(12-18-2014 02:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 08:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 02:06 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Incorrect. Sub prime lending initially didn't qualify for Fannie and Freddy.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Sub prime lending was forced on the banks by the government (see Andrew Cuomo). That started the ball rolling downhill. Don't try to deflect by inserting Fannie & Freddie as they were only part of the problem.

When that happened, the ball was already rolling down hill.

I think you have the timing wrong, if you are trying to say what I think you are trying to say.

From what I read, the repeal of the Glass Stegall Act is what set the ball rolling. Once banks started making money hand over fist, they feds got in on the deal. That accelerated the eventual collapse.

This isn't a conclusion that I came to on my own. It is simply what I have read in books and articles I read about the recession.

(12-17-2014 07:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 07:38 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-12-2014 05:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-12-2014 02:29 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-12-2014 11:45 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Because they can sell them to Uncle Sam or package them in a derivative to offset another bet (which this bill relaxes the regulation on). The large Wall Street banks aren't risking anything, the small niche traders are.

And when they collapse, the tax payers will be on the hook again.

No, you don't understand how banks work.
They made bad loans because they were directed by regulators to make them. I know the CRA did not on the face of it require them. But the regulations issued by the banking authorities pursuant to the act DID require banks to make bad loans. And the procedures followed by the bank regulators pursuant to those regulations made that requirement even stronger. I don't know of a single banker who wants to hassle with bad loans, even if the government does take them off their hands. And the ones that were packaged up and sold were gotten rid of because the banks did not want to fool with them.
There is absolutely no reason except regulatory fiat for banks to make bad loans. And when regulatory fiat is the reason those loans were made, why is it not appropriate for government to bail them out?

CRA caused the crash? Yet another right-wing lie. Here's a quick way to see what a stupid lie it is and that it would only be repeated by the most stupid of people - when all these bad loans that mortgage banks were being forced to make were rolled up into MBS products, surely they couldn't find anyone to buy them, right? Because who would buy securities chocked full of risky, bad loans? There couldn't have been any demand for such products, right?
The CRA argument is one of racism. It's the standard right-wing tactic of blaming minorities for the sins of rich white people. Only the worst sort of people perpetuate such lies.

If you actually understood anything--even a smidgeon--about the problem, you would realize that your questions are meaningless and mis-informed. But hey, never miss an opportunity to blame racism and launch ad hominem attacks.

The GRAD decoder ring:

Idiot, moron, etc. = disagrees with Grad
Right-wing nut = disagrees with Chairman Mao
Racist = continues to disagree

I see you are back to nothing but weak personal insults without a shred of substance. It's very telling that you couldn't even offer a weak rebuttal.

(12-19-2014 02:41 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 07:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 07:38 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-12-2014 05:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-12-2014 02:29 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  And when they collapse, the tax payers will be on the hook again.

No, you don't understand how banks work.
They made bad loans because they were directed by regulators to make them. I know the CRA did not on the face of it require them. But the regulations issued by the banking authorities pursuant to the act DID require banks to make bad loans. And the procedures followed by the bank regulators pursuant to those regulations made that requirement even stronger. I don't know of a single banker who wants to hassle with bad loans, even if the government does take them off their hands. And the ones that were packaged up and sold were gotten rid of because the banks did not want to fool with them.
There is absolutely no reason except regulatory fiat for banks to make bad loans. And when regulatory fiat is the reason those loans were made, why is it not appropriate for government to bail them out?

CRA caused the crash? Yet another right-wing lie. Here's a quick way to see what a stupid lie it is and that it would only be repeated by the most stupid of people - when all these bad loans that mortgage banks were being forced to make were rolled up into MBS products, surely they couldn't find anyone to buy them, right? Because who would buy securities chocked full of risky, bad loans? There couldn't have been any demand for such products, right?
The CRA argument is one of racism. It's the standard right-wing tactic of blaming minorities for the sins of rich white people. Only the worst sort of people perpetuate such lies.

If you actually understood anything--even a smidgeon--about the problem, you would realize that your questions are meaningless and mis-informed. But hey, never miss an opportunity to blame racism and launch ad hominem attacks.

The GRAD decoder ring:

Idiot, moron, etc. = disagrees with Grad
Right-wing nut = disagrees with Chairman Mao
Racist = continues to disagree

I see you are back to nothing but weak personal insults without a shred of substance. It's very telling that you couldn't even offer a weak rebuttal.

Both Hambone and I have offered not weak but strong and comprehensive rebuttals on multiple occasions. You're not worth the effort to repeat them.

(12-19-2014 11:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 02:41 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 07:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 07:38 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-12-2014 05:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No, you don't understand how banks work.
They made bad loans because they were directed by regulators to make them. I know the CRA did not on the face of it require them. But the regulations issued by the banking authorities pursuant to the act DID require banks to make bad loans. And the procedures followed by the bank regulators pursuant to those regulations made that requirement even stronger. I don't know of a single banker who wants to hassle with bad loans, even if the government does take them off their hands. And the ones that were packaged up and sold were gotten rid of because the banks did not want to fool with them.
There is absolutely no reason except regulatory fiat for banks to make bad loans. And when regulatory fiat is the reason those loans were made, why is it not appropriate for government to bail them out?

CRA caused the crash? Yet another right-wing lie. Here's a quick way to see what a stupid lie it is and that it would only be repeated by the most stupid of people - when all these bad loans that mortgage banks were being forced to make were rolled up into MBS products, surely they couldn't find anyone to buy them, right? Because who would buy securities chocked full of risky, bad loans? There couldn't have been any demand for such products, right?
The CRA argument is one of racism. It's the standard right-wing tactic of blaming minorities for the sins of rich white people. Only the worst sort of people perpetuate such lies.

If you actually understood anything--even a smidgeon--about the problem, you would realize that your questions are meaningless and mis-informed. But hey, never miss an opportunity to blame racism and launch ad hominem attacks.

The GRAD decoder ring:

Idiot, moron, etc. = disagrees with Grad
Right-wing nut = disagrees with Chairman Mao
Racist = continues to disagree

I see you are back to nothing but weak personal insults without a shred of substance. It's very telling that you couldn't even offer a weak rebuttal.

Both Hambone and I have offered not weak but strong and comprehensive rebuttals on multiple occasions. You're not worth the effort to repeat them.

I see you are back to nothing but weak personal insults without a shred of substance. It's very telling that you couldn't even offer a weak rebuttal.

You're a troll that's not worth feeding.

(12-19-2014 11:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You're a troll that's not worth feeding.

I see you are back to nothing but weak personal insults without a shred of substance. It's very telling that you couldn't even offer a weak rebuttal.

(12-19-2014 11:56 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 11:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You're a troll that's not worth feeding.

I see you are back to nothing but weak personal insults without a shred of substance. It's very telling that you couldn't even offer a weak rebuttal.

You've posted nothing but weak personal insults without a shred of substance for a very long time now. If you want to discuss substance, why don't you try posting something of substance first?

(12-20-2014 07:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 11:56 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 11:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You're a troll that's not worth feeding.

I see you are back to nothing but weak personal insults without a shred of substance. It's very telling that you couldn't even offer a weak rebuttal.

You've posted nothing but weak personal insults without a shred of substance for a very long time now. If you want to discuss substance, why don't you try posting something of substance first?

I do it all the time. Then you right-wingers can't formulate a reasonable response, so you resort to personal insults just like you've done once again.

Everyone should notice that Owl hasn't even tried to defend the bigoted CRA argument. He won't answer the simple questions about what percentage of sub-prime loans were made by CRA lenders in CRA areas, and won't answer whether CRA covered loans defaulted at a higher rate than similar non-CRA loans.

(12-20-2014 11:39 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Everyone should notice that Owl hasn't even tried to defend the bigoted CRA argument. He won't answer the simple questions about what percentage of sub-prime loans were made by CRA lenders in CRA areas, and won't answer whether CRA covered loans defaulted at a higher rate than similar non-CRA loans.

First, define what you mean by CRA loans. Do you mean loans that were made pursuant to and in compliance with the CRA statute? Do you include additional non-CRA-compliant loans that banks were forced to make to conform to the regulations issued pursuant to the CRA statute, and in particular the way those regulations were enforced by the regulators charged with enforcing them (basically, you have to make X loans in ZIP code 12345, whether there are X qualified CRA applicants or not)? Do you include additional loans that banks made to avoid lender liability litigation based on the standards used to underwrite the non-CRA loans referred to in the preceding sentence? Do you include loans that storefront lenders like Countrywide made and sold to banks so that they could satisfy the CRA regulators while not running afoul of the regular bank examiners?

Those are very different populations. If you mean the strict definition in the first question, then the answer is that the true CRA loans performed quite well. But you knew that. CRA is not a bad concept. The problem is that the concept got pretty badly distorted by the regulations issued pursuant to the statute and more particularly by the way those regulations were enforced in the field. My guess is that you know that too. As you should be aware but seem to avoid recognizing, Hambone and I and others who have worked in the banking industry have pointed that out here and in the Memphis Political-Religious area on multiple occasions.

What should have happened is that if the feds wanted banks to make loan to CRA borrowers, the feds should have guaranteed those loans. If a loan met CRA underwriting standards, then the feds would back it and the bank was obligated to make any loan that the feds would back. If the loan did not meet CRA underwriting standards, the feds would not back it and the bank was not obligated to make it.

What actually happened is very different from what should have happened. The government forced banks to take unacceptable underwriting risks in order to comply with CRA (the regulations and the manner in which they were enforced, not the act itself). Then the banks tried to mitigate those risks in a market that assumed it was dealing with historic risk levels.

(12-20-2014 11:37 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-20-2014 07:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 11:56 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 11:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You're a troll that's not worth feeding.

I see you are back to nothing but weak personal insults without a shred of substance. It's very telling that you couldn't even offer a weak rebuttal.

You've posted nothing but weak personal insults without a shred of substance for a very long time now. If you want to discuss substance, why don't you try posting something of substance first?

I do it all the time.

No, you don't.

(12-20-2014 11:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-20-2014 11:39 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Everyone should notice that Owl hasn't even tried to defend the bigoted CRA argument. He won't answer the simple questions about what percentage of sub-prime loans were made by CRA lenders in CRA areas, and won't answer whether CRA covered loans defaulted at a higher rate than similar non-CRA loans.

First, define what you mean by CRA loans. Do you mean loans that were made pursuant to and in compliance with the CRA statute? Do you include additional non-CRA-compliant loans that banks were forced to make to conform to the regulations issued pursuant to the CRA statute, and in particular the way those regulations were enforced by the regulators charged with enforcing them (basically, you have to make X loans in ZIP code 12345, whether there are X qualified CRA applicants or not)? Do you include additional loans that banks made to avoid lender liability litigation based on the standards used to underwrite the non-CRA loans referred to in the preceding sentence? Do you include loans that storefront lenders like Countrywide made and sold to banks so that they could satisfy the CRA regulators while not running afoul of the regular bank examiners?

Those are very different populations. If you mean the strict definition in the first question, then the answer is that the true CRA loans performed quite well. But you knew that. CRA is not a bad concept. The problem is that the concept got pretty badly distorted by the regulations issued pursuant to the statute and more particularly by the way those regulations were enforced in the field. My guess is that you know that too. As you should be aware but seem to avoid recognizing, Hambone and I and others who have worked in the banking industry have pointed that out here and in the Memphis Political-Religious area on multiple occasions.

What should have happened is that if the feds wanted banks to make loan to CRA borrowers, the feds should have guaranteed those loans. If a loan met CRA underwriting standards, then the feds would back it and the bank was obligated to make any loan that the feds would back. If the loan did not meet CRA underwriting standards, the feds would not back it and the bank was not obligated to make it.

What actually happened is very different from what should have happened. The government forced banks to take unacceptable underwriting risks in order to comply with CRA (the regulations and the manner in which they were enforced, not the act itself). Then the banks tried to mitigate those risks in a market that assumed it was dealing with historic risk levels.

If anyone goes to Google and types in "CRA Conspiracy Theory" they would quickly find the exact argument that is being made here. The absurdity of this argument is astounding. Zero banks lost their charter or faced any sort of serious discipline for violating CRA rules - not a single one. Yet the conspiracy theorists will have you believe that the unnamed, shadowy "regulators" forced banks to make risky loans that were outside regulators' scope and that the banks didn't want to make. They also want you to ignore the fact that these banks were, and are, some of the most politically powerful institutions in the world. Yet these highly connected, powerful banks were being FORCED by shadowy regulators, who keep in mind NEVER leveled any sort of serious penalty against ANY bank, to make risky loans that in turn brought down the entire economy. They might as well be claiming Thermite was used at Ground Zero. The two arguments are equally as compelling. Especially when you consider that only around 5% of sub-prime loans were made by CRA covered lenders in CRA neighborhoods. And these loans performed similarly to comparable non-CRA loans. It was after being faced with those facts that they came up with the crazy "all powerful regulator" argument. Consider that these absurd arguments come from anti-government conspiracy types, and it makes perfect sense. Add in the last statement where banks "assumed they were dealing with historic risk levels" and the argument gets even more laughable. The conspiracy theorists want you to believe that these major Wall Street financial institutions poured billions upon billions into products without understanding the risk. Instead, the conspiracy theorists say that these highly sophisticated financial institutions just "assumed" a normal risk level. Absurd.

To recap: In conspiracy land, 5% of the sub-prime market that performed equal to other comparable loans somehow contaminated the entire financial system when unnamed, faceless regulators forced super-powerful banks to make risky non-CRA loans outside the scope of regulators' power that the banks didn't want to make, and then someone unnamed convinced these non-CRA financial institutions to package those loans into securitized products and those same unnamed forces made even more non-CRA regulated institutions buy those products. Of course the conspiracy theorists package it differently, but that is their argument. It is 100% bat-sh*t crazy, but that's a defining characteristic of these sort of people.

More level-headed people will argue that there was tremendous profit to be made in these products, and that this profit motive drove lenders to make bad loans that turned out to be poor bets. Right-wingers (and the conspiracy theorists among them) will tell you it's all the government's fault because admitting that private sector actors were at fault would mean that large functional markets can fail. And that violates their core belief (and it is nothing more than a BELIEF, not a fact). So that's why righties (and their conspiracy theorist brethren) won't let the blame be put on the people who actually caused the meltdown. Their beliefs force them to blame the government, just like in every other subject we discuss.

(12-21-2014 02:58 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-20-2014 11:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-20-2014 11:39 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Everyone should notice that Owl hasn't even tried to defend the bigoted CRA argument. He won't answer the simple questions about what percentage of sub-prime loans were made by CRA lenders in CRA areas, and won't answer whether CRA covered loans defaulted at a higher rate than similar non-CRA loans.

First, define what you mean by CRA loans. Do you mean loans that were made pursuant to and in compliance with the CRA statute? Do you include additional non-CRA-compliant loans that banks were forced to make to conform to the regulations issued pursuant to the CRA statute, and in particular the way those regulations were enforced by the regulators charged with enforcing them (basically, you have to make X loans in ZIP code 12345, whether there are X qualified CRA applicants or not)? Do you include additional loans that banks made to avoid lender liability litigation based on the standards used to underwrite the non-CRA loans referred to in the preceding sentence? Do you include loans that storefront lenders like Countrywide made and sold to banks so that they could satisfy the CRA regulators while not running afoul of the regular bank examiners?
Those are very different populations. If you mean the strict definition in the first question, then the answer is that the true CRA loans performed quite well. But you knew that. CRA is not a bad concept. The problem is that the concept got pretty badly distorted by the regulations issued pursuant to the statute and more particularly by the way those regulations were enforced in the field. My guess is that you know that too. As you should be aware but seem to avoid recognizing, Hambone and I and others who have worked in the banking industry have pointed that out here and in the Memphis Political-Religious area on multiple occasions.
What should have happened is that if the feds wanted banks to make loan to CRA borrowers, the feds should have guaranteed those loans. If a loan met CRA underwriting standards, then the feds would back it and the bank was obligated to make any loan that the feds would back. If the loan did not meet CRA underwriting standards, the feds would not back it and the bank was not obligated to make it.
What actually happened is very different from what should have happened. The government forced banks to take unacceptable underwriting risks in order to comply with CRA (the regulations and the manner in which they were enforced, not the act itself). Then the banks tried to mitigate those risks in a market that assumed it was dealing with historic risk levels.

If anyone goes to Google and types in "CRA Conspiracy Theory" they would quickly find the exact argument that is being made here. The absurdity of this argument is astounding. Zero banks lost their charter or faced any sort of serious discipline for violating CRA rules - not a single one. Yet the conspiracy theorists will have you believe that the unnamed, shadowy "regulators" forced banks to make risky loans that were outside regulators' scope and that the banks didn't want to make. They also want you to ignore the fact that these banks were, and are, some of the most politically powerful institutions in the world. Yet these highly connected, powerful banks were being FORCED by shadowy regulators, who keep in mind NEVER leveled any sort of serious penalty against ANY bank, to make risky loans that in turn brought down the entire economy. They might as well be claiming Thermite was used at Ground Zero. The two arguments are equally as compelling. Especially when you consider that only around 5% of sub-prime loans were made by CRA covered lenders in CRA neighborhoods. And these loans performed similarly to comparable non-CRA loans. It was after being faced with those facts that they came up with the crazy "all powerful regulator" argument. Consider that these absurd arguments come from anti-government conspiracy types, and it makes perfect sense. Add in the last statement where banks "assumed they were dealing with historic risk levels" and the argument gets even more laughable. The conspiracy theorists want you to believe that these major Wall Street financial institutions poured billions upon billions into products without understanding the risk. Instead, the conspiracy theorists say that these highly sophisticated financial institutions just "assumed" a normal risk level. Absurd.
To recap: In conspiracy land, 5% of the sub-prime market that performed equal to other comparable loans somehow contaminated the entire financial system when unnamed, faceless regulators forced super-powerful banks to make risky non-CRA loans outside the scope of regulators' power that the banks didn't want to make, and then someone unnamed convinced these non-CRA financial institutions to package those loans into securitized products and those same unnamed forces made even more non-CRA regulated institutions buy those products. Of course the conspiracy theorists package it differently, but that is their argument. It is 100% bat-sh*t crazy, but that's a defining characteristic of these sort of people.

I'll give more credence to bankers than schoolmarms on this issue.

(12-21-2014 03:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2014 02:58 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-20-2014 11:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-20-2014 11:39 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Everyone should notice that Owl hasn't even tried to defend the bigoted CRA argument. He won't answer the simple questions about what percentage of sub-prime loans were made by CRA lenders in CRA areas, and won't answer whether CRA covered loans defaulted at a higher rate than similar non-CRA loans.

First, define what you mean by CRA loans. Do you mean loans that were made pursuant to and in compliance with the CRA statute? Do you include additional non-CRA-compliant loans that banks were forced to make to conform to the regulations issued pursuant to the CRA statute, and in particular the way those regulations were enforced by the regulators charged with enforcing them (basically, you have to make X loans in ZIP code 12345, whether there are X qualified CRA applicants or not)? Do you include additional loans that banks made to avoid lender liability litigation based on the standards used to underwrite the non-CRA loans referred to in the preceding sentence? Do you include loans that storefront lenders like Countrywide made and sold to banks so that they could satisfy the CRA regulators while not running afoul of the regular bank examiners?
Those are very different populations. If you mean the strict definition in the first question, then the answer is that the true CRA loans performed quite well. But you knew that. CRA is not a bad concept. The problem is that the concept got pretty badly distorted by the regulations issued pursuant to the statute and more particularly by the way those regulations were enforced in the field. My guess is that you know that too. As you should be aware but seem to avoid recognizing, Hambone and I and others who have worked in the banking industry have pointed that out here and in the Memphis Political-Religious area on multiple occasions.
What should have happened is that if the feds wanted banks to make loan to CRA borrowers, the feds should have guaranteed those loans. If a loan met CRA underwriting standards, then the feds would back it and the bank was obligated to make any loan that the feds would back. If the loan did not meet CRA underwriting standards, the feds would not back it and the bank was not obligated to make it.
What actually happened is very different from what should have happened. The government forced banks to take unacceptable underwriting risks in order to comply with CRA (the regulations and the manner in which they were enforced, not the act itself). Then the banks tried to mitigate those risks in a market that assumed it was dealing with historic risk levels.

If anyone goes to Google and types in "CRA Conspiracy Theory" they would quickly find the exact argument that is being made here. The absurdity of this argument is astounding. Zero banks lost their charter or faced any sort of serious discipline for violating CRA rules - not a single one. Yet the conspiracy theorists will have you believe that the unnamed, shadowy "regulators" forced banks to make risky loans that were outside regulators' scope and that the banks didn't want to make. They also want you to ignore the fact that these banks were, and are, some of the most politically powerful institutions in the world. Yet these highly connected, powerful banks were being FORCED by shadowy regulators, who keep in mind NEVER leveled any sort of serious penalty against ANY bank, to make risky loans that in turn brought down the entire economy. They might as well be claiming Thermite was used at Ground Zero. The two arguments are equally as compelling. Especially when you consider that only around 5% of sub-prime loans were made by CRA covered lenders in CRA neighborhoods. And these loans performed similarly to comparable non-CRA loans. It was after being faced with those facts that they came up with the crazy "all powerful regulator" argument. Consider that these absurd arguments come from anti-government conspiracy types, and it makes perfect sense. Add in the last statement where banks "assumed they were dealing with historic risk levels" and the argument gets even more laughable. The conspiracy theorists want you to believe that these major Wall Street financial institutions poured billions upon billions into products without understanding the risk. Instead, the conspiracy theorists say that these highly sophisticated financial institutions just "assumed" a normal risk level. Absurd.
To recap: In conspiracy land, 5% of the sub-prime market that performed equal to other comparable loans somehow contaminated the entire financial system when unnamed, faceless regulators forced super-powerful banks to make risky non-CRA loans outside the scope of regulators' power that the banks didn't want to make, and then someone unnamed convinced these non-CRA financial institutions to package those loans into securitized products and those same unnamed forces made even more non-CRA regulated institutions buy those products. Of course the conspiracy theorists package it differently, but that is their argument. It is 100% bat-sh*t crazy, but that's a defining characteristic of these sort of people.

I'll give more credence to bankers than schoolmarms on this issue.

Yeah, listening to the people trying to avoid blame for their part in the whole meltdown is wise (if you're trying to avoid the truth).

Nice try, but that's what bankers were saying BEFORE the meltdown, so your comment would not apply.

You live in your own dream world, unimpeded by facts.

(12-21-2014 04:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You live in your own dream world, unimpeded by crazy right-wing conspiracy theories.

FIFY

Back on Topic,EW is an Obama Mouthpiece unfit for Presidency ! There

(12-21-2014 07:44 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Back on Topic,EW is an Obama Mouthpiece unfit for Presidency ! There

You're going to have to find better propaganda that that. She's leading the charge against the President's Treasury nominee.