Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble

Started by Vern, January 26, 2013, 10:53:58 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

kramarat

Here's a good rule of thumb, Vern. It doesn't matter if it's coming from a democrat or republican........whenever the government comes up with a bill, policy, or anything else that has the words "fair" or "fairness" in it, it's a really bad idea. It is bound to screw up the works.

Vern

"Refusing loans to people that can't possibly pay it back, is still illegal"

and there is the false analogy again. Hey kram, remember how you jumped to the false conclusion that Bush couldnt have implemented his OCC preemption because the Scotus overrulled it. You wanted to believe it so bad you ignored that the Scotus overturned in 2009. You're doing the same thing here.  And now you are conveniently confusing not being able to discriminate against the source of income. 

Now pay attention, every single piece of legislation or proposed rule since the Bush Mortgage Bubble has codified that Banks must check an applicant's ability to repay a loan. How funny is that. you have to pass laws to force banks to check income.   That also proves your analogy false.  The reason you dont know the truth about 'ability to repay' rules is that A you read lying editorials and B you dont want to know.

put this into google and educate yourself. "dodd-frank ability to repay proposal"

you guys seem to resent me trying to educate you.

Solar

Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 12:55:36 PM
"Refusing loans to people that can't possibly pay it back, is still illegal"

and there is the false analogy again. Hey kram, remember how you jumped to the false conclusion that Bush couldnt have implemented his OCC preemption because the Scotus overrulled it. You wanted to believe it so bad you ignored that the Scotus overturned in 2009. You're doing the same thing here.  And now you are conveniently confusing not being able to discriminate against the source of income. 

Now pay attention, every single piece of legislation or proposed rule since the Bush Mortgage Bubble has codified that Banks must check an applicant's ability to repay a loan. How funny is that. you have to pass laws to force banks to check income.   That also proves your analogy false.  The reason you dont know the truth about 'ability to repay' rules is that A you read lying editorials and B you dont want to know.

put this into google and educate yourself. "dodd-frank ability to repay proposal"

you guys seem to resent me trying to educate you.
Vern, ignoring my facts is not in your best interest, I suggest you address what Clinton said, or find another forum.
Your inability to actual debate is not conducive to a long stay on this forum.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Solar

Quote from: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 12:48:27 PM
Here's a good rule of thumb, Vern. It doesn't matter if it's coming from a democrat or republican........whenever the government comes up with a bill, policy, or anything else that has the words "fair" or "fairness" in it, it's a really bad idea. It is bound to screw up the works.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
The Fairness Doctrine comes to mind...
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

kramarat

#79
Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 12:55:36 PM
"Refusing loans to people that can't possibly pay it back, is still illegal"

and there is the false analogy again. Hey kram, remember how you jumped to the false conclusion that Bush couldnt have implemented his OCC preemption because the Scotus overrulled it. You wanted to believe it so bad you ignored that the Scotus overturned in 2009. You're doing the same thing here.  And now you are conveniently confusing not being able to discriminate against the source of income. 

Now pay attention, every single piece of legislation or proposed rule since the Bush Mortgage Bubble has codified that Banks must check an applicant's ability to repay a loan. How funny is that. you have to pass laws to force banks to check income.   That also proves your analogy false.  The reason you dont know the truth about 'ability to repay' rules is that A you read lying editorials and B you dont want to know.

put this into google and educate yourself. "dodd-frank ability to repay proposal"

you guys seem to resent me trying to educate you.

Yeah. That's a nice fake out on the part of government. It's called covering their asses.

In the run-up to the financial crisis, many borrowers were sold mortgages that they could not afford to pay back.

Now think about that for a minute, Vern. Do you honestly believe that banks would, (on their own), just pass out money to people that couldn't pay them back? Why would they do that?

Sorry pal. The government had their boots on their throats, and threatened to shut their asses down if they didn't give out these loans.

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/pressreleases/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-seeks-further-comment-on-ability-to-repay-mortgage-rule/

It's absolutely hysterical. Banks had tight lending standards before the government forced them to loosen them up for poor people.

Now the idiot Franks wants to look like he's riding to the rescue by saying that banks have to make sure that they can get their money back. I can't believe how damned stupid the American people are to buy into this load of crap.

Franks should wear a t shirt that says, "There, I fixed it". :lol:

Vern

"I suggest you address what Clinton said, or find another forum."

now thats funny.  You focus on something clinton said as if it proves anything. I saw your clinton quote with bush quotes and I raised you Bush's toxic housing policies.  And all clinton said is "what responsiblity dems have may lie with resisting reform". But since the 2003 reform had nothing to do with the subprime meltdown, dems have no responsibility for the Bush Mortgage Bubble. 

now solar address Bush
stopping reform in 2003
reversing the Clinton rule that reined in Freddie and Fannie 2004
forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans 2004
PROTECTING PREDATORY LENDERS 2004
saying he wanted 5.5 million new minority home owners 2004
attacking GSE reform (and stopping it) in 2005

or find yourself a new forum.

Solar

Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 01:13:13 PM
"I suggest you address what Clinton said, or find another forum."

now thats funny.  You focus on something clinton said as if it proves anything. I saw your clinton quote with bush quotes and I raised you Bush's toxic housing policies.  And all clinton said is "what responsiblity dems have may lie with resisting reform". But since the 2003 reform had nothing to do with the subprime meltdown, dems have no responsibility for the Bush Mortgage Bubble. 

now solar address Bush
stopping reform in 2003
reversing the Clinton rule that reined in Freddie and Fannie 2004
forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans 2004
PROTECTING PREDATORY LENDERS 2004
saying he wanted 5.5 million new minority home owners 2004
attacking GSE reform (and stopping it) in 2005

or find yourself a new forum.
I already did address it, and I said Bush did relax laws, but also pointed out they had nothing to do with a bubble already formed.
So somehow you are more informed than Clinton, when he had inside information as to the problem?
He admits they should have listened to the warnings from the right, yet went ahead with their legislation anyway.
But obviously you are smarter than everyone else...
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Solar

Quote from: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 01:10:02 PM
Yeah. That's a nice fake out on the part of government. It's called covering their asses.

In the run-up to the financial crisis, many borrowers were sold mortgages that they could not afford to pay back.

Now think about that for a minute, Vern. Do you honestly believe that banks would, (on their own), just pass out money to people that couldn't pay them back? Why would they do that?

Sorry pal. The government had their boots on their throats, and threatened to shut their asses down if they didn't give out these loans.

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/pressreleases/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-seeks-further-comment-on-ability-to-repay-mortgage-rule/
Facts mean nothing when you're on a Bush witch hunt.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

kramarat

Quote from: Solar on January 27, 2013, 01:22:32 PM
Facts mean nothing when you're on a Bush witch hunt.

Oh Oh.......Guess who was working for ACORN and suing banks to force them to make bad loans?

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/obama-sued-citi.html

Solar

Quote from: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 01:56:24 PM
Oh Oh.......Guess who was working for ACORN and suing banks to force them to make bad loans?

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/obama-sued-citi.html
It's funny this was front page for a couple of days, yet libs still ignored the Husein connection as a Senator.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

taxed

Quote from: kramarat on January 26, 2013, 07:55:26 PM
Sorry for the interruption, but despite his brash start, if he understands that government is the problem.......there's hope.

I must have missed that one....
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

kramarat

Quote from: taxed on January 27, 2013, 02:11:44 PM
I must have missed that one....

Cancel that. I had a beer buzz going and I tried to be nice. He's hopeless. :cry:

kramarat

Quote from: Solar on January 27, 2013, 02:10:00 PM
It's funny this was front page for a couple of days, yet libs still ignored the Husein connection as a Senator.

It amazes me, that people actually believe that lenders across the country just woke up one morning and decided to hand out money to people that would never pay them back.

I can completely understand cracking down on lenders that were practicing racial discrimination on qualified borrowers, but to label it discrimination in cases where people had no ability to pay back the loan, is insanity. Banks are in business to make money, not give it away. :confused:

Solar

Quote from: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 02:18:58 PM
Cancel that. I had a beer buzz going and I tried to be nice. He's hopeless. :cry:
How can someone be so blind as to not see the real problem? Big Govt!
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Vern

"Now think about that for a minute, Vern. Do you honestly believe that banks would, (on their own), just pass out money to people that couldn't pay them back? Why would they do that?"

um kram, the govt didnt 'force' banks to give loans to people who couldnt afford them. you cant post one factual link that says that.  You can post lots of editorials but nothing factual.  and kram, the reason banks lent their own money to people who's income they didnt bother to check was A they felt home prices wouldnt go down and they'd be covered on the foreclosure and B they sold the mortgage to somebody else.  That transferred the risk to the buyer.   and as I have proven, Banks didnt stop checking income until late 2004.  So if you cling to the "govt forced" delusions then blame the republican president, republican house and republican senate. 

keep grasping at straws kram. I enjoy watching cons flopping around desperately looking for any string of words to try to make the facts go away.