Author Topic: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)  (Read 1939 times)

Offline Solar

  • '
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34230
  • Gender: Male
Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
« Reply #30 on: February 05, 2013, 05:44:50 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


Now watch closely and pay attention to the timeline.
Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline Vern

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 105
can you at least admit risky practices are bad.
« Reply #31 on: February 05, 2013, 06:07:18 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. 

Offline Solar

  • '
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34230
  • Gender: Male
Re: can you at least admit risky practices are bad.
« Reply #32 on: February 05, 2013, 06:48:23 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
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline Vern

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 105
How come American thinker doesnt know these facts?
« Reply #33 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


Offline Solar

  • '
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34230
  • Gender: Male
Re: How come American thinker doesnt know these facts?
« Reply #34 on: February 07, 2013, 05:36:06 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?
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline Vern

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 105
sorry solar, the 'quote' function only slowed me down
« Reply #35 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. 

Offline Vern

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 105
I'm not posting 'editorials' and congratulate me, I'm a full member
« Reply #36 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

“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


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

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

Mmm, the campaign ended early Nov 2004 and the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004, mmmmm

Offline Solar

  • '
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34230
  • Gender: Male
Re: sorry solar, the 'quote' function only slowed me down
« Reply #37 on: February 07, 2013, 09:21:38 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.

Quote
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."

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!
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14213
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
« Reply #38 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.
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government."  -Milton Friedman

Offline supsalemgr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3850
  • Gender: Male
Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
« Reply #39 on: February 07, 2013, 10:34:02 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.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14213
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
« Reply #40 on: February 07, 2013, 10:37:19 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.
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government."  -Milton Friedman

Offline Solar

  • '
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34230
  • Gender: Male
Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
« Reply #41 on: February 07, 2013, 11:31:16 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:
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline three_rights

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
« Reply #42 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. 






 


Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14213
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
« Reply #43 on: February 08, 2013, 01:51:56 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.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2013, 02:31:38 PM by admin »
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government."  -Milton Friedman

Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 5201
  • Gender: Male
Re: Here We Go Again (Housing Bust, Anyone?)
« Reply #44 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.

 

Powered by EzPortal