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.
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 badlowering 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.
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.”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.
September 2007President 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."
September 2008Rep. 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."
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.
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.
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.