time on their hands, here's a quick guide to the main points raised by the CRA defenders and the arguments that refute them. If I?ve left out any salient points, please let me know and I?ll add them to the list.
Let's begin:
?How could a piece of 1977 legislation be significant to the deterioration of mortgage standards 25 years later?
The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.
?That?s still too early. Why would changes in the mid-nineties result in a mortgage boom a decade later?
Throughout the nineties banks, as banks lowered their mortgage standards, mortgage rates remained high. The laxity was spreading but the incentives for borrowers to re-finance even under relaxed standards remained low. New buyers often still didn?t know that some of the loosey-goosey mortgages existed. Speculators had an internet bubble, so they weren?t yet attracted to real-estate. Treasury rates were not yet so low that investors seeking yield would pour into mortgage backed securities. Securitization levels were low enough that banks weren?t yet willing to fully embrace the loose standards. The historical data on default and loss rates from the lax lending were not yet available, so they weren?t embraced by banks or the broader market.
But as the years went by, these factors changed. The Fed pushed interest rates down. This made refinancing more attractive, and created an investor demand for yield. Fannie and Freddie popularized low-income securitization. Low defaults and loss rates from lax loans made them seem not as risky as previously expected. A shrinking consumer asset base thanks to the dot com bust created a demand for home-equity loans and high loan-to-value loans, as consumers exchanged high-interest credit card debt for low interest home debt. Speculators seeking higher returns and ordinary home buyers became aware that lax lending standards would allow them to buy bigger homes with little or no money down.
In short, the lax lending standards created in response to the CRA had dug a pit that was waiting to get filled when the circumstances were right.
?Ah ha! So it wasn?t the CRA that caused the mess. It was everything else!
Of course it wasn?t the CRA that caused everything. The CRA was a factor in lowering lending standards. This was a necessary, although not sufficient, cause for the mortgage mess.
?Wait a minute! Paul Krugman told me the CRA was relaxed during the Bush administration. What about that bit of evolution, buster?
It?s true that the CRA requirements were relaxed during the Bush administration. But at this point the lax lending standards were already in place. In any case, the relaxation took a peculiar form that actually made CRA lending more important rather than less. You see, the government let banks drop things like putting in ATMs in rural areas in favor of letting their compliance be judged entirely on CRA loans. This means the CRA had more of an influence on home lending after the requirements were relaxed, not less.
What's more, George W. Bush was a major proponent of the kind of mortgages that banks had started making under the CRA. He urged low-to-no doc mortgages and the elimination of downpayments, just like the CRA regulators had long done. ?We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,? the President said in a 2002 speech. ?We can change the print, and we've got to.?
?What about "No Money Down" Mortgages? Were they required by the CRA?
Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.
?Explain the shift in loan to value away from the traditional lending requirement of 80%.
Again, the regulators told banks that much higher LTVs was an appropriate way to meet the CRA obligations.
?What about the elimination of payment history? How about income requirements?
Regulators instructed banks to consider alternatives to traditional credit histories because CRA targeted borrowers often lacked traditional credit histories. The banks were expected to become creative, to consider other indicators of reliability.
Similarly, banks were expected by regulators to relax income requirements. Day labors and others often lack reportable income. Stated-income was a way of resolving the gap between actual income of borrowers and reported income. The problem, of course, comes when the con-artists and liars come into the game.
?Did the CRA require banks to develop automated underwriting systems that emphasized speed rather than accuracy in order to process the greatest number of mortgage apps as quickly as possible?
This was another lending innovation praised by regulators to the point that it became mandatory for banks. Those who were not employing automated underwriting would be putting their CRA ratings at risk. Automated underwriting was seen as a way of eliminating bias in lending.
?Point out to me where in the CRA or any regulation that any of this is required.
I cannot. But this kind of legislative fundamentalism misconstrues the way laws constrain business activity. An unenforced law exercises little constraint, regardless of how onerous it is worded. Think of the way anti-trust enforcement changes from presidential administration to presidential administration.
In the case of the CRA, it was the activity of the regulators that matters. And each of these credit innovations described above was put into place to satisfy the CRA regulators.
?Wouldn?t lending standards have been lax during the boom even if we didn?t have a CRA?
That?s an interesting question to which we?ll never have a satisfactory answer. It?s possible. But this kind of counter-factual is just a game. We know that we had the CRA and that it caused relaxed lending standards in the reality we actually live. In another universe, another reality? Well, if you get there send us a post-card and let us know how it turns out.
?Couldn?t the increase in CRA loans have been accomplished without these lax lending standards?
This is another interesting question about an alternate universe. It is possible that banks may have been able to meet their CRA obligations with tighter, more traditional lending standards. But we?ll never know. We know that they thought they needed to employ lax standards, and so did the regulators. A banker who refused to relax standards risked the wrath of regulators, and?more importantly?if his unorthodox, novel attempts failed he?d be found to be in non-compliance with the CRA. In the real world, lax lending standards were the only known way of satisfying the CRA regulators.
?Isn?t it really securitization that is the culprit?
The government pushed for greater mortgage securitization in an effort to increase CRA lending. At the behest of HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, Fannie and Freddie promised to buy $2 trillion of ?affordable? mortgages. The government was intentionally decreasing the risks to the original lenders in order to increase loans to low-income borrowers, and minorities in particular. In short, you can?t blame securitization without coming back around to the CRA.
?Weren?t the majority of the subprime loans made by mortgage service companies not subject to the CRA?
This is true. But it is largely beside the point. A huge driver of the demand for subprime loans was the demand for CRA bonds. Banks operating under the CRA could meet their obligations by buying up CRA loans or MBS built from CRA loans. The CRA created a demand that the mortgage servicers were meeting.
What's more, many smaller mortage service companies hoped to be acquired by larger banks. Increasing their CRA lending made them more attractive take-over targets.
A study put out by the Treasury Department in 2000 found that the CRA was encouraging the mortgage servicers to provide loans to low-income borrowers, in part because the CRA loans had been so successful.
Finally, the Clinton adminstration threatened to subject the mortgage companies to the CRA if they didn't comply voluntarily. They promptly agreed to increase their CRA-type lending in order to escape the kind of public scrutiny that comes with official CRA regulated status.
?If the CRA was forcing all this lax lending, why weren't bankers objecting?
Are you really in the dark about why the leaders of large public corporations wouldn't publicly object to a piece of civil rights legislation? Fine. I'll be totally open with you: this would have been career suicide and an open invitation to bias litigation and increased scrutiny from regulators. In this case, silence is misleading.
What's more, no one said the bankers hated the lax lending the CRA was requiring. Sure, some did. But those people were quickly shown the door, while the enthusiasts were promoted. The regulations themselves selected for enthusiasts for the program of lax lending.
?How do you explain the fact that CRA loans historically had low levels of default. Doesn?t this mean that loan standards were not relaxed?
Actually, no. We know that lending standards were relaxed under the CRA. The fact that they had relatively low default levels was initially a surprise but it isn?t an indicator that lending standards were secretly high. There are plenty of explanations for this, including the lack of borrower ruthlessness in unsophisticated home owners and a tendency of delinquent low-income borrowers to sell the home and prepay the mortgage rather than default. Especially during a period of rising home prices, the default option was not heavily exercised.
?But even during the crisis, CRA loans didn?t default at higher rates than other mortgages. CRA banks aren?t failing more than other financial institutions, CRA areas aren?t hotspots of defaults. What about that?
In part, this is evidence that the lending standards of the CRA had spread to the rest of the mortgage market.
?I thought you said CRA loans caused this crisis.
Nope. It isn?t losses from CRA loans that drove the crisis (although they are disproportionately responsible for losses at some banks). Instead, the CRA required lax lending standards that spread to the rest of the mortgage market. That fueled the mortgage boom and bust.
?So how and why did the CRA lax lending spread to the rest of the mortgage market?
The structure of the CRA regulations encouraged the spread. Banks that were the best at making CRA loans were allowed to grow by making acquisitions and opening new branches. This created a kind of political-financial Darwinism that reward the biggest enthusiasts for lax CRA lending standards. Of course, the most successful people under this regime were not the types who needed their arms twisted to make loose loans. They were who were predisposed to engage in loosey-goosey finance, who discovered that the CRA had made the world their oyster.
As for the ?why? part of your question, the answer is a bit ironic. Banks making CRA loans initially expected that defaults would be higher due to lax lending standards. When they discovered the low-income borrowers had an unexpected propensity to pay their mortgages. After years of data poured in showing that borrowers were paying mortgages despite high LTVs, low down payments and unconventional income measures, bankers began to believe that many of the traditional measure of credit worthiness were overly conservative. Recall what I said earlier about how mortgage service providers started pursuing low-income borrowers in part because of the CRA.
What they didn?t take into account was that different types of borrowers may behave differently, and that much of the data on those lax lending mortgages was warped by increasing home prices. Wealthier, more sophisticated borrowers ruthlessly default when their mortgage goes underwater, for example. What?s more, the reversal of housing prices meant that defaults across all borrower classes increased.
Making matters worse, President Bush pushed hard for lax lending standards. He wanted to expand minority and low income home ownership far beyond what the CRA required. So he pushed even harder for the broadening of these lending standards.
?Wait. So you?re saying that the CRA's lax lending to low income borrowers became dangerous when it was extended more broadly?
In part. Ironically, the low income lending practices, particularly when undertaken on a limited basis in a low-securitization and rising house price period, seemed safe. This led to the practices being spread across the much broader category of loans. In a sense, you can look at the mortgage mess as what happens when CRA lending was applied much more broadly. If we'd confined the lax lending standards to just the geographical areas and low-income borrowers directly targeted by the CRA, our mortgage crisis would be far more manageable.
Studies have suggested that only 6 percent of subprime loans were extended by CRA-regulated lenders to either lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in the lenders' CRA assessment areas. Since these loans suffer from outsized losses (for reasons not yet clear), we'd still have a major problem. But it would probably be only about 1/4 of the size of the current mortgage mess.
?That doesn?t sound very Republican of you.
I told you from the start this wasn?t some plot to make the GOP look good.
But don't get carried away with this irony. Now that we are in this crisis, loans located in low income areas are almost twice as likely to be in foreclosure as other loans. There's also an unfortunate racial angle, with African Americans being 1.8 as likely to be in foreclosure as whites, and Latinos being 1.4 likely to be in foreclosure.
What's more, an enormous amount of subprime loans were made to lower-income borrowers target by the CRA. Forty-five percent of subprime loan originations went to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lowerr-income neighborhoods in 2005 and 2006, where the foreclosures are almost twice as likely. This suggests that the kind of low income borrowers targeted by the CRA are likely to be responsible for the majority of subprime foreclosures.
John Carney
Jun. 27, 2009, 9:33 AM
161,841
Earlier this week I noted that I had changed my mind on the Community Reinvestment Act.
Contrary to my initial conclusion, the evidence is overwhelming that the CRA played a significant role in creating lax lending standards that fueled the housing bubble. Once I realized this, I had to abandon my suspicion that the anti-CRA case was a figment of the rhetoric of Republicans attempting to distract attention from their own role in the mortgage mess.
So I laid out the facts and arguments that had convinced me to switch sides in the CRA debate. It was a long series of posts that generated hundreds of responses and counter-arguments. Felix Salmon?s response is here, Barry Ritholtz?s here, Mike Rorty's here, Ryan Chitum?s here, and Matthew Wurtzel?s here. All of my posts are here. Henry Blodget's earlier post on the CRA, with which I largely agreed until recently, is here. If you carefully run through these posts and the accompanying comments, I think you'll see that every argument raised by the "Defend CRA at all costs" crowd has been refuted.
For people with less time on their hands, here's a quick guide to the main points raised by the CRA defenders and the arguments that refute them. If I?ve left out any salient points, please let me know and I?ll add them to the list.
Let's begin:
?How could a piece of 1977 legislation be significant to the deterioration of mortgage standards 25 years later?
The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.
?That?s still too early. Why would changes in the mid-nineties result in a mortgage boom a decade later?
Throughout the nineties banks, as banks lowered their mortgage standards, mortgage rates remained high. The laxity was spreading but the incentives for borrowers to re-finance even under relaxed standards remained low. New buyers often still didn?t know that some of the loosey-goosey mortgages existed. Speculators had an internet bubble, so they weren?t yet attracted to real-estate. Treasury rates were not yet so low that investors seeking yield would pour into mortgage backed securities. Securitization levels were low enough that banks weren?t yet willing to fully embrace the loose standards. The historical data on default and loss rates from the lax lending were not yet available, so they weren?t embraced by banks or the broader market.
But as the years went by, these factors changed. The Fed pushed interest rates down. This made refinancing more attractive, and created an investor demand for yield. Fannie and Freddie popularized low-income securitization. Low defaults and loss rates from lax loans made them seem not as risky as previously expected. A shrinking consumer asset base thanks to the dot com bust created a demand for home-equity loans and high loan-to-value loans, as consumers exchanged high-interest credit card debt for low interest home debt. Speculators seeking higher returns and ordinary home buyers became aware that lax lending standards would allow them to buy bigger homes with little or no money down.
In short, the lax lending standards created in response to the CRA had dug a pit that was waiting to get filled when the circumstances were right.
?Ah ha! So it wasn?t the CRA that caused the mess. It was everything else!
Of course it wasn?t the CRA that caused everything. The CRA was a factor in lowering lending standards. This was a necessary, although not sufficient, cause for the mortgage mess.
?Wait a minute! Paul Krugman told me the CRA was relaxed during the Bush administration. What about that bit of evolution, buster?
It?s true that the CRA requirements were relaxed during the Bush administration. But at this point the lax lending standards were already in place. In any case, the relaxation took a peculiar form that actually made CRA lending more important rather than less. You see, the government let banks drop things like putting in ATMs in rural areas in favor of letting their compliance be judged entirely on CRA loans. This means the CRA had more of an influence on home lending after the requirements were relaxed, not less.
What's more, George W. Bush was a major proponent of the kind of mortgages that banks had started making under the CRA. He urged low-to-no doc mortgages and the elimination of downpayments, just like the CRA regulators had long done. ?We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,? the President said in a 2002 speech. ?We can change the print, and we've got to.?
?What about "No Money Down" Mortgages? Were they required by the CRA?
Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.
?Explain the shift in loan to value away from the traditional lending requirement of 80%.
Again, the regulators told banks that much higher LTVs was an appropriate way to meet the CRA obligations.
?What about the elimination of payment history? How about income requirements?
Regulators instructed banks to consider alternatives to traditional credit histories because CRA targeted borrowers often lacked traditional credit histories. The banks were expected to become creative, to consider other indicators of reliability.
Similarly, banks were expected by regulators to relax income requirements. Day labors and others often lack reportable income. Stated-income was a way of resolving the gap between actual income of borrowers and reported income. The problem, of course, comes when the con-artists and liars come into the game.
?Did the CRA require banks to develop automated underwriting systems that emphasized speed rather than accuracy in order to process the greatest number of mortgage apps as quickly as possible?
This was another lending innovation praised by regulators to the point that it became mandatory for banks. Those who were not employing automated underwriting would be putting their CRA ratings at risk. Automated underwriting was seen as a way of eliminating bias in lending.
?Point out to me where in the CRA or any regulation that any of this is required.
I cannot. But this kind of legislative fundamentalism misconstrues the way laws constrain business activity. An unenforced law exercises little constraint, regardless of how onerous it is worded. Think of the way anti-trust enforcement changes from presidential administration to presidential administration.
In the case of the CRA, it was the activity of the regulators that matters. And each of these credit innovations described above was put into place to satisfy the CRA regulators.
?Wouldn?t lending standards have been lax during the boom even if we didn?t have a CRA?
That?s an interesting question to which we?ll never have a satisfactory answer. It?s possible. But this kind of counter-factual is just a game. We know that we had the CRA and that it caused relaxed lending standards in the reality we actually live. In another universe, another reality? Well, if you get there send us a post-card and let us know how it turns out.
?Couldn?t the increase in CRA loans have been accomplished without these lax lending standards?
This is another interesting question about an alternate universe. It is possible that banks may have been able to meet their CRA obligations with tighter, more traditional lending standards. But we?ll never know. We know that they thought they needed to employ lax standards, and so did the regulators. A banker who refused to relax standards risked the wrath of regulators, and?more importantly?if his unorthodox, novel attempts failed he?d be found to be in non-compliance with the CRA. In the real world, lax lending standards were the only known way of satisfying the CRA regulators.
?Isn?t it really securitization that is the culprit?
The government pushed for greater mortgage securitization in an effort to increase CRA lending. At the behest of HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, Fannie and Freddie promised to buy $2 trillion of ?affordable? mortgages. The government was intentionally decreasing the risks to the original lenders in order to increase loans to low-income borrowers, and minorities in particular. In short, you can?t blame securitization without coming back around to the CRA.
?Weren?t the majority of the subprime loans made by mortgage service companies not subject to the CRA?
This is true. But it is largely beside the point. A huge driver of the demand for subprime loans was the demand for CRA bonds. Banks operating under the CRA could meet their obligations by buying up CRA loans or MBS built from CRA loans. The CRA created a demand that the mortgage servicers were meeting.
What's more, many smaller mortage service companies hoped to be acquired by larger banks. Increasing their CRA lending made them more attractive take-over targets.
A study put out by the Treasury Department in 2000 found that the CRA was encouraging the mortgage servicers to provide loans to low-income borrowers, in part because the CRA loans had been so successful.
Finally, the Clinton adminstration threatened to subject the mortgage companies to the CRA if they didn't comply voluntarily. They promptly agreed to increase their CRA-type lending in order to escape the kind of public scrutiny that comes with official CRA regulated status.
?If the CRA was forcing all this lax lending, why weren't bankers objecting?
Are you really in the dark about why the leaders of large public corporations wouldn't publicly object to a piece of civil rights legislation? Fine. I'll be totally open with you: this would have been career suicide and an open invitation to bias litigation and increased scrutiny from regulators. In this case, silence is misleading.
What's more, no one said the bankers hated the lax lending the CRA was requiring. Sure, some did. But those people were quickly shown the door, while the enthusiasts were promoted. The regulations themselves selected for enthusiasts for the program of lax lending.
?How do you explain the fact that CRA loans historically had low levels of default. Doesn?t this mean that loan standards were not relaxed?
Actually, no. We know that lending standards were relaxed under the CRA. The fact that they had relatively low default levels was initially a surprise but it isn?t an indicator that lending standards were secretly high. There are plenty of explanations for this, including the lack of borrower ruthlessness in unsophisticated home owners and a tendency of delinquent low-income borrowers to sell the home and prepay the mortgage rather than default. Especially during a period of rising home prices, the default option was not heavily exercised.
?But even during the crisis, CRA loans didn?t default at higher rates than other mortgages. CRA banks aren?t failing more than other financial institutions, CRA areas aren?t hotspots of defaults. What about that?
In part, this is evidence that the lending standards of the CRA had spread to the rest of the mortgage market.
?I thought you said CRA loans caused this crisis.
Nope. It isn?t losses from CRA loans that drove the crisis (although they are disproportionately responsible for losses at some banks). Instead, the CRA required lax lending standards that spread to the rest of the mortgage market. That fueled the mortgage boom and bust.
?So how and why did the CRA lax lending spread to the rest of the mortgage market?
The structure of the CRA regulations encouraged the spread. Banks that were the best at making CRA loans were allowed to grow by making acquisitions and opening new branches. This created a kind of political-financial Darwinism that reward the biggest enthusiasts for lax CRA lending standards. Of course, the most successful people under this regime were not the types who needed their arms twisted to make loose loans. They were who were predisposed to engage in loosey-goosey finance, who discovered that the CRA had made the world their oyster.
As for the ?why? part of your question, the answer is a bit ironic. Banks making CRA loans initially expected that defaults would be higher due to lax lending standards. When they discovered the low-income borrowers had an unexpected propensity to pay their mortgages. After years of data poured in showing that borrowers were paying mortgages despite high LTVs, low down payments and unconventional income measures, bankers began to believe that many of the traditional measure of credit worthiness were overly conservative. Recall what I said earlier about how mortgage service providers started pursuing low-income borrowers in part because of the CRA.
What they didn?t take into account was that different types of borrowers may behave differently, and that much of the data on those lax lending mortgages was warped by increasing home prices. Wealthier, more sophisticated borrowers ruthlessly default when their mortgage goes underwater, for example. What?s more, the reversal of housing prices meant that defaults across all borrower classes increased.
Making matters worse, President Bush pushed hard for lax lending standards. He wanted to expand minority and low income home ownership far beyond what the CRA required. So he pushed even harder for the broadening of these lending standards.
?Wait. So you?re saying that the CRA's lax lending to low income borrowers became dangerous when it was extended more broadly?
In part. Ironically, the low income lending practices, particularly when undertaken on a limited basis in a low-securitization and rising house price period, seemed safe. This led to the practices being spread across the much broader category of loans. In a sense, you can look at the mortgage mess as what happens when CRA lending was applied much more broadly. If we'd confined the lax lending standards to just the geographical areas and low-income borrowers directly targeted by the CRA, our mortgage crisis would be far more manageable.
Studies have suggested that only 6 percent of subprime loans were extended by CRA-regulated lenders to either lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in the lenders' CRA assessment areas. Since these loans suffer from outsized losses (for reasons not yet clear), we'd still have a major problem. But it would probably be only about 1/4 of the size of the current mortgage mess.
?That doesn?t sound very Republican of you.
I told you from the start this wasn?t some plot to make the GOP look good.
But don't get carried away with this irony. Now that we are in this crisis, loans located in low income areas are almost twice as likely to be in foreclosure as other loans. There's also an unfortunate racial angle, with African Americans being 1.8 as likely to be in foreclosure as whites, and Latinos being 1.4 likely to be in foreclosure.
What's more, an enormous amount of subprime loans were made to lower-income borrowers target by the CRA. Forty-five percent of subprime loan originations went to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lowerr-income neighborhoods in 2005 and 2006, where the foreclosures are almost twice as likely. This suggests that the kind of low income borrowers targeted by the CRA are likely to be responsible for the majority of subprime foreclosures.
Your SHIT PRESIDENT gets a pass on everything, slow growth for his Presidency is just another example.
Pity Really
Nuff Said
:0corn
Slow growth is the NEW BOOM?
Just LOWER the Bar for the man that gave us OBAMACARE and Shovel Ready Jobs?
