Conservative Political Forum

General Category => Financial => Topic started by: Solar on February 01, 2013, 12:27:24 PM

Title: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Solar on February 01, 2013, 12:27:24 PM
No-money-down mortgages are back

Some affluent buyers are getting the keys to their new home without putting a penny down.

It's 100% financing—the same strategy that pushed many homeowners into foreclosure during the housing bust. Banks say these loans are safer: They're almost exclusively being offered to clients with sizable assets, and they often require two forms of collateral—the house and a portion of the client's investment portfolio in lieu of a traditional cash down payment.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-money-down-home-loans-are-back-2013-02-01 (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-money-down-home-loans-are-back-2013-02-01)
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: JustKari on February 01, 2013, 01:15:19 PM
Solar, are you TRYING to bait Vern?  :ttoung:
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Solar on February 01, 2013, 01:22:06 PM
Quote from: JustKari on February 01, 2013, 01:15:19 PM
Solar, are you TRYING to bait Vern?  :ttoung:
Trying to blow down that strawman house he lives in. :laugh:
Title: huff and puff all you want solar.
Post by: Vern on February 01, 2013, 05:56:43 PM
from your link

"It's 100% financing—the same strategy that pushed many homeowners into foreclosure during the housing bust. Banks say these loans are safer: They're almost exclusively being offered to clients with sizable assets, and they often require two forms of collateral—the house and a portion of the client's investment portfolio in lieu of a traditional cash down payment."

How do you pretend to miss the part about "the client's investment portfolio " as  collateral? 

But lets examine the first sentence.  100% financing didnt push "homeowners into foreclosure".  It simply gave them no incentive to not walk away from the home when the value of their home plummeted. I think we can both agree that 100% financing with no other form of collateral is a bad idea.   

check this out. (what a coincidence, another Bush housing policy from 2004)

BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW HUD "ZERO DOWN PAYMENT" MORTGAGE
Initiative Aimed at Removing Major Barrier to Homeownership

http://archives.hud.gov/news/2004/pr04-006.cfm (http://archives.hud.gov/news/2004/pr04-006.cfm)
Title: why is 2004 important?
Post by: Vern on February 01, 2013, 06:04:00 PM
from the link above.

"President Bush has pledged to create 5.5 million new minority homeowners this decade, and this historic initiative will help meet this goal."

mmmm, do you think they pledged their investment portfolio as collateral in lieu of a downpayment. 
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Solar on February 01, 2013, 06:52:31 PM
You completely miss the point, these homes will not go to the average American, they will be bought up by investors, which isn't entirely bad, but when you have this many homes entering the MKt, it upsets the Mkt all over again.


When I said here we go again, I was talking about bubbles popping.
Title: sorry solar, my house of straw is still really really really really intact.
Post by: Vern on February 01, 2013, 07:52:25 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 01, 2013, 06:52:31 PM
You completely miss the point, these homes will not go to the average American, they will be bought up by investors, which isn't entirely bad,

mmmm, I seem to recall pointing out that these borrowers needed to use their portfolios as collateral. So I dont think I missed the point that these home will not go to average Americans. 

Quote from: Solar on February 01, 2013, 06:52:31 PM
but when you have this many homes entering the MKt, it upsets the Mkt all over again.

When I said here we go again, I was talking about bubbles popping.

how many homes?  from your link

"While these loans make up a small portion of banks' overall lending, demand for them has been rising. BNY Mellon Wealth Management's mortgage team says it experienced a 10% increase in requests for 100% jumbo-mortgage financing involving clients' investment portfolios in 2012 compared with a year prior."

"BOK Financial, which offers up to 100% financing just to medical doctors through its private-banking divisions in eight states, including Arizona, Oklahoma and Texas, says there has been a roughly 25% increase (or about 100 more borrowers)"

So solar, if its bad that a couple of hundred of rich people got 100 % financing but with collateral then it must be really really really really really really really really bad that the federal gov't gave 100 % financing without collateral to 150,000 people. 

from the HUD link

"Preliminary projections indicate that the new FHA mortgage product would generate about 150,000 homebuyers in the first year alone."
Title: Re: sorry solar, my house of straw is still really really really really intact.
Post by: Solar on February 01, 2013, 08:02:21 PM
Quote from: Vern on February 01, 2013, 07:52:25 PM
mmmm, I seem to recall pointing out that these borrowers needed to use their portfolios as collateral. So I dont think I missed the point that these home will not go to average Americans. 

how many homes?  from your link

"While these loans make up a small portion of banks' overall lending, demand for them has been rising. BNY Mellon Wealth Management's mortgage team says it experienced a 10% increase in requests for 100% jumbo-mortgage financing involving clients' investment portfolios in 2012 compared with a year prior."

"BOK Financial, which offers up to 100% financing just to medical doctors through its private-banking divisions in eight states, including Arizona, Oklahoma and Texas, says there has been a roughly 25% increase (or about 100 more borrowers)"

So solar, if its bad that a couple of hundred of rich people got 100 % financing but with collateral then it must be really really really really really really really really bad that the federal gov't gave 100 % financing without collateral to 150,000 people. 

from the HUD link

"Preliminary projections indicate that the new FHA mortgage product would generate about 150,000 homebuyers in the first year alone."
Seriously, do you really think these cheap homes will go to people planning on living in them?
Just because a few stated an increase, doesn't speak for the investment companies that will be scooping up these deals and turning them over, that's how investment works.

I am in the process of selling a home in the Summer, now I have to move that time frame up to beat the glut about to hit the Mkt, a small bubble if you will, a bubble that will drive down demand forcing me to lower my price.

But to be honest, I knew this was coming, just not this soon.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: redlom xof on February 02, 2013, 09:04:32 AM
Good post Solar, I agree completely.

It seems we're doing exactly the same practices that got us into the 2007 troubles.

I wonder what the credit agencies are giving these potentially toxic assets ? AAA again ?

Also, I wonder when people will start betting against this and take out the credit default swaps like they did last time.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Solar on February 02, 2013, 10:10:06 AM
Quote from: redlom xof on February 02, 2013, 09:04:32 AM
Good post Solar, I agree completely.

It seems we're doing exactly the same practices that got us into the 2007 troubles.

I wonder what the credit agencies are giving these potentially toxic assets ? AAA again ?

Also, I wonder when people will start betting against this and take out the credit default swaps like they did last time.
That's just it, it appears nothing was learned from the last debacle, just putting a different color of lipstick on a new Pig, means nothing, it's still a damn pig with lipstick.
Glad to see you too get this mess that's building, one that will definitely develop in another bubble all it's own.

The world will inevitably lose faith in the dollar if we continue down this path and begin looking for a more stable currency, assuming one exists.
Though I predict one will be created just for this purpose alone, be it oil or gold, if the wealthiest in the world get behind it, we are doomed.
Title: Re: huff and puff all you want solar.
Post by: supsalemgr on February 02, 2013, 10:49:01 AM
Quote from: Vern on February 01, 2013, 05:56:43 PM
from your link

"It's 100% financing—the same strategy that pushed many homeowners into foreclosure during the housing bust. Banks say these loans are safer: They're almost exclusively being offered to clients with sizable assets, and they often require two forms of collateral—the house and a portion of the client's investment portfolio in lieu of a traditional cash down payment."

How do you pretend to miss the part about "the client's investment portfolio " as  collateral? 

But lets examine the first sentence.  100% financing didnt push "homeowners into foreclosure".  It simply gave them no incentive to not walk away from the home when the value of their home plummeted. I think we can both agree that 100% financing with no other form of collateral is a bad idea.   

check this out. (what a coincidence, another Bush housing policy from 2004)

BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW HUD "ZERO DOWN PAYMENT" MORTGAGE
Initiative Aimed at Removing Major Barrier to Homeownership

http://archives.hud.gov/news/2004/pr04-006.cfm (http://archives.hud.gov/news/2004/pr04-006.cfm)

Unlike Vern's blind allegiance to Obama most on this board have quite a few disagreements with Bush. This is one of those areas that I don't believe anyone will find much support for Bush.
Title: Re: huff and puff all you want solar.
Post by: Solar on February 02, 2013, 11:10:16 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 02, 2013, 10:49:01 AM
Unlike Vern's blind allegiance to Obama most on this board have quite a few disagreements with Bush. This is one of those areas that I don't believe anyone will find much support for Bush.
Bingo! And here is Vern's guy repeating the same process with a few rule changes, but still a manipulation none the less.
This has to be damn frustrating. :laugh:
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: three_rights on February 03, 2013, 07:53:20 AM
The Monetary Control Act of 1986 was the legislation that allowed adjustable rate and alternatively structured mortgages, in addition to allowing banks and credit card companies to charge the interest rate of the state in which they are chartered to residents of other states, regardless of the usury laws of those residents home states. 

Prior to this point in time there was strict income testing that restricted the amount you borrow. The requirement to have 20% cash equity and capping the maximum monthly payment, including escrowed  property taxes and insurance to 30% of income created stability in the marketplace. 

Basel II was the final nail in the proverbial coffin, because it removed the requirement that the Tier I capital reserve for a loan actually reflected the credit risk of the Borrower. I.e. The Tier I reserve requirement for a borrower  that had to borrow the equity and interest reserve for a land loan, had the same 1/2 of 15% reserve requirement as a well capitalized borrower that actually put up there own cash.

Fannie and Freedie were created in a time prior to the Monetary Control Act and the loosing of Tier I capital requirements under Basel, and banks served specific communities, and there was a need for a central marketplace that allowed them to efficiently sell mortgages and Freddie and Fannie was created to fulfill that need.  It was a great program with no risk in that context.  However, that changed once strict income testing was removed from the equation, and was replaced with negative amortization.




Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Solar on February 03, 2013, 08:15:30 AM
Quote from: three_rights on February 03, 2013, 07:53:20 AM
The Monetary Control Act of 1986 was the legislation that allowed adjustable rate and alternatively structured mortgages, in addition to allowing banks and credit card companies to charge the interest rate of the state in which they are chartered to residents of other states, regardless of the usury laws of those residents home states. 

Prior to this point in time there was strict income testing that restricted the amount you borrow. The requirement to have 20% cash equity and capping the maximum monthly payment, including escrowed  property taxes and insurance to 30% of income created stability in the marketplace. 

Basel II was the final nail in the proverbial coffin, because it removed the requirement that the Tier I capital reserve for a loan actually reflected the credit risk of the Borrower. I.e. The Tier I reserve requirement for a borrower  that had to borrow the equity and interest reserve for a land loan, had the same 1/2 of 15% reserve requirement as a well capitalized borrower that actually put up there own cash.

Fannie and Freedie were created in a time prior to the Monetary Control Act and the loosing of Tier I capital requirements under Basel, and banks served specific communities, and there was a need for a central marketplace that allowed them to efficiently sell mortgages and Freddie and Fannie was created to fulfill that need.  It was a great program with no risk in that context.  However, that changed once strict income testing was removed from the equation, and was replaced with negative amortization.
Welcome Three_rights.
Well done, clear and on point.  Why do I get the feeling you were an accountant? :wink:
I'm curious, have you looked into Basel III yet, and what kind of mess it might perpetuate?
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: three_rights on February 03, 2013, 12:15:01 PM
Solar,

My educational background is Economics and Finance, but my professional career experience is in Construction and commercial real estate. 

Basel III is beyond my comprehension, but my what little understanding of Basel III I do have is that it relies heavily on derivatives and other synthetic instruments to prop up the balance sheet and provide liquidity to the system.

The transparent solution to solve the Banks balance sheet problem and introduce liquidity into the system would have been to reinstate the measures that were introduced during the Resolution Trust days, and that was to allow the banks to gradually recognize the loan losses over 10 or 20 year period. 

The big question is how do we ever reintroduce positive real interest rates without collapsing the system?



Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Solar on February 03, 2013, 01:06:49 PM
Quote from: three_rights on February 03, 2013, 12:15:01 PM
Solar,

My educational background is Economics and Finance, but my professional career experience is in Construction and commercial real estate. 

Basel III is beyond my comprehension, but my what little understanding of Basel III I do have is that it relies heavily on derivatives and other synthetic instruments to prop up the balance sheet and provide liquidity to the system.

The transparent solution to solve the Banks balance sheet problem and introduce liquidity into the system would have been to reinstate the measures that were introduced during the Resolution Trust days, and that was to allow the banks to gradually recognize the loan losses over 10 or 20 year period. 

The big question is how do we ever reintroduce positive real interest rates without collapsing the system?
I had a pretty good idea it was mere window dressing to disguise more manipulation.
Glad to have new insight into an ongoing problem...
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Vern on February 05, 2013, 07:16:47 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 02, 2013, 10:49:01 AM
Unlike Vern's blind allegiance to Obama most on this board have quite a few disagreements with Bush. This is one of those areas that I don't believe anyone will find much support for Bush.

Blind allegiance?  If that were the case, couldn't you cut and paste something I've posted that is not true?  Couldn't you cut and paste something I've posted that you feel leaves out some important 'context' that changes the meaning of what I've posted?  couldn't you cut and paste something that I've conveniently 'mis paraphrased'? 

Mmmm, strangely you silly cons have only whined about or conveniently 'mis paraphrase' what I've posted in a way convenient to your blind hatred of President Obama.  I post clear simple points and back them up.  You guys repeat bumper stickers, chants and slogans.   So yea, there are 'blind people' around here. 

case in point,  kram's inability to see UE going up in 2008 and then taking off like a rocket in Q4.  his blind hatred of President Obama makes him (and others) pretend it started under President Obama 
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Solar on February 05, 2013, 08:12:37 AM
Quote from: Vern on February 05, 2013, 07:16:47 AM
Blind allegiance?  If that were the case, couldn't you cut and paste something I've posted that is not true?  Couldn't you cut and paste something I've posted that you feel leaves out some important 'context' that changes the meaning of what I've posted?  couldn't you cut and paste something that I've conveniently 'mis paraphrased'? 

Mmmm, strangely you silly cons have only whined about or conveniently 'mis paraphrase' what I've posted in a way convenient to your blind hatred of President Obama.  I post clear simple points and back them up.  You guys repeat bumper stickers, chants and slogans.   So yea, there are 'blind people' around here. 

case in point,  kram's inability to see UE going up in 2008 and then taking off like a rocket in Q4.  his blind hatred of President Obama makes him (and others) pretend it started under President Obama
Amazing, such a disconnect form reality. Nearly every post is pro Husein, anti Bush, yet you question when someone points out your blind allegiance?
Might I remind you, we have been blaming both sides, yet you only see it as Bush's fault, even your link which you claim supports your contention that Bush is solely to blame, exposes your blind allegiance and hypocrisy.

From your link:

In this report, we detail the events of the crisis. But a simple summary, as we see
it, is useful at the outset. While the vulnerabilities that created the potential for crisis
were years in the making,
it was the collapse of the housing bubble—fueled by
low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages—
that was the spark that ignited a string of events, which led to a full-blown crisis in
the fall of . Trillions of dollars in risky mortgages had become embedded
throughout the financial system, as mortgage-related securities were packaged,
repackaged, and sold to investors around the world. When the bubble burst, hundreds
of billions of dollars in losses in mortgages and mortgage-related securities
shook markets as well as financial institutions that had significant exposures to
those mortgages and had borrowed heavily against them. This happened not just in
the United States but around the world. The losses were magnified by derivatives
such as synthetic securities.
The crisis reached seismic proportions in September  with the failure of
Lehman Brothers and the impending collapse of the insurance giant American International
Group (AIG). Panic fanned by a lack of transparency of the balance sheets of major
financial institutions, coupled with a tangle of interconnections among institutions
perceived to be "too big to fail," caused the credit markets to seize up. Trading ground
to a halt. The stock market plummeted. The economy plunged into a deep recession.
The financial system we examined bears little resemblance to that of our parents'
generation. The changes in the past three decades alone have been remarkable.

We conclude widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision
proved devastating to the stability of the nation's financial markets. The sentries
were not at their posts, in no small part due to the widely accepted faith in the selfcorrecting
nature of the markets and the ability of financial institutions to effectively
police themselves. More than 30 years of deregulation and reliance on self-regulation
by financial institutions, championed by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan
Greenspan and others, supported by successive administrations and Congresses
, and
actively pushed by the powerful financial industry at every turn, had stripped away
key safeguards, which could have helped avoid catastrophe. This approach had
opened up gaps in oversight of critical areas with trillions of dollars at risk, such as
the shadow banking system and over-the-counter derivatives markets. In addition,
the government permitted financial firms to pick their preferred regulators in what
became a race to the weakest supervisor.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Vern on February 05, 2013, 10:12:27 AM
Quote from: Solar on February 05, 2013, 08:12:37 AM
Amazing, such a disconnect form reality. Nearly every post is pro Husein, anti Bush, yet you question when someone points out your blind allegiance?
Might I remind you, we have been blaming both sides, yet you only see it as Bush's fault, even your link which you claim supports your contention that Bush is solely to blame, exposes your blind allegiance and hypocrisy.


no solar.  Every single post I've posted has been factual and has been backed up by solid factual links.   I cant help it the facts dont support your 'conservative' narratives.   And no one has pointed out anything about me. they just keep whining.    And I documented what blind hatred looks like when kram falslely claimed UE shot up after Obama took over. 

And I posted Financial Crisis Commission to point out testimony and facts.    And you arent even reading what you keep posting.  Read this slolwly :"the vulnerabilities that created the potential for crisis were years in the making,"  but it didnt start until "—fueled by
low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages" .
when did the 'scant regulation', toxic mortgages and low interest rates start?   

See how your blind hatred of anything I post prevents you from reading it.   and I even
accused the report of spinning the Lehman thing.  the lehman collapsed triggered the panic not the lehman collapse with concern about AIG.  AIG got bailed out and the panic continued. 

Here's some more spin (more or less)

"among institutions  perceived to be "too big to fail," caused the credit markets to seize up. Trading ground to a halt. The stock market plummeted. The economy plunged into a deep recession.."    Nope, credit markets seized up early 2007.  Trading did ground to a halt and we were already in a recession. 

And just the like the Bush Working Group on financial markets. I didnt just post that. I posted the Fed saying the exact same thing as Bush's group and I posted the rocketship rise in No Docs and Subprime in 2004.  Neither of those rockets take off without Bush's regulators letting it. Hence, he's responsible.  I read what they said and verified it. 

so you keep worrying about the next mortgage bubble.  the facts say otherwise.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Solar on February 05, 2013, 11:20:36 AM
Quote from: Vern on February 05, 2013, 10:12:27 AM
no solar.  Every single post I've posted has been factual and has been backed up by solid factual links.   I cant help it the facts dont support your 'conservative' narratives.   And no one has pointed out anything about me. they just keep whining.    And I documented what blind hatred looks like when kram falslely claimed UE shot up after Obama took over. 

And I posted Financial Crisis Commission to point out testimony and facts.    And you arent even reading what you keep posting.  Read this slolwly :"the vulnerabilities that created the potential for crisis were years in the making,"  but it didnt start until "—fueled by
low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages" .
when did the 'scant regulation', toxic mortgages and low interest rates start?   

See how your blind hatred of anything I post prevents you from reading it.   and I even
accused the report of spinning the Lehman thing.  the lehman collapsed triggered the panic not the lehman collapse with concern about AIG.  AIG got bailed out and the panic continued. 

Here's some more spin (more or less)

"among institutions  perceived to be "too big to fail," caused the credit markets to seize up. Trading ground to a halt. The stock market plummeted. The economy plunged into a deep recession.."    Nope, credit markets seized up early 2007.  Trading did ground to a halt and we were already in a recession. 

And just the like the Bush Working Group on financial markets. I didnt just post that. I posted the Fed saying the exact same thing as Bush's group and I posted the rocketship rise in No Docs and Subprime in 2004.  Neither of those rockets take off without Bush's regulators letting it. Hence, he's responsible.  I read what they said and verified it. 

so you keep worrying about the next mortgage bubble.  the facts say otherwise.
Interesting how you claim I have blind hatred, and use someone else' post to prove it.

Now how about sticking to the facts, I posted facts backing my claim that it was solely Bush's fault, facts from your link.
Now read it again and tell me your facts are wrong.

More than 30 years of deregulation and reliance on self-regulation
by financial institutions, championed by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan
Greenspan and others, supported by successive administrations and Congresses
Title: its official, the Bush Mortgage bubble started in 1982
Post by: Vern on February 05, 2013, 11:24:49 AM
OH MY GOD. ITS REAGAN'S FAULT!!!  (from the same link)

"In 1982, Congress provided tax relief and HUD relaxed Fannie's capital requirements
to help the company avert failure. These efforts were consistent with lawmakers'
repeated proclamations that a vibrant market for home mortgages served the
best interests of the country, but the moves also reinforced the impression that the
government would never abandon Fannie and Freddie. Fannie and Freddie would
soon buy and either hold or securitize mortgages worth hundreds of billions, then
trillions, of dollars."

oh wait, to blame a policy or act, it has to somehow connect to the fact that banks didnt lower their lending standards until late 2004 and bush's regulators letting them.  dang, i really really wanted to blame reagan
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Vern on February 05, 2013, 01:03:07 PM

Quote from: Solar on February 05, 2013, 11:20:36 AM
Interesting how you claim I have blind hatred, and use someone else' post to prove it.



Solar, see how you cant follow a simple point.  I was addressing supsales's false assertion that I have blind allegiance to Obama.  (I used the quote function so how could you not follow the point) .  I then said all you cons have such blind hatred of President Obama.  I then used the example of kram lying about UE. He's not that stupid so he was obviously lying or blinded by hatred. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.  I then accused you of having blind hatred of everything I post.  What else explains your inability to understand what I post, follow a simple point or you repeatedly accusing me of posting something I didn't. 


Quote from: Solar on February 05, 2013, 11:20:36 AM

Now how about sticking to the facts, I posted facts backing my claim that it was (NOT) solely Bush's fault, facts from your link.
Now read it again and tell me your facts are wrong.

See how your blind hatred makes the connection that I posted it so therefore I 'own' every opinion in it.  You posted the 'opinion' of the Financial Commission.  I posted an  opinion from it to show they thought it was the Lehman collapse and the impending AIG collapse caused the market crash and sent the economy deeper into recession.   I even disputed the part about AIG when I posted it in conjunction with another link.  and when I find it, I'm going to 'quote' you saying you don't trust 'gubment links' but boy oh boy you sure are married to this one.   


"it was the collapse of the housing bubble—fueled by low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages— that was the spark

And this is why I dispute  it  (Now read this slowly) low interest rates and anything Carter, Reagan or Clinton did not allow banks to lower their lending standards in late 2004 and low interest rates and anything Carter, Reagan or Clinton did not prevent Bush's regulators from stopping it.   

Why not blame the invention of mortgages? If they hadn't been invented, bush's regulators couldn't have pretended not to see the increase from 10 % to  40 % of all mortgages being subprime and the increase  from 4.3 % to over 50% of all mortgages were No Docs.  And when did the increase start? That's right, late 2004. 

Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: supsalemgr on February 05, 2013, 01:31:35 PM
I have stayed out of this debate between Vern and Solar as Solar can take care of himself. However, Vern referred to my post and continues to rant on blindly so I will chime in.

http://tjhancock.wordpress.com/housing-bubble-financial-crisis-detailed-comprehensive-assessment/ (http://tjhancock.wordpress.com/housing-bubble-financial-crisis-detailed-comprehensive-assessment/)

This article indicates it all began in the mid nineties when banks were encouraged to lend to folks who previously could not obtain mortgages. The banks were more than willing to go along when they knew they could dump these mortgages on Fannie and Freddie. Since they are "for profit" organizations this was a win-win situation. That receive all the fees and shift the risk to another entity. That is good business.

Now I am gone from this thread as Vern enjoys going around in circles and I don't like chasing my tail.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Vern on February 05, 2013, 02:14:06 PM
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 05, 2013, 01:31:35 PM

This article indicates it all began in the mid nineties when banks were encouraged to lend to folks who previously could not obtain mortgages. The banks were more than willing to go along when they knew they could dump these mortgages on Fannie and Freddie. Since they are "for profit" organizations this was a win-win situation. That receive all the fees and shift the risk to another entity. That is good business.


oh subsale, your 'editorial' says it all began in the mid 90s.  Its what makes it a lying editorial.  Again, you and your 'editorial' have to ignore that

Bush told it started in late 2004
the fed told you it started in late 2004
the facts about subprime and No Doc loans told you it started in late 2004
Bush stopped GSE 'reform' in 2003
GSE 'reform' in 2003 had nothing to do with subprime
Bush told Barney there was nothing wrong with Freddie and fannie
(all the following were in 2004)
Bush reversed the clinton rule that 'reined in' Freddie and Fannie's subprime purchases
Bush forced freddie and fannie to buy more low income home loans
Bush gave away 40,000 free downpayments
Bush allowed 150,000 people to have zero downpayments
Bush said he wanted 5.5 million new minority home owners
Bush PROTECTS PREDATORY LENDERS
Bush relaxes net capital rule for investment banks

and guess what subsale, if you post any of those statements with the link to prove it in the comment section Mr Hancock deletes the post.  So when he says "freedom of speech" he means freedom of his speech.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: supsalemgr on February 05, 2013, 02:48:55 PM
Feel free to live in your own world.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Solar on February 05, 2013, 03:23:28 PM
Quote from: Vern on February 05, 2013, 01:03:07 PM

Solar, see how you cant follow a simple point.  I was addressing supsales's false assertion that I have blind allegiance to Obama.  (I used the quote function so how could you not follow the point) .  I then said all you cons have such blind hatred of President Obama.  I then used the example of kram lying about UE. He's not that stupid so he was obviously lying or blinded by hatred. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.  I then accused you of having blind hatred of everything I post.  What else explains your inability to understand what I post, follow a simple point or you repeatedly accusing me of posting something I didn't. 


See how your blind hatred makes the connection that I posted it so therefore I 'own' every opinion in it.  You posted the 'opinion' of the Financial Commission.  I posted an  opinion from it to show they thought it was the Lehman collapse and the impending AIG collapse caused the market crash and sent the economy deeper into recession.   I even disputed the part about AIG when I posted it in conjunction with another link.  and when I find it, I'm going to 'quote' you saying you don't trust 'gubment links' but boy oh boy you sure are married to this one.   


"it was the collapse of the housing bubble—fueled by low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages— that was the spark

And this is why I dispute  it  (Now read this slowly) low interest rates and anything Carter, Reagan or Clinton did not allow banks to lower their lending standards in late 2004 and low interest rates and anything Carter, Reagan or Clinton did not prevent Bush's regulators from stopping it.   

Why not blame the invention of mortgages? If they hadn't been invented, bush's regulators couldn't have pretended not to see the increase from 10 % to  40 % of all mortgages being subprime and the increase  from 4.3 % to over 50% of all mortgages were No Docs.  And when did the increase start? That's right, late 2004.
My blind hatred for whom? I have no love for either party, they both are taking us to Hell using different roads, but both lead to Hell in the end.

I posted proof from your link that stated they believe both party's were responsible.
The fact that Bush tried to stop the impending doom mans nothing to you, because it was the Dims who had Congress and blocked his initiatives, not to mention, Bush doesn't write Bills, so Bush could only do what Congress allowed him to do.
Yes, it happened on Bush' watch, he could have handed it off to Husein and let him deal with it, then we could say it was Husein's fault, but that is just as dishonest, it was both Party's.
Damn you're one seriously biased individual.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Solar on February 05, 2013, 03:35:23 PM
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 05, 2013, 01:31:35 PM
I have stayed out of this debate between Vern and Solar as Solar can take care of himself. However, Vern referred to my post and continues to rant on blindly so I will chime in.

http://tjhancock.wordpress.com/housing-bubble-financial-crisis-detailed-comprehensive-assessment/ (http://tjhancock.wordpress.com/housing-bubble-financial-crisis-detailed-comprehensive-assessment/)

This article indicates it all began in the mid nineties when banks were encouraged to lend to folks who previously could not obtain mortgages. The banks were more than willing to go along when they knew they could dump these mortgages on Fannie and Freddie. Since they are "for profit" organizations this was a win-win situation. That receive all the fees and shift the risk to another entity. That is good business.

Now I am gone from this thread as Vern enjoys going around in circles and I don't like chasing my tail.
I'm ready to drop out as well, his bias does not allow him to see it took both party's to create this mess and both to fix it.
Though sadly I don't believe it can be fixed, neither party is interested in a solution.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Vern on February 05, 2013, 04:10:23 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 05, 2013, 03:23:28 PM
I posted proof from your link that stated they believe both party's were responsible.

You posted an opinion from the Financial Crisis Commission. And you dont even know what it says. Its definitely trying to spread the blame but I've disputed their 'opinion' even when I posted it.  What makes you a hypocrite is you ignore every other link that I post and cling to this convenient 'opinion' from a 'gubment link'.  I use the FCC for facts and quotes.  Their opinions are flawed and political.   


Quote from: Solar on February 05, 2013, 03:23:28 PM
The fact that Bush tried to stop the impending doom mans nothing to you, because it was the Dims who had Congress and blocked his initiatives, not to mention, Bush doesn't write Bills, so Bush could only do what Congress allowed him to do.
Yes, it happened on Bush' watch, he could have handed it off to Husein and let him deal with it, then we could say it was Husein's fault, but that is just as dishonest, it was both Party's.

Solar, I've proven that bush absolutely did not try to stop the bubble.  I've proven he stopped the magic reform bill that you think would have prevented the bubble.  I've posted the Bush policies that encouraged, funded and protected the Bush Mortgage Bubble.  Now solar, read this repeatedly and slowly: Dems did not control congress in 2003 or 2004.

so you have proven that you will cling to a narrative even after it has been proven false.  What interest rates, Carter, Reagan and Clinton had no effect on Bush's regulators letting banks literally stop checking people's income.

Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: kramarat on February 05, 2013, 04:35:24 PM
More pissing in the wind:

http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/04/the-truth-about-fannie-and-fre (http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/04/the-truth-about-fannie-and-fre)
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Vern on February 05, 2013, 05:33:26 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 05, 2013, 03:23:28 PM

The fact that Bush tried to stop the impending doom mans nothing to you, because it was the Dims who had Congress and blocked his initiatives, not to mention, Bush doesn't write Bills, so Bush could only do what Congress allowed him to do.
Yes, it happened on Bush' watch, he could have handed it off to Husein and let him deal with it, then we could say it was Husein's fault, but that is just as dishonest, it was both Party's.

kram, see what solar posted.  remember when you used to believe that?  again, stop posting editorials that dont tell you the truth.  I posted the toxic bush policies that encouraged, funded and protected the Bush Mortgage bubble. Why doesnt your 'editorial' even mention them? Now that you know about them, how come you dont whine at your editorial that they are just Clinton haters or whine about their blind allegiance to Bush?   

When Bush's regulators noticed the 1000 % increase in No Doc loans, do you think they fretted about what Carter, Reagan or Clinton did?   

Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Solar on February 05, 2013, 05:44:50 PM
Quote from: Vern on February 05, 2013, 04:10:23 PM
You posted an opinion from the Financial Crisis Commission. And you dont even know what it says. Its definitely trying to spread the blame but I've disputed their 'opinion' even when I posted it.  What makes you a hypocrite is you ignore every other link that I post and cling to this convenient 'opinion' from a 'gubment link'.  I use the FCC for facts and quotes.  Their opinions are flawed and political.   


Solar, I've proven that bush absolutely did not try to stop the bubble.  I've proven he stopped the magic reform bill that you think would have prevented the bubble.  I've posted the Bush policies that encouraged, funded and protected the Bush Mortgage Bubble.  Now solar, read this repeatedly and slowly: Dems did not control congress in 2003 or 2004.

so you have proven that you will cling to a narrative even after it has been proven false.  What interest rates, Carter, Reagan and Clinton had no effect on Bush's regulators letting banks literally stop checking people's income.
So now your link is an opinion piece? Regardless, I think  they know far more about the inner workings than you do.
Now look at this chart of names, and tell me who benefited most from Freddie and Fannie.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html)


Now watch closely and pay attention to the timeline.
Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM#)
Title: can you at least admit risky practices are bad.
Post by: Vern on February 05, 2013, 06:07:18 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 05, 2013, 05:44:50 PM
So now your link is an opinion piece? Regardless, I think  they know far more about the inner workings than you do.


geez again with the lying youtube video.  if you cling to the "if only we had properly regulated freddie and fannie" then be mad at bush for stopping reform and the republican controlled congress for doing nothing. And bush stopped it twice. 

and actually, I dont know if they know more than me but when I easily can point out the 'flaws' in their opinions, it sure looks like it.  case in point. The FCC said

"Yet we do not accept the view that regulators lacked the power to protect the financial system. They had ample power in many arenas and they chose not to use it. To give just three examples: the Securities and Exchange Commission could have required more capital and halted risky practices at the big investment banks. It did not."

seems that the FCC thought the SEC could have and should have raised capital levels at investment banks  to halt risky practices.  let that sink in:increase capital levels, halt risky practices. 

just to be sure you got it: increase capital levels, halt risky practices. 

Bush lowered capital levels for investment banks.  guess what they bought with the ability to borrow more money, yes mortgages. risky practices increased. 

so if not increasing capital levels to halt risky practices is bad
lowering capital levels to increase risky practices

and guess what year he lowered capital levels/increased risky practices? go ahead and guess. If you've read any of my posts you know the year that Bush lowered capital levels to increase risky practices. 
Title: Re: can you at least admit risky practices are bad.
Post by: Solar on February 05, 2013, 06:48:23 PM
Quote from: Vern on February 05, 2013, 06:07:18 PM
geez again with the lying youtube video.  if you cling to the "if only we had properly regulated freddie and fannie" then be mad at bush for stopping reform and the republican controlled congress for doing nothing. And bush stopped it twice. 

and actually, I dont know if they know more than me but when I easily can point out the 'flaws' in their opinions, it sure looks like it.  case in point. The FCC said

"Yet we do not accept the view that regulators lacked the power to protect the financial system. They had ample power in many arenas and they chose not to use it. To give just three examples: the Securities and Exchange Commission could have required more capital and halted risky practices at the big investment banks. It did not."

seems that the FCC thought the SEC could have and should have raised capital levels at investment banks  to halt risky practices.  let that sink in:increase capital levels, halt risky practices. 

just to be sure you got it: increase capital levels, halt risky practices. 

Bush lowered capital levels for investment banks.  guess what they bought with the ability to borrow more money, yes mortgages. risky practices increased. 

so if not increasing capital levels to halt risky practices is bad
lowering capital levels to increase risky practices

and guess what year he lowered capital levels/increased risky practices? go ahead and guess. If you've read any of my posts you know the year that Bush lowered capital levels to increase risky practices.
Ya know, you are really tiring, or rather boring.
Let me read you a little quote from a long time line explaining the housing mess, starting with Nixon, that's right, a Pub created this mess if you want to point fingers.
At least this was one honest Dim that realizes they were wrong.

September 2008

Rep. Arthur Davis, "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."

I suggest you read and observe the time line and how the left blocked any attempts to salvage the mass.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/what_really_happened_in_the_mo.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/what_really_happened_in_the_mo.html)
Title: How come American thinker doesnt know these facts?
Post by: Vern on February 07, 2013, 04:54:58 AM
Oh solar, you make me laugh.  I  show you toxic policy after toxic policy from Bush that encouraged, funded and protected the Bush Mortgage Bubble. And all the policies were in 2004, the exact year that the Bush Mortgage Bubble started. I show you Bush's regulators literally cheering on the banks.   I show you Bush stopping GSE reform in 2003 and 2005.  I show you Bush clearing stating he was against reform because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers." 
Yet you post a lying American Thinker editorial and cling to these delusions as if your life depended on it:
"bush tried to reform Freddie and fannie"
"dems stopped reform"
"reform would have prevented the Bush Mortgage Bubble"

Lets read your quote.  There was no GSE reform bill in 2004. STOP. Freddie and fannie did not cause the Bush Mortgage bubble. STOP.  Since you like quotes so much, here's Mike Oxley, REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICE COMMITTEE after Bush attacked the only GSE reform bill that any chamber of the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS ever passed.

""Instead, the Ohio Republican who headed the House financial services committee until his retirement after mid-term elections last year, blames the mess on ideologues within the White House as well as Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.
The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq."

"What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute."

Go put "Oxley hits back at ideologues" into google.  Cant do direct  link

Title: Re: How come American thinker doesnt know these facts?
Post by: Solar on February 07, 2013, 05:36:06 AM
Quote from: Vern on February 07, 2013, 04:54:58 AM
Oh solar, you make me laugh.  I  show you toxic policy after toxic policy from Bush that encouraged, funded and protected the Bush Mortgage Bubble. And all the policies were in 2004, the exact year that the Bush Mortgage Bubble started. I show you Bush's regulators literally cheering on the banks.   I show you Bush stopping GSE reform in 2003 and 2005.  I show you Bush clearing stating he was against reform because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers." 
Yet you post a lying American Thinker editorial and cling to these delusions as if your life depended on it:
"bush tried to reform Freddie and fannie"
"dems stopped reform"
"reform would have prevented the Bush Mortgage Bubble"

Lets read your quote.  There was no GSE reform bill in 2004. STOP. Freddie and fannie did not cause the Bush Mortgage bubble. STOP.  Since you like quotes so much, here's Mike Oxley, REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICE COMMITTEE after Bush attacked the only GSE reform bill that any chamber of the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS ever passed.

""Instead, the Ohio Republican who headed the House financial services committee until his retirement after mid-term elections last year, blames the mess on ideologues within the White House as well as Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.
The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq."

"What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute."

Go put "Oxley hits back at ideologues" into google.  Cant do direct  link
Yes I agree, all of that is true, but to focus solely on one aspect in time is ludicrous.
It's also why I point out it was both Party's that screwed this whole thing up, it's why corporate welfare fails the private sector every time.
Now lets move forward in time when the Bush administration finally realized it was way in over it's head and asked the Dim controlled Congress for help in rectifying the problem.
It was the Dims that blocked any effort to rectify the situation after it was obvious a mistake had been made.
So again, it took both party's to create this mess, yet somehow it's still all bush's fault?

Let me ask you this, did Bush not ask Dims to help reform GSEs, and did they not block such efforts, did they, meaning Clinton and Arthur Davi not apologize to that very fact after the bubble popped?

To ignore this is either complete ignorance of the system, or a willing blindness to how a Capitalist system functions. I'm willing to bet you think complete governmental control over everything is the answer, micromanaged from on high is the solution.
Your need to blame Bush for something both party's are to blame for screams volumes of your belief that socialism would work, if Capitalists would just get out of the way.

You do realize an apology from them is an admittance of shared responsibility, right?
Title: sorry solar, the 'quote' function only slowed me down
Post by: Vern on February 07, 2013, 08:36:01 AM
"Yes I agree, all of that is true, but to focus solely on one aspect in time is ludicrous."

I'm focusing on the time that the Bush Mortgage Bubble started.  I focusing on the Bush policies that encouraged, funded and protected the bubble. I'm focusing on Bush's regulators not just letting it happen but encouraging it.

"Now lets move forward in time when the Bush administration finally realized it was way in over it's head and asked the Dim controlled Congress for help in rectifying the problem.It was the Dims that blocked any effort to rectify the situation after it was obvious a mistake had been made. "

This 'time' does not exist. You are laboring under the delusion A Bush tried to stop it. B democrats controlled congess.  I showed that Bush stopped reform in 2003 and 2005.  the reform in 2003 had nothing to do with subprime and democrats didn't "block it".  Bush withdrew support for it.  Bush openly attacked the GSE reform in 2005 because it addressed the subprime issue. 

"So again, it took both party's to create this mess, yet somehow it's still all bush's fault?"

So your conclusion that both are to blame is based on false beliefs that bush tried to stop it and dems blocked it.  Humor me solar, post something that shows Bush 'realized' he was in over his head and post something that shows Bush asking the dem controlled congress for help.  Don't post an editorial that just repeats those sentences.


"Let me ask you this, did Bush not ask Dims to help reform GSEs, and did they not block such efforts, "

Read this slowly. Bush asked the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS FOR GSE REFORM in 2003.  And then he shot it down.  He didn't ask the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS FOR GSE REFORM in 2005. The one in 2005 was actual reform.  He openly attacked it.  Did republicans block Obamacare? nothey didnt. But there was no such partisan outcry against GSE reform in 2003 and 2005.  There was a bipartisan concensus on GSE reform and then bush killed it. 

"did they, meaning Clinton and Arthur Davi not apologize to that very fact after the bubble popped?"

Clinton in no way apologized. He clearly stated what responsibilities dems had lies with "resisting reform".  Some dems resisted reform but in 2003 REFORM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SUBPRIME.  And Davi's 'apology' is factually inaccurate and irrelevant. GSEs did not cause the Bush mortgage bubble.   And I never heard of him.  You've heard of bush when he said he wanted 5.5 million new minority home owners and you've heard of Bush when he said GSE reform "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers." 

And solar, I've documented every statement I've made in this post. You've only repeated things you really really really wish were true. 
Title: I'm not posting 'editorials' and congratulate me, I'm a full member
Post by: Vern on February 07, 2013, 09:05:26 AM
"Strong opposition by the Bush administration forced a top Republican congressman to delay a vote on a bill that would create a new regulator for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oxley-pulls-fannie-freddie-bill-under-heat-from-bush (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oxley-pulls-fannie-freddie-bill-under-heat-from-bush)

"Despite what appeared to be a broad consensus on GSE regulatory reform, efforts quickly stalled. A legislative markup scheduled for October 8, 2003, in the House of Representatives was halted because the Bush administration withdrew its support for the bill,"

http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/er04_framewhite.pdf (http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/er04_framewhite.pdf)


A few 10 second quotes and magic presto every con believes  "dems blocked reform"  And after stopping reform in 2003,  Bush spent the next year campaigning on increasing home ownership and routinely bragged about his housing bubble.  .

"Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership

We want more people owning their own home in America," Bush said. His goal is to have 5.5 million minority homeowners in the country by the end of the decade."

Read it to the end and get this nugget.  (the critic is Barney Frank)


"And while Bush has emphasized promoting home ownership in his federal housing policy proposals, critics say that help for low-income renters and more affordable housing is a much more sorely needed focus."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115279,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115279,00.html)

Meanwhile, President Bush spoke Friday in New Mexico — a state he lost by just a few hundred votes four years ago — to remind voters there of the strength of the housing market (search), touting it as one of the accomplishments of his administration

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115280,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115280,00.html)

Mmm, the campaign ended early Nov 2004 and the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004, mmmmm
Title: Re: sorry solar, the 'quote' function only slowed me down
Post by: Solar on February 07, 2013, 09:21:38 AM
Quote from: Vern on February 07, 2013, 08:36:01 AM
"Yes I agree, all of that is true, but to focus solely on one aspect in time is ludicrous."

I'm focusing on the time that the Bush Mortgage Bubble started.  I focusing on the Bush policies that encouraged, funded and protected the bubble. I'm focusing on Bush's regulators not just letting it happen but encouraging it.

"Now lets move forward in time when the Bush administration finally realized it was way in over it's head and asked the Dim controlled Congress for help in rectifying the problem.It was the Dims that blocked any effort to rectify the situation after it was obvious a mistake had been made. "

This 'time' does not exist. You are laboring under the delusion A Bush tried to stop it. B democrats controlled congess.  I showed that Bush stopped reform in 2003 and 2005.  the reform in 2003 had nothing to do with subprime and democrats didn't "block it".  Bush withdrew support for it.  Bush openly attacked the GSE reform in 2005 because it addressed the subprime issue. 

"So again, it took both party's to create this mess, yet somehow it's still all bush's fault?"

So your conclusion that both are to blame is based on false beliefs that bush tried to stop it and dems blocked it.  Humor me solar, post something that shows Bush 'realized' he was in over his head and post something that shows Bush asking the dem controlled congress for help.  Don't post an editorial that just repeats those sentences.


"Let me ask you this, did Bush not ask Dims to help reform GSEs, and did they not block such efforts, "

Read this slowly. Bush asked the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS FOR GSE REFORM in 2003.  And then he shot it down.  He didn't ask the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS FOR GSE REFORM in 2005. The one in 2005 was actual reform.  He openly attacked it.  Did republicans block Obamacare? nothey didnt. But there was no such partisan outcry against GSE reform in 2003 and 2005.  There was a bipartisan concensus on GSE reform and then bush killed it. 

"did they, meaning Clinton and Arthur Davi not apologize to that very fact after the bubble popped?"

Clinton in no way apologized. He clearly stated what responsibilities dems had lies with "resisting reform".  Some dems resisted reform but in 2003 REFORM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SUBPRIME.  And Davi's 'apology' is factually inaccurate and irrelevant. GSEs did not cause the Bush mortgage bubble.   And I never heard of him.  You've heard of bush when he said he wanted 5.5 million new minority home owners and you've heard of Bush when he said GSE reform "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers." 

And solar, I've documented every statement I've made in this post. You've only repeated things you really really really wish were true.
Jump ahead and get out of 2005, I'm talking about 2007.
Learn to use the quote function, your posts look like crap and are hard to follow.

Quote
September 2007

President Bush: "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs . . . the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon."
Again, look at the date! He is not talking about 2005.

QuoteSeptember 2008

Rep. Arthur Davis, "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."

Wake up Skippy, were talking about Bush trying to reverse the mistakes he made and those before him, but the Dims blocked it.
Bush alone is not the cause of the pop, both party's screwed up the system, a system that shouldn't even exist!
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: taxed on February 07, 2013, 09:57:31 AM
Vern, use the quote function.  Your quotes are now blended in with the quotes of others, making the threads very hard to follow.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: supsalemgr on February 07, 2013, 10:34:02 AM
Quote from: taxed on February 07, 2013, 09:57:31 AM
Vern, use the quote function.  Your quotes are now blended in with the quotes of others, making the threads very hard to follow.

Vern may be doing it on purpose because he really doesn't want us to fully comprehend his rants.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: taxed on February 07, 2013, 10:37:19 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 07, 2013, 10:34:02 AM
Vern may be doing it on purpose because he really doesn't want us to fully comprehend his rants.

Actually, that is exactly what it is.  Liberals need to obfuscate the conversation in any way they can.  It seriously is a common tactic they use.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Solar on February 07, 2013, 11:31:16 AM
Quote from: taxed on February 07, 2013, 10:37:19 AM
Actually, that is exactly what it is.  Liberals need to obfuscate the conversation in any way they can.  It seriously is a common tactic they use.
I won't even mention the fact that he doesn't understand every sentence starts with a Capital letter.
Nope, won't mention it, not at all, not one time. :rolleyes: :laugh:
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: three_rights on February 07, 2013, 01:21:51 PM
Vern,

The changes to HUD, FHA, Fannie, Freddie that you referenced, were related to a restructure of Section 8. Basically, there was a huge transition from Low Income Housing Tax Credits and federal grants to construct and manage public housing projects to a system of housing vouchers, non-recourse loans and policies to facilitate home ownership.

There is a fine line between legislation that imposes a byzantine morass of rules that make financing impossible to obtain, and one that is so general that business, (including myself) will abuse until we run the economy into the ground. 

The dialog I strongly suggest you engage in, is one intended to define that balance. 








Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: taxed on February 08, 2013, 01:51:56 PM
Quote from: three_rights on February 07, 2013, 01:21:51 PM
Vern,

The changes to HUD, FHA, Fannie, Freddie that you referenced, were related to a restructure of Section 8. Basically, there was a huge transition from Low Income Housing Tax Credits and federal grants to construct and manage public housing projects to a system of housing vouchers, non-recourse loans and policies to facilitate home ownership.

There is a fine line between legislation that imposes a byzantine morass of rules that make financing impossible to obtain, and one that is so general that business, (including myself) will abuse until we run the economy into the ground.

Please explain.

The dialog I strongly suggest you engage in, is one intended to define that balance.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: kramarat on February 08, 2013, 02:33:09 PM
Quote from: taxed on February 08, 2013, 01:51:56 PM


I didn't understand that either.

I think that the vast majority of business owners are honest. The rip off artists don't last long, and the truly lawless bad apples should be busted and thrown in jail.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: supsalemgr on February 08, 2013, 03:03:36 PM
Quote from: taxed on February 08, 2013, 01:51:56 PM


I think Vern took the typical lib approach. His use of "abuse" is diversion from companies knowing the laws and working them to their benefit. If it was not illegal there is nothing wrong with it. The law allowed the lenders to shift the risk to the feds.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: rich_t on February 08, 2013, 03:07:14 PM
I thought that Vern was given the boot.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: taxed on February 08, 2013, 03:24:32 PM
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 08, 2013, 03:03:36 PM
I think Vern took the typical lib approach. His use of "abuse" is diversion from companies knowing the laws and working them to their benefit. If it was not illegal there is nothing wrong with it. The law allowed the lenders to shift the risk to the feds.

Totally.  This is the same genius who said Marx and Friedman have the same philosophy.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: kramarat on February 08, 2013, 03:28:17 PM
Quote from: rich_t on February 08, 2013, 03:07:14 PM
I thought that Vern was given the boot.

I think he was; it doesn't hurt to study the tactics though. There will be others. :wink:

At least Vern was honest enough, (from the start), that he was only here to crap on the party. Too bad; he could have learned something.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Solar on February 08, 2013, 04:23:00 PM
Quote from: rich_t on February 08, 2013, 03:07:14 PM
I thought that Vern was given the boot.
Taxed gave him the ax for simply not following etiquette when quoting and not answering questions when posed.
Typical lib, no respect for standards or common courtesy.

You don't come to a forum and think you can command the debate, reciprocation is key when trying to find common ground, he was in no way interested in an opposing view, or truth for that matter, he had an agenda, "It's All Bush's Fault", that shit was tired the first year...
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: kramarat on February 08, 2013, 04:30:45 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 08, 2013, 04:23:00 PM
Taxed gave him the ax for simply not following etiquette when quoting and not answering questions when posed.
Typical lib, no respect for standards or common courtesy.

You don't come to a forum and think you can command the debate, reciprocation is key when trying to find common ground, he was in no way interested in an opposing view, or truth for that matter, he had an agenda, "It's All Bush's Fault", that shit was tired the first year...

I've actually thought about hitting a lib forum en masse. We could change our names to protect the guilty.

I'm probably just a bully, but I think it would be fun. :thumbup:
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Solar on February 08, 2013, 05:07:24 PM
Quote from: kramarat on February 08, 2013, 04:30:45 PM
I've actually thought about hitting a lib forum en masse. We could change our names to protect the guilty.

I'm probably just a bully, but I think it would be fun. :thumbup:
Nothing like beating your head against the wall. They have no interest in facts, just emotional BS.
What's the definition of insanity? :laugh:
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: kramarat on February 08, 2013, 06:26:17 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 08, 2013, 05:07:24 PM
Nothing like beating your head against the wall. They have no interest in facts, just emotional BS.
What's the definition of insanity? :laugh:

I think I just enjoy messing with libs. I'll try to give an example, if I can post the link from FB:

Here's the link from one of my lib friends............

http://jessicavalenti.tumblr.com/post/42612393836/shhhh-no-one-tell-fox-news-that-the-wedding-kiss (http://jessicavalenti.tumblr.com/post/42612393836/shhhh-no-one-tell-fox-news-that-the-wedding-kiss)


Here's my comment from the comment section:

Which one is the man?

Somebody send me some footage of the wedding night consummation, and I might get interested. ;-)

Girl love is awesome!!!!!



Did I mention that libs tend to hate my guts? :biggrin:
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Cryptic Bert on February 08, 2013, 06:42:55 PM
Quote from: kramarat on February 08, 2013, 02:33:09 PM
I didn't understand that either.

I think that the vast majority of business owners are honest. The rip off artists don't last long, and the truly lawless bad apples should be busted and thrown in jail.

Those that do last usually are protected by and connected to the government or at the very least are able to take advantage of people because the government created the atmosphere. The housing bubble is a prime example.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: kramarat on February 08, 2013, 07:12:03 PM
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 08, 2013, 06:42:55 PM
Those that do last usually are protected by and connected to the government or at the very least are able to take advantage of people because the government created the atmosphere. The housing bubble is a prime example.

I can't come up with one problem that we are experiencing, that doesn't lead back to government.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: three_rights on February 12, 2013, 12:56:06 PM
Taxed, Solar.  If you two are not in politics, you should be.

Sure, I'll explain. 

In the 1980's the banks were allowed to (1) base the value of the collateral (the mortgaged land) upon its improved value for the purpose of determining their Tier I capital reserves and  (2) hold equity positions in real estate development projects and to count the theoretical sell out value of a proposed construction project towards their Tier I capital Reserves, and (3) incorporate soft costs into a land loan.

Loan Closings in these days, meant walking away from closing with $0 in cash equity and more money in your pocket than you had when you started. This system was perfectly legal, but it also caused the collapse of the S&L's and gave rise to the Resolution Trust.

In the late 1990's to 2004, the rules used to calculate risk based capital reserves were relaxed once again to allow Developers to not have any of cash equity in their real estate deals, and once again the Banks Collapsed.

When I said "myself included", I meant I personally benefited from both of these systems. The only difference between the 80% of the projects I have taken from zoning to sell out and the 20% were I defaulted, and my investors lost all of their money is that amount of money that was made. 


I completely agree with Capital Gains Taxes, however I don't think that it should be theoretically possible for a person to declare winning the Power Ball as a capital gain,and yeah from my perspective the the only difference between having power ball winnings from being taxed at 34% instead of 15% is a little bit of foresight.



Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: taxed on February 12, 2013, 01:16:20 PM
Quote from: three_rights on February 12, 2013, 12:56:06 PM
Taxed, Solar.  If you two are not in politics, you should be.

Sure, I'll explain. 

In the 1980's the banks were allowed to (1) base the value of the collateral (the mortgaged land) upon its improved value for the purpose of determining their Tier I capital reserves and  (2) hold equity positions in real estate development projects and to count the theoretical sell out value of a proposed construction project towards their Tier I capital Reserves, and (3) incorporate soft costs into a land loan.

Loan Closings in these days, meant walking away from closing with $0 in cash equity and more money in your pocket than you had when you started. This system was perfectly legal, but it also caused the collapse of the S&L's and gave rise to the Resolution Trust.

In the late 1990's to 2004, the rules used to calculate risk based capital reserves were relaxed once again to allow Developers to not have any of cash equity in their real estate deals, and once again the Banks Collapsed.

Thanks for explaining, but you still didn't explain.  I don't understand the "including myself" part of your post.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Solar on February 12, 2013, 02:58:11 PM
OK, I do agree, we should be in office so we could clean this mess up.
As I stated before, both party's screwed this up going back to the 70s and beyond.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: walkstall on February 12, 2013, 03:09:39 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 12, 2013, 02:58:11 PM
OK, I do agree, we should be in office so we could clean this mess up.
As I stated before, both party's screwed this up going back to  the 70s and beyond.

As I remember it was in the 30s and beyond. 
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: Solar on February 12, 2013, 03:13:51 PM
Quote from: walkstall on February 12, 2013, 03:09:39 PM
As I remember it was in the 30s and beyond.
Yes, but I start this scenario with going off the gold standard under Nixon.
But yes, it started long before, FDR is the bigger ass in the mix, Teddy before him.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: three_rights on February 12, 2013, 04:35:23 PM
I' am starting to think that the most intelligent people here are some diaper wearing college kids, that ain't got a  clue. Smart but freakin clueless.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: taxed on February 12, 2013, 05:16:35 PM
Quote from: three_rights on February 12, 2013, 04:35:23 PM
I' am starting to think that the most intelligent people here are some diaper wearing college kids, that ain't got a  clue. Smart but freakin clueless.

When you can match my experience in the real estate industry, you can talk son.  Until then, learn to explain yourself.
Title: Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
Post by: simpsonofpg on March 07, 2013, 01:42:19 PM
This makes no sense, these people are back to buying things they can't afford.  I can remember when 20% was the minium down.  This market is like a yoyo.