Conservative Political Forum

General Category => Financial => Topic started by: Vern on January 26, 2013, 10:53:58 AM

Title: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Vern on January 26, 2013, 10:53:58 AM
Lets examine the bush policies that encouraged, funded and protected the mortgage bubble that devastated the economy and almost destroyed the financial system.  First a little background.  when did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?  Lets ask Bush's Working Group on Financial Markets.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/Documents/q4progress%20update.pdf (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/Documents/q4progress%20update.pdf)

the President's Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Group's March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 26, 2013, 11:12:22 AM
You do realize Bush warned the Dims about the bubble, yet they did nothing to stop it.
Bush alone is not responsible, it took the two Dims to screw it all up.

I might add Bush did a lot of stupid things, like signing this Bill, but it is the Leftists that take the majority of the blame, since it was they who wrote the Bill and sponsored it as well.

Rewriting the rules of fiscal responsibility to buy votes, will always come back to bite you in the ass, unfortunately we are all paying for the crap the left inflicted upon the Country.
http://www.truthandcommonsense.org/ (http://www.truthandcommonsense.org/)
Title: FYI. I'll back up everything I post. You'll just post lying editorials
Post by: Vern on January 26, 2013, 12:02:55 PM
"You do realize Bush warned the Dims about the bubble, yet they did nothing to stop it."

I wasnt really looking to shred that silly narrative just yet but you seem like the persistent type.  I know you think that 10 second clip of Barney saying there is nothng wrong with Freddie and Fannie as proof of what you believe but it only proves barney said it.  Lets review some facts you probably are not aware of:

1 Dems were in the minority in congress. 
2 Bush told barney frank there was nothing wrong with Freddie and Fannie (and there was nothing wrong at the time, the Bush Mortgage Bubble  hadnt started yet, see above link)
3 the GSE 'reform' bill had nothing to do with subprime
4 Bush stopped the GSE reform in 2003
 
You can prove 1 for yourself (hopefully). Here's Bush 'telling' Barney there is nothing wrong with Freddie and Fannie. 

Testimony from W's Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation' of the GSE's
"
"
Mr. Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.
"

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_house_hearings&docid=f:92231.wais (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_house_hearings&docid=f:92231.wais)
Title: How come none of your 'editorials' ever mention this?
Post by: Vern on January 26, 2013, 12:13:19 PM
As I said, the magical 'reform' had nothing to do with Subprime.  How do I know? Bush already had the ability to limit the GSEs from buying subprime mortgages. (remember this later when I show the explosion of subprime mortgages starting in 2004)

The Clinton admin recognizes an increase in abusive subprime loans.  Issues rule preventing the GSEs from counting them against their housing goals.  Subprime growth stops

"(In 2000) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626_2.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626_2.html)

Part of Bush's clearly stated and repeated goal to increase homeownership rates, he eliminates the rule

"In 2004, the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."
http://www.prmia.org/pdf/Case_Studies/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf (http://www.prmia.org/pdf/Case_Studies/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf)

Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: supsalemgr on January 26, 2013, 12:14:33 PM
Another lib that needs a very good shampoo for all the sand in their hair.
Title: and Bush's policies all have one thing in common: you never heard of them
Post by: Vern on January 26, 2013, 12:20:11 PM
oh and pay very special attention to the phrase "the borrower's ability to repay" from above.  anyhoo, here's Bush stopping the reform you've think would have prevented the Bush Mortgage Bubble.   

"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)

Now I know you are already convincing yourself the Atlanta Reserve Bank is lying but when I post Bush's actual policies starting with the one above allowing abusive subprime loans to count towards their goals, you will see he was in no way trying to stop anything.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: JustKari on January 26, 2013, 12:24:18 PM
Oh,look, another lib starting a blame Bush thread.  Here's a thought, do a search here for "Bush" because there is NOTHING new you have to offer.  Sites archive for a reason.   :rolleyes:
Title: he might have known 2
Post by: Vern on January 26, 2013, 12:37:34 PM
well just kari, I'll give you credit, you sorta responded to what I posted.  A vast improvment over supsale's post but I think you are claiming you already knew the things I've posted.  So lets review, you are saying the following facts are 'NOTHING new"

1 the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004 when banks (banks not freddie and fannie) lowered their lending standards
2 Dems were in the minority in congress in 2003
3 Bush told barney frank there was nothing wrong with Freddie and Fannie
4 the 2003 GSE 'reform' bill had nothing to do with subprime
5 Bush stopped the GSE 'reform' in 2003
6 Bush reversed the Clinton rule that actually reined in the GSE's subprime purchases

Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 26, 2013, 12:40:37 PM

Wow, all that nonsense to place all the blame on Bush, yet precluding all Dim culpability of the fact that it was the Left that pushed for an open ended funding of loans.

As I said earlier, Bush did a lot of stupid crap, and you won't find anyone here defending it, but it was a Dim Bill that kept the bubble growing till it popped.
Title: Now its a party
Post by: Vern on January 26, 2013, 12:43:58 PM
while we wait for just kari, lets continue with the bush policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble. 

here Bush forces freddie and fannie to increase their purchases of 'low income' loans. .   Forcing them to increase their purchases just after he reversed the Clinton rule that reined them in doesnt really qualify as "trying to stop it".

"HUD DATA SHOWS FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC HAVE TRAILED THE INDUSTRY IN PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN 44 STATES
New regulations will increase mortgage financing for homebuyers and underserved communities"

http://archives.hud.gov/news/2004/pr04-066.cfm (http://archives.hud.gov/news/2004/pr04-066.cfm)
Title: wow, even Freddie and Fannie didnt like it
Post by: Vern on January 26, 2013, 12:55:50 PM
"but it was a Dim Bill that kept the bubble growing till it popped"

sorry solar, I'll need more than just your repeated assurances on the matter.  Remember, you thought Bush tried to stop the Bush Mortgage Bubble. Well, now you know he didnt.  And since no such 'Dim Bill' exists, you wont be backing that statement up anytime soon.  (he will repeat it though).

anyhoo, lets see what the entire mortgage industry thought of Bush forcing Freddie and Fannie to buy more low income home loans. 

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/17/real_estate/lowcost_housing/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/17/real_estate/lowcost_housing/index.htm)

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.
Title: Re: FYI. I'll back up everything I post. You'll just post lying editorials
Post by: taxed on January 26, 2013, 03:23:51 PM
Quote from: Vern on January 26, 2013, 12:02:55 PM
"You do realize Bush warned the Dims about the bubble, yet they did nothing to stop it."

I wasnt really looking to shred that silly narrative just yet but you seem like the persistent type.  I know you think that 10 second clip of Barney saying there is nothng wrong with Freddie and Fannie as proof of what you believe but it only proves barney said it.  Lets review some facts you probably are not aware of:

1 Dems were in the minority in congress. 
2 Bush told barney frank there was nothing wrong with Freddie and Fannie (and there was nothing wrong at the time, the Bush Mortgage Bubble  hadnt started yet, see above link)
3 the GSE 'reform' bill had nothing to do with subprime
4 Bush stopped the GSE reform in 2003
 
You can prove 1 for yourself (hopefully). Here's Bush 'telling' Barney there is nothing wrong with Freddie and Fannie. 

Testimony from W's Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation' of the GSE's
"
"
Mr. Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.
"

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_house_hearings&docid=f:92231.wais (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_house_hearings&docid=f:92231.wais)

I appreciate you trying to sound like you know what you're talking about, and it is adorable.

First things first, who controlled the House during the Community Reinvestment Act?
Title: "something something CRA" great retort Taxed
Post by: Vern on January 26, 2013, 05:27:11 PM
"I appreciate you trying to sound like you know what you're talking about, and it is adorable"

first, I made clear straightforward statements and I backed them up.  That actually is adorable. So taxed, what did you think of Bush reversing the Clinton rule that actually reined in Freddie and Fannie or Bush forcing Freddie and Fannie to buy more low income home loans or Bush stopping GSE reform. I noticed you didnt comment on those.

"First things first, who controlled the House during the Community Reinvestment Act?"

that statement is actually an example of someone trying to sound like they know what they are talking about. And its not adorable because it makes no sense.  The CRA was enacted in 1977 but the Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004 (remember, bush told you that in the first post of this thread).  But if you are implying that somehow the CRA was responsible and its important who controlled the house, well silly fool, republicans controlled the house from 1995 to 2007. 

for future reference taxed, make a point and back it up. come back when you can do that.  fyi, here's the Fed backing up Bush's timeline and cause of the Bush Mortgage Bubble and for a bonus, they tell you your CRA delusions are just that, delusions

Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "


http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf)
Title: Re: "something something CRA" great retort Taxed
Post by: taxed on January 26, 2013, 05:35:16 PM
Quote from: Vern on January 26, 2013, 05:27:11 PM
"I appreciate you trying to sound like you know what you're talking about, and it is adorable"

first, I made clear straightforward statements and I backed them up.  That actually is adorable. So taxed, what did you think of Bush reversing the Clinton rule that actually reined in Freddie and Fannie or Bush forcing Freddie and Fannie to buy more low income home loans or Bush stopping GSE reform. I noticed you didnt comment on those.

"First things first, who controlled the House during the Community Reinvestment Act?"

that statement is actually an example of someone trying to sound like they know what they are talking about. And its not adorable because it makes no sense.  The CRA was enacted in 1977 but the Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004 (remember, bush told you that in the first post of this thread).  But if you are implying that somehow the CRA was responsible and its important who controlled the house, well silly fool, republicans controlled the house from 1995 to 2007. 

for future reference taxed, make a point and back it up. come back when you can do that.  fyi, here's the Fed backing up Bush's timeline and cause of the Bush Mortgage Bubble and for a bonus, they tell you your CRA delusions are just that, delusions

Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "


http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf)

Let me try this again.

Who controlled the House, and who signed, the Community Reinvestment Act.

Unfortunately for you, your liberal BS will be dissected here.  Please answer my question.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 26, 2013, 05:57:37 PM
Vern is 100% correct.

The government has absolutely no business manipulating what should be private enterprise.

The government has only one responsibility........enforcing the agreed upon laws that govern free enterprise.

That's it.

When they lose track of what it is we hire them for and start trying to control things, everything goes to shit.

Next?
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 26, 2013, 07:08:53 PM
Hey Vern, It's Ernest! - 101 - It's Outer Space (Part 1/2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfZ0aAvvlkk#)
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Cryptic Bert on January 26, 2013, 07:36:40 PM
Quote from: Vern on January 26, 2013, 10:53:58 AM
Lets examine the bush policies that encouraged, funded and protected the mortgage bubble that devastated the economy and almost destroyed the financial system.  First a little background.  when did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?  Lets ask Bush's Working Group on Financial Markets.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/Documents/q4progress%20update.pdf (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/Documents/q4progress%20update.pdf)

the President's Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

The Presidents Working Group's March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.

Well you sound like you know what you are talking about. Especially the "Lets get this party started". That was very impressive.  However we have a slight problem. And there are a few possibilities. 1) You are clueless aside from what you have read on the left wing sites that give yo their opinion of what government sites say. 2) You are just a liberal hack. And 3) You are a goat and we all know goats are notoriously ignorant when it comes to politics.

You decided to start with the Bush administration in this tangled pastiche. And that is rather telling since the policies that led to the bubble go back decades. Perhaps you should go back to where Freddie and Fannie were created or more specifically mortgage backed securities and the idea that home ownership is a right.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 26, 2013, 07:55:26 PM
Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 26, 2013, 07:36:40 PM
Well you sound like you know what you are talking about. Especially the "Lets get this party started". That was very impressive.  However we have a slight problem. And there are a few possibilities. 1) You are clueless aside from what you have read on the left wing sites that give yo their opinion of what government sites say. 2) You are just a liberal hack. And 3) You are a goat and we all know goats are notoriously ignorant when it comes to politics.

You decided to start with the Bush administration in this tangled pastiche. And that is rather telling since the policies that led to the bubble go back decades. Perhaps you should go back to where Freddie and Fannie were created or more specifically mortgage backed securities and the idea that home ownership is a right.

Sorry for the interruption, but despite his brash start, if he understands that government is the problem.......there's hope.
Title: Yes, when republicans are in charge, the govt is the problem
Post by: Vern on January 26, 2013, 08:26:20 PM
"You are clueless aside from what you have read on the left wing sites that give yo their opinion of what government sites say"

er uh boo man, I've posted solid factual links to back up every point I've made.  For you to imply that I get my 'opinions' handed to my by left wing websites is as laughable as it is hypocritical.  The republican party couldnt exist without you having your opinion handed to you by liars and imbeciles.

"You decided to start with the Bush administration in this tangled pastiche. And that is rather telling since the policies that led to the bubble go back decades."

er uh boo man, how did you miss the fact that Bush told you it started in late 2004? How did you miss the Fed telling you it started in 2004?  Hey boo man, here's another liberal bs site for you.what a coincidence, its from 2004.  mmmmm when did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start again?

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

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."

and kramrat, the GSEs increased homeowner ship rates in this country for 70 years safely and profitably until Bush enacted his toxic housing policies. 
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 26, 2013, 08:56:53 PM
Quoteand kramrat, the GSEs increased homeowner ship rates in this country for 70 years safely and profitably until Bush enacted his toxic housing policies.

I'll respond, since you've shown a modicum of intelligence, and I appreciate the links. It's the basis of an honest debate.

Here is a government website about the Fair Housing Act. It proclaims that owning a house is a right. Do you agree that home ownership is a right?

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws/yourrights (http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws/yourrights)
Title: Re: Yes, when republicans are in charge, the govt is the problem
Post by: Cryptic Bert on January 26, 2013, 09:00:42 PM
Quote from: Vern on January 26, 2013, 08:26:20 PM
"You are clueless aside from what you have read on the left wing sites that give yo their opinion of what government sites say"

er uh boo man, I've posted solid factual links to back up every point I've made.  For you to imply that I get my 'opinions' handed to my by left wing websites is as laughable as it is hypocritical.  The republican party couldnt exist without you having your opinion handed to you by liars and imbeciles.

"You decided to start with the Bush administration in this tangled pastiche. And that is rather telling since the policies that led to the bubble go back decades."

er uh boo man, how did you miss the fact that Bush told you it started in late 2004? How did you miss the Fed telling you it started in 2004?  Hey boo man, here's another liberal bs site for you.what a coincidence, its from 2004.  mmmmm when did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start again?

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

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."

and kramrat, the GSEs increased homeowner ship rates in this country for 70 years safely and profitably until Bush enacted his toxic housing policies.

Learn to use the quote function...
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 26, 2013, 09:15:37 PM
A little more food for thought Vern. Sorry for the link from Austria, but it's right on target.

http://mises.org/daily/2627 (http://mises.org/daily/2627)
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 26, 2013, 09:22:07 PM
Please take your time Vern. No hurry.

I've got days.......a lifetime. It's going to take some real work on your part, to lay the mess in Bush's lap.

That's not to say that he didn't make some incredibly stupid moves.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 26, 2013, 09:40:17 PM
Lets party! :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Yes, when republicans are in charge, the govt is the problem
Post by: taxed on January 26, 2013, 11:04:34 PM
Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 26, 2013, 09:00:42 PM
Learn to use the quote function...

He didn't want to answer my question.  Shocker.
Title: Re: Yes, when republicans are in charge, the govt is the problem
Post by: Cryptic Bert on January 26, 2013, 11:09:16 PM
Quote from: taxed on January 26, 2013, 11:04:34 PM
He didn't want to answer my question.  Shocker.

This clown is really disappointing. He talks tough though. We call  that "all talk and no trousers"...
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 26, 2013, 11:17:56 PM
Don't run him off yet. With the title of this thread, I want to hear what he has to say. I like the confidence.

No sense shooting him in the head while he's shooting himself in the foot. It just ain't fair.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 06:37:30 AM
I commend you all for your patience. However, I myself am sooo tired of trying to educate a Stockholm victim, there is no possibly way to convince them that both parties are culpable for the mess were in, especially when the left is 90% to blame for the bubble, there were RINO helping them if I remember correctly.

If he really was out to prove a point, why didn't he bring up the No Child Leftists Behind program where Bush put the socialist Teddy in charge of writing?
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 07:30:44 AM
It's not a total loss. I was able to find that site out of Austria that totally nails the whole mess down on one page.

It's always cool to find foreigners that are just as scared about what the left is doing to the US, as we are. :smile:
Title: am I the only person who thinks the quote function is clunky &slows the thread?
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 07:31:48 AM
I'm sorry I dont work the night shift guys.  anyhoo

"This clown is really disappointing. He talks tough though. We call  that "all talk and no trousers"

I clearly articulated my points and I backed them up.  And FYI dont me questions like taxed. I told him the CRA was from 1977 and the Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004.  He keeps harping on "who controlled the house" and it took two posts for him get his point across about "who controlled the house" in 1977.  Make a point.

and kramrat

"It's going to take some real work on your part, to lay the mess in Bush's lap."

mmmmm, remember when the 'narrative' was "bush tried to stop the bubble".  It seems like only yesterday everybody believed it.  Turns out that was just another lying republican 'narrative'.  I've posted some Bush policies and statements that one could easily quantify as "encouraging and funding" and since bush stopped reform doesnt it start in his lap since the Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004? (taxed, thats a rhetorical question, I'm not waiting on an answer to make a point) 

Remember, it only took a 10 second quote on youtube for every con to blame a minority member of congress. 
Title: Bush's most toxic housing policy
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 07:41:14 AM
So yesterday we learned

Bush stopped 'reform' in late 2003
(Bush told Barney there was nothing wrong with freddie and fannie) 2003
Bush forced freddie and fannie to buy more low income home loans 2004
Bush reversed the clinton rule that 'reined in' freddie and fannie 2004
Bush wanted 5.5 million new minority home owners  2004

and thats just some of Bush's housing polices that encouraged, funded and protected the Bush Mortgage bubble.  But the most toxic of all policies was when the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency preempted all state laws against predatory lending.  The OCC along with the OTS are the two regulators who monitor all banks and thrifts.  They report to the president. Let the OCC explain their goal. Please read it all the way to the end

"Subprime lending has grown rapidly over the past decade. Rising concerns about abusive practices by subprime lenders have been a byproduct of this growth. By early 2004, these concerns prompted Georgia and more than 30 other states to pass laws designed to eliminate abusive or predatory lending practices by the financial services firms, including those with federal charters, operating within their boundaries. 

Acting on a request from a national bank, the OCC in 2003 concluded that federal law preempts the provisions of the Georgia Fair Lending Act (GFLA) that would otherwise affect national banks' real estate lending. At this same time, the OCC also proposed a final rule to clarify the types of state laws that are applicable to national banks. In early 2004

In addition, clarification of the applicability of state laws to national banks should remove disincentives to subprime lending and increase the supply of credit to subprime borrowers. "


http://www.occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/economics-working-papers/2008-2000/wp2004-4.pdf (http://www.occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/economics-working-papers/2008-2000/wp2004-4.pdf)


Title: Re: am I the only person who thinks the quote function is clunky &slows the thread?
Post by: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 07:50:01 AM
Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 07:31:48 AM
I'm sorry I dont work the night shift guys.  anyhoo

"This clown is really disappointing. He talks tough though. We call  that "all talk and no trousers"

I clearly articulated my points and I backed them up.  And FYI dont me questions like taxed. I told him the CRA was from 1977 and the Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004.  He keeps harping on "who controlled the house" and it took two posts for him get his point across about "who controlled the house" in 1977.  Make a point.

and kramrat

"It's going to take some real work on your part, to lay the mess in Bush's lap."

mmmmm, remember when the 'narrative' was "bush tried to stop the bubble".  It seems like only yesterday everybody believed it.  Turns out that was just another lying republican 'narrative'.  I've posted some Bush policies and statements that one could easily quantify as "encouraging and funding" and since bush stopped reform doesnt it start in his lap since the Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004? (taxed, thats a rhetorical question, I'm not waiting on an answer to make a point) 

Remember, it only took a 10 second quote on youtube for every con to blame a minority member of congress.

I guess you missed the part where I said that Bush did some really stupid things. If you read the link I provided, you would have a clearer understanding of what led to the housing meltdown. Blaming it on Bush because he happened to be in office when the shit finally hit the fan, makes as much sense as trying to blame it on Obama.

The Bush administration should have made a lot more noise, but they caved.

Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM#)
Title: Re: Bush's most toxic housing policy
Post by: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 07:57:14 AM
Why are you spreading one subject over more than one thread? Is this an attention getting tactic? :blink:
Title: remove disincentives to subprime lending and increase the supply of credit..
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 07:57:21 AM
"In addition, clarification of the applicability of state laws to national banks should remove disincentives to subprime lending and increase the supply of credit to subprime borrowers. "

wow, talk about a smoking gun.  could you imagine the screams from the right if Barney Frank said that? (again taxed, its a rhetorical question). 

so lets sum up, Georgia and 30 other states passed "laws designed to eliminate abusive or predatory lending practices " and the OCC preempted them.  What did all 50 state banking supervisors and AG's think of the preemption rule? (taxed I asked the question and now I'll answer it)

"Concentrating regulatory control at the OCC ensures that regulatory and consumer protection problems that emerge will be solved with a one-size fits all approach," CSBS President and CEO Neil Milner wrote in his comment letter, adding that the proposed rule would concentrate regulatory power in the hands of a single individual, the Comptroller, with virtually no direct congressional oversight until problems or scandals emerge."

http://www.csbs.org/news/press-releases/pr2003/Pages/StatesUnitetoFightSweepingOCCPreemption.aspx (http://www.csbs.org/news/press-releases/pr2003/Pages/StatesUnitetoFightSweepingOCCPreemption.aspx)


Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 08:07:52 AM
"you would have a clearer understanding of what led to the housing meltdown."

I read it. Did you? 

"President Bush had an aggressive housing agenda to "...dismantle the barriers to homeownership..." with Fannie Mae playing a significant role in "financing" this agenda — and perhaps garnering more than a few votes for Bush and those congressmen who hung on to the coattails of this agenda"

Thats exactly the point I will be making by posting Bush's toxic housing policies. If you want to argue that the "govt shouldn't be in the housing business" then thats another thread entirely.  Fannie Mae 'played a signficant role' because bush made them.  He controls their housing goals (he raised them) and he controls what qualifies (he allowed abusive subprime loans)

"The Bush administration should have made a lot more noise, but they caved."

your own link disputes your notion. "aggressive housing agenda " does not equal "caved".  The policies and statements I've posted in this thread alone prove Bush's "aggressive housing agenda "
Title: Re: Bush's most toxic housing policy
Post by: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 08:08:53 AM
You really don't understand how our government works, do you?

For your next act, I'd like for you to show me how Bush had the power to supercede the US supreme court. :biggrin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuomo_v._Clearing_House_Association,_L._L._C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuomo_v._Clearing_House_Association,_L._L._C.)
Title: so by con standards, does that ruling prove Bush 'shredded the constitution'?
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 08:32:00 AM
"Why are you spreading one subject over more than one thread? Is this an attention getting tactic"

Bush's preemption rule deserves its own thread.  When you see subprime loans go from 10 % in 2003 to 40 % in 2006 and No Doc loans go from 4.3 % in 2004 to over 50% in 2006, you'll understand.

"For your next act, I'd like for you to show me how Bush had the power to supercede the US supreme court."

er uh kram, the Scotus overruled bush's preemption in 2009.  Bush preempted all state laws against predatory lending in 2004.  the Bush Mortgage Bubble popped late 2006.  so sadly, bush's unconstitutional preemption rule was thrown out too late to prevent the Bush Mortgage Bubble.
Title: thats called putting your money where your mouth is
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 08:38:13 AM
So we learned what all 50 states thought of Bush's preemption. Thanks to kram we learned what the Scotus thought of preemption. What did banks think of preemption.

"
As illustrated in figure 2, the share of assets divided among federally chartered and state-chartered banks remained relatively steady for a decade; between 1992 and 2003, national banks held an average of about 56 percent of all bank assets, and state banks held an average of about 44 percent. However, in 2004, the share of bank assets of banks with the federal charter increased to 67 percent, and the share of bank assets of banks with state charters decreased to 33 percent.
"

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06387.pdf (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06387.pdf)

Wow, banks change their charters to be 'regulated' by Bush. Thats almost a 25 % jump in assets going to national regulators in one year.  mmmm, 2004? isnt that when the Bush Mortgage Bubble started?

Title: Re: Bush's most toxic housing policy
Post by: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 08:42:11 AM
Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992

http://www.ccc.unc.edu/FannieFreddie.php (http://www.ccc.unc.edu/FannieFreddie.php)

There's plenty of blame to go around, and you won't find any Bush groupies around here, but the house of cards really got started with this bill. It's the one where the government forced lenders to loan money to people that couldn't afford to pay it back.

To ignore the entire history and say that Bush did it on his own, shows a real lack of understanding on your part. You never answered my question. Do you believe that home ownership is a right?

http://www.freedomworks.org/crisis (http://www.freedomworks.org/crisis)
Title: "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers."
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 08:57:06 AM
kram your video said (and I paraphrase)

"many financial analysts say if only freddie and fannie were effectively regulated the mortgage bubble would have never happened"

doesnt that put it in Bush's lap? He stopped 'reform' in 2003. And guess what he stopped actual reform in 2005.  How strange your video doesnt mention that or bush's policies or Bush stopping actual reform in 2005.  Here's what Bush thought of actual reform in 2005 (this is the reform bill that you often here referred to as "McCain tried to reform freddie and fannie)

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851)

how do you spin that away? you cant. thats why its never mentioned along with Bush's other housing policies.
Title: Re: "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers."
Post by: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 09:07:11 AM
Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 08:57:06 AM
kram your video said (and I paraphrase)

"many financial analysts say if only freddie and fannie were effectively regulated the mortgage bubble would have never happened"

doesnt that put it in Bush's lap? He stopped 'reform' in 2003. And guess what he stopped actual reform in 2005.  How strange your video doesnt mention that or bush's policies or Bush stopping actual reform in 2005.  Here's what Bush thought of actual reform in 2005 (this is the reform bill that you often here referred to as "McCain tried to reform freddie and fannie)

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851)

how do you spin that away? you cant. thats why its never mentioned along with Bush's other housing policies.

How many different ways do you want me to say that Bush screwed up? :glare:

Go to the 1:40 mark on the video. That's the real Barney Frank, (in 2003), saying that there is no crisis. I don't know WTF I can do to get you to acknowledge that.

Anyway, I'm done here. Have fun. Maybe I'll go find someone that wants to argue that the sky is green. It would be an equal waste of my time. Do your parents know that you're playing around on the computer again? :rolleyes:

Bye.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 27, 2013, 09:14:03 AM
The housing bubble was part of an even larger credit bubble in the derivatives market.

And I have yet to see a single post address the real causal forces that enabled the bubble. Not a word has been said on it.

But much has been said about the CRA and Fannie and Freddie- which are interventions that distorted the housing market, but did not create the bubble as much as they steered it.

Credit bubbles are rooted in monetary manipulations, specifically, credit expansion and artificially low interest rates.

And the shadow banking conduits of repurchase agreements and re-hypothecation, which effectively are the creation of a banking system with no deposits, much larger than the traditional one, is the arena where 21st century credit bubbles play out.

The boom and bust we saw in the housing market was merely a symptom of the boom and bust in leveraged credit "money," or what has been referred to as the "churn."

Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 09:23:18 AM
You claim it is Bush's fault yet neglect where this all started.
In 1995, the Clinton Administration changed the law governing GSEs' mission the Community Reinvestment Act to encourage more lending in poor neighborhoods. Previously, the CRA directed government to monitor banks' lending practices to make sure they did not violate fair lending rules in poor neighborhoods. With the 1995 change, the government published each bank's lending activity and started giving bank ratings based primarily upon the amount of lending it performed in poor neighborhoods. These changes empowered community organizations, such as ACORN, to pressure banks to increase lending activities in poorer neighborhoods — which involved reducing mortgage loan standards.

Then fast forward where Bill Clinton admits their party is to blame.

"I think that the responsibility that the Democrats had may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

Though he said nothing about Democrats' role in actively causing the system crash.

On September 30, 2008, Representative Artur Davis (D-AL), who had vehemently defended Fannie Mae against regulatory efforts in 2003-2004, echoed President Clinton's sentiments. 

"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." 

So tell me again how all this is Bush's fault?
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 09:25:17 AM
Hell, even CNN sees it for what it is.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/26/house.mortgage/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/26/house.mortgage/index.html)
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 09:28:49 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on January 27, 2013, 09:14:03 AM
The housing bubble was part of an even larger credit bubble in the derivatives market.

And I have yet to see a single post address the real causal forces that enabled the bubble. Not a word has been said on it.

But much has been said about the CRA and Fannie and Freddie- which are interventions that distorted the housing market, but did not create the bubble as much as they steered it.

Credit bubbles are rooted in monetary manipulations, specifically, credit expansion and artificially low interest rates.

And the shadow banking conduits of repurchase agreements and re-hypothecation, which effectively are the creation of a banking system with no deposits, much larger than the traditional one, is the arena where 21st century credit bubbles play out.

The boom and bust we saw in the housing market was merely a symptom of the boom and bust in leveraged credit "money," or what has been referred to as the "churn."
Well said, messing with the free mkt as in manipulation to help an industry succeed over another, always has an equal reaction, as evidenced by the green energy movement over night boom and bust.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 09:39:14 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on January 27, 2013, 09:14:03 AM
The housing bubble was part of an even larger credit bubble in the derivatives market.

And I have yet to see a single post address the real causal forces that enabled the bubble. Not a word has been said on it.

But much has been said about the CRA and Fannie and Freddie- which are interventions that distorted the housing market, but did not create the bubble as much as they steered it.

Credit bubbles are rooted in monetary manipulations, specifically, credit expansion and artificially low interest rates.

And the shadow banking conduits of repurchase agreements and re-hypothecation, which effectively are the creation of a banking system with no deposits, much larger than the traditional one, is the arena where 21st century credit bubbles play out.

The boom and bust we saw in the housing market was merely a symptom of the boom and bust in leveraged credit "money," or what has been referred to as the "churn."

I came out of the gate, saying that the government has no business manipulating markets. It's really just that simple.

I doesn't matter if it's housing or green energy, republicans or democrats; the government screws up everything it touches. Once the messes are made, it doesn't really matter whose fault it is. The entire government needs to be chopped off at the knees and get back to doing the limited work that they're supposed to be doing.

The next incredibly massive mess that's coming is Obamacare. It's going to pretty damned tough pinning that one on a republican. :biggrin:
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 09:49:47 AM
Quote from: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 09:39:14 AM
I came out of the gate, saying that the government has no business manipulating markets. It's really just that simple.

I doesn't matter if it's housing or green energy, republicans or democrats; the government screws up everything it touches. Once the messes are made, it doesn't really matter whose fault it is. The entire government needs to be chopped off at the knees and get back to doing the limited work that they're supposed to be doing.

The next incredibly massive mess that's coming is Obamacare. It's going to pretty damned tough pinning that one on a republican. :biggrin:

Oh, but they already are, they claim it was the right that was in bed with big pharma that caused the increases, when in truth it was placating to union demands, but I digress.
When all is said and done and the country is suffering under socialized medicine, they will claim we tied their hands and weren't able to institute the program the way it was designed.
You know, how communism hasn't really been applied correctly yet. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: JustKari on January 27, 2013, 09:54:37 AM
Quote from: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 09:39:14 AM
I came out of the gate, saying that the government has no business manipulating markets. It's really just that simple.

I doesn't matter if it's housing or green energy, republicans or democrats; the government screws up everything it touches. Once the messes are made, it doesn't really matter whose fault it is. The entire government needs to be chopped off at the knees and get back to doing the limited work that they're supposed to be doing.

The next incredibly massive mess that's coming is Obamacare. It's going to pretty damned tough pinning that one on a republican. :biggrin:

They already do, they call it the republican healthcare bill because they claim it is the same as Romneycare.  Even though not one single republican voted for it and Romneycare is a STATE thing, they pin it on the pubs, course if they thought it was going to work, they would be screaming to take credit.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 27, 2013, 10:17:23 AM
Quote from: Solar on January 27, 2013, 09:28:49 AM
Well said, messing with the free mkt as in manipulation to help an industry succeed over another, always has an equal reaction, as evidenced by the green energy movement over night boom and bust.

Yep- and the student loan bubble is following the same old formula..
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 27, 2013, 10:19:31 AM
Quote from: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 09:39:14 AM
I came out of the gate, saying that the government has no business manipulating markets. It's really just that simple.

I doesn't matter if it's housing or green energy, republicans or democrats; the government screws up everything it touches. Once the messes are made, it doesn't really matter whose fault it is. The entire government needs to be chopped off at the knees and get back to doing the limited work that they're supposed to be doing.

The next incredibly massive mess that's coming is Obamacare. It's going to pretty damned tough pinning that one on a republican. :biggrin:

No doubt this is all true.

What I was alluding to in my post is that no one had as of yet mentioned the monetary manipulations that created the credit bubble, as focus was on the interventions and distortions which directed it.

Just making a subtle distinction, but one that has big implications for choosing the right monetary policy going forward- which may mean giving up monetary policy all together.
Title: mmm, notice how everybody is talking about everything except the facts I posted
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 10:28:37 AM
". That's the real Barney Frank, (in 2003), saying that there is no crisis. I don't know WTF I can do to get you to acknowledge that."

er uh kram, I've never denied Barney Frank saying there is no crisis in 2003.  Like all republicans, you are arguing a false point to avoid arguing the actual facts. You are denying the fact that Bush told barney in 2003 that there was no crisis.  . You are denying that Bush stopped reform in 2003 (read that part again and slowly). You are denying that the Bush Mortgage Bubble didnt start until late 2004. And you are denying the Bush policies that encouraged, protected and funded the Bush Mortgage bubble that bush enacted in 2004. there's that year again.

what did you think about bush stopping reform again in 2005? 
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 10:32:39 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on January 27, 2013, 10:19:31 AM
No doubt this is all true.

What I was alluding to in my post is that no one had as of yet mentioned the monetary manipulations that created the credit bubble, as focus was on the interventions and distortions which directed it.

Just making a subtle distinction, but one that has big implications for choosing the right monetary policy going forward- which may mean giving up monetary policy all together.

Yeah. I wasn't whining, but understanding that the government itself is behind every failure that we have experienced, is something that conservatives, libertarians and , quite frankly, liberals too, should be able to agree on. Arguing about which idiot from which party started it, is pretty pointless. They are all part of one giant, screwed up entity.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 27, 2013, 10:44:17 AM
Quote from: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 10:32:39 AM
Yeah. I wasn't whining, but understanding that the government itself is behind every failure that we have experienced, is something that conservatives, libertarians and , quite frankly, liberals too, should be able to agree on. Arguing about which idiot from which party started it, is pretty pointless. They are all part of one giant, screwed up entity.

I can't argue with that, not at all!
Title: and the picture of Barney Frank really proves their false point
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 10:50:48 AM
"Do you believe that home ownership is a right?"

no but kram the only reason you would ask such a silly question is that liars who try to blame everybody but bush for the Bush Mortgage Bubble tell you 'liberals think home ownership is a right". Stop getting your opinion from liars. Seriously stop. Like your most recent 'editorial' for example.

I cant help but notice that your 'editorial' seems to not know that Bush told Barney Frank there was no crisis at Freddie and Fannie.  They also dont seem to not know that Bush stopped reform. And they dont seem to know about Bush's policies that encouraged, protected and funded the Bush Mortgage Bubble.  Why is that?

back to Bush protecting predatory lenders.  we know what all 50 states, banks and the Scotus thought of Bush's Preemption.  (banks seemed to like it). what did the republican controlled House finance committee think?

"Even the normally complacent House Financial Services Committee has weighed in. In
addition to holding OCC oversight hearings, it has passed a bipartisan budget resolution
on a vote of 34-28, stating that the OCC action "may represent an unprecedented
expansion of Federal preemption authority" and "comes without congressional
authorization, and without a corresponding increase in budget resources for the agency."
The committee also pointed out that without a budget increase, the OCC cannot really
expect its modest staff of forty consumer-complaint specialists to both continue their own work and also take over much of the work of an estimated 700 state consumer enforcers and examiners. "In the area of abusive mortgage lending practices alone, State bank supervisory agencies initiated 20,332 investigations in 2003 in response to consumer complaints, which resulted in 4,035 enforcement actions."

http://www.pirg.org/consumer/pdfs/mierzwinskiarticlefinalnysba.pdf (http://www.pirg.org/consumer/pdfs/mierzwinskiarticlefinalnysba.pdf)
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 10:59:35 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on January 27, 2013, 10:17:23 AM
Yep- and the student loan bubble is following the same old formula..
No doubt, and one that needs to burst.

Why can't people see we as a Nation are a living bubble about to pop?
The world will abandon the dollar in a heart beat when, and I do mean when it does, not if.

Yet it amazes me that we have fools come here and try and blame Bush for all our current evils, when it truth both parties are to blame, for greed and power.
Throwing stick at the fire in an effort to put it out is senseless, we all need to come together to stop this evil machine.
Title: Bush's policies. Bush's bubble
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 10:59:37 AM
"Arguing about which idiot from which party started it, is pretty pointless. They are all part of one giant, screwed up entity."

sorry, you people had no problem blaming everything on Barney Franks. kram you even posted that silly britt hume 'news cast'.  Now that you can no longer deny that Bush encouraged, protected and funded the bubble AND STOPPED THE REFORM THAT EVERY CON CLAIMED WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE BUBBLE magic presto, its everybody's fault. 

GSEs increased home ownership rates safely and profitably for 70 years and then bush implements his " aggressive housing agenda " and presto, he destroys the GSEs, the economy of the planet and the financial system.

Title: Re: Bush's most toxic housing policy
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 11:01:20 AM
Why in the Hell did you start a second thread on the same subject?

Walks, feel free to merge these if you will.
Thanks.
Title: mmm, how come brit hume never mentioned that bill
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 11:22:53 AM
"Walks, feel free to merge these if you will.
Thanks."

er uh walks, the Bush Mortgage Bubble is an extremely complicated subject. A subject as involved as Bush literally protecting Predatory lenders kinda deserves its own thread.   think about that statement "Bush protected predatory lenders". boggles the mind. especially if the mind is already boggled with the false narratives and misinformation.

anyhoo, here's what barney frank thought of Bush protecting predatory lenders. He didnt like it. He sponsored a bill to roll back Bush protecting predatory lenders. Now thats a bill editorials should screaming "if only congress passed that bill"


H.R. 5251: Preservation of Federalism in Banking Act
108th Congress: 2003-2004
To clarify the applicability of State law to national banks, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA4]
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108-5251 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108-5251)
Title: Re: Bush's policies. Bush's bubble
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 11:24:57 AM
Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 10:59:37 AM
"Arguing about which idiot from which party started it, is pretty pointless. They are all part of one giant, screwed up entity."

sorry, you people had no problem blaming everything on Barney Franks. kram you even posted that silly britt hume 'news cast'.  Now that you can no longer deny that Bush encouraged, protected and funded the bubble AND STOPPED THE REFORM THAT EVERY CON CLAIMED WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE BUBBLE magic presto, its everybody's fault. 

GSEs increased home ownership rates safely and profitably for 70 years and then bush implements his " aggressive housing agenda " and presto, he destroys the GSEs, the economy of the planet and the financial system.
Because it's the truth, I even posted proof where Clinton admitted as such, yet you continue with the myth that somehow it's all Bush's fault which obviously isn't true.
Like all of us here agree, Bush did a lot of stupid things like extreme overspending, something both parties are guilty of.

So until you lose the myopic view of an issue, you won't see the bigger picture, the picture that we are in a bubble brought on by an overbearing Govt and a two party system passing out Govt grants for favors, power and votes.

Or are you really so biased that you don't see it?

I have a feeling you think you are in a pro GOP forum, you would be dead wrong!
Title: Re: mmm, how come brit hume never mentioned that bill
Post by: walkstall on January 27, 2013, 11:31:17 AM
Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 11:22:53 AM
"Walks, feel free to merge these if you will.
Thanks."

er uh walks, the Bush Mortgage Bubble is an extremely complicated subject.

Vern WHEN your in over your head, admin likes to keep it in one thread.
Title: Re: Bush's policies. Bush's bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 11:32:09 AM
Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 10:59:37 AM
"Arguing about which idiot from which party started it, is pretty pointless. They are all part of one giant, screwed up entity."

sorry, you people had no problem blaming everything on Barney Franks. kram you even posted that silly britt hume 'news cast'.  Now that you can no longer deny that Bush encouraged, protected and funded the bubble AND STOPPED THE REFORM THAT EVERY CON CLAIMED WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE BUBBLE magic presto, its everybody's fault. 

GSEs increased home ownership rates safely and profitably for 70 years and then bush implements his " aggressive housing agenda " and presto, he destroys the GSEs, the economy of the planet and the financial system.

Nobody tried to blame it all on Franks. That would be as stupid as blaming it all on Bush.

The bar on lending standards was forcefully lowered by government. Banks were forced to give people loans that they couldn't afford to make the payments on. The wimpy republicans actively joined in, I'm guessing because they were scared of being accused of hating the poor. They all suck. Why does this confuse you?
Title: Re: Bush's policies. Bush's bubble
Post by: supsalemgr on January 27, 2013, 11:34:17 AM
Quote from: Solar on January 27, 2013, 11:24:57 AM
Because it's the truth, I even posted proof where Clinton admitted as such, yet you continue with the myth that somehow it's all Bush's fault which obviously isn't true.
Like all of us here agree, Bush did a lot of stupid things like extreme overspending, something both parties are guilty of.

So until you lose the myopic view of an issue, you won't see the bigger picture, the picture that we are in a bubble brought on by an overbearing Govt and a two party system passing out Govt grants for favors, power and votes.

Or are you really so biased that you don't see it?

I have a feeling you think you are in a pro GOP forum, you would be dead wrong!

How true. So many of us here feel Bush was MIA when it came to allow Congress to spend like they did. However, libs will always stand behind (oops) the likes of Barney, etc;. For Vern to blame it all on Bush does not do much for his credibility.
Title: anybody else notice that cons posting things because they wish they were true
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 11:46:14 AM
"Vern WHEN your in over your head, admin likes to keep it in one thread."

really? I've backed up every point I've made.  and you have to admire the links. My favorite is Bush attacking GSE reform because as he said it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers. " geez that one link alone shreds every republican narrative.

speaking of backing up their claims

"Banks were forced to give people loans that they couldn't afford to make the payments on. "

that is a lie and you can only post 'editorials' that repeat that claim.  Nobody forced banks to be greedy. And in late 2004, Bush's regulators let them go crazy and give loans to anybody.  again, thats when the Bush Mortgage Bubble started.
Title: wow vern, more great links
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 11:54:40 AM
In 2004, 4.3 % of mortgages were No Doc loans.  thats how you give loans to cab drivers and other people without a W2. 

In 2006 over 50 % of all loans were No Doc loans. Thats how you give loans to people who cant afford the loan. Strangely Bush's regulators let them.  "easing" is another way of saying lower lending standards.

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf (http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf)

Title: Re: anybody else notice that cons posting things because they wish they were true
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 11:59:56 AM
Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 11:46:14 AM


really? I've backed up every point I've made. 
Really? Yet have somehow avoided my posts where Clinton admits they were to blame.
Nice blind bias there Vern.
Title: Re: anybody else notice that cons posting things because they wish they were true
Post by: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 12:00:54 PM
Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 11:46:14 AM
"Vern WHEN your in over your head, admin likes to keep it in one thread."

really? I've backed up every point I've made.  and you have to admire the links. My favorite is Bush attacking GSE reform because as he said it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers. " geez that one link alone shreds every republican narrative.

speaking of backing up their claims

"Banks were forced to give people loans that they couldn't afford to make the payments on. "

that is a lie and you can only post 'editorials' that repeat that claim.  Nobody forced banks to be greedy. And in late 2004, Bush's regulators let them go crazy and give loans to anybody.  again, thats when the Bush Mortgage Bubble started.

Damn. Bush is still at it.

It is also against the law for a creditor to discriminate against you because you receive public assistance income

Sure does sound to me like banks still can't descriminate against people that are broke.

That damned Bush is starting the entire cycle again. Sneaky SOB. :laugh:

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/fair-notice-on-fair-lending/ (http://www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/fair-notice-on-fair-lending/)
Title: Re: Bush's policies. Bush's bubble
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 12:03:34 PM
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 27, 2013, 11:34:17 AM
How true. So many of us here feel Bush was MIA when it came to allow Congress to spend like they did. However, libs will always stand behind (oops) the likes of Barney, etc;. For Vern to blame it all on Bush does not do much for his credibility.
Bingo!!!!
I guess 16 trillion in debt is all Bush's fault as well, that is, according to Vern's form of lib logic and math.
Title: Re: anybody else notice that cons posting things because they wish they were true
Post by: walkstall on January 27, 2013, 12:05:10 PM
Quote from: Solar on January 27, 2013, 11:59:56 AM
Really? Yet have somehow avoided my posts where Clinton admits they were to blame.
Nice blind bias there Vern.

He is studying to be a teacher. If he keeps saying he is right you will believe him.
Title: sadly they want to be lied to
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 12:11:34 PM
good job with the false analogy there kramrat.  Lets face its all you can do. You have to pretend that Bush didnt force GSEs to buy more low income home loans, PROTECT PREDATORY LENDERS,  allow GSEs to use abusive subprime loans to meet the goals he raised, stop GSE reform in 2003 and 2005. And again, thats not all of Bush's policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble to start in late 2004.

any 'editorial' that doesnt tell you it started in late 2004 is lying to you
any 'editorial' uses the phrase "forced banks" is lying to you
any 'editorial' that doesnt tell about any of Bush's policies is lying to you.

"Nice blind bias there Vern."

sorry solar, between your silly factless posts and the clutter of the merged threads, I really stopped reading your posts.  If its the video of Clinton saying "what responsibility may rest with dems" then I've seen it. 

Please notice you're posting quotes. I'm posting policies and quotes.  Remember when Bush said he wanted "have 5.5 million minority homeowners in the country by the end of the decade." or when he said "there is no crisis with Freddie and Fannie".  And the policies I'm posting all seem to have taken place in 2004 and thats the same year that the Bush Mortgage Bubble started.  talk about blind bias. 
Title: Re: anybody else notice that cons posting things because they wish they were true
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 12:17:45 PM
Quote from: walkstall on January 27, 2013, 12:05:10 PM
He is studying to be a teacher. If he keeps saying he is right you will believe him.
Libs learned long ago, that if you keep repeating a lie long enough, it eventually becomes accepted truth.
What he does not understand, is this forum was formed to state only the truth, no matter how painful it may be.
Which is why any person with an IQ above room temperature can see that both sides are to blame for this mess.

Libs demand more and different regulation over the free mkt, Pubs capitulate and settle for more regs, as long as they get something out of it. It's never what is best for the country, rather for themselves and targeted voting blocks.
Title: how ironic, he tells solar "If he keeps saying he is right you will believe him"
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 12:20:35 PM
"I guess 16 trillion in debt is all Bush's fault as well, that is, according to Vern's form of lib logic and math."

ah the classic deflection of mocking things nobody said.  helps avoid the solid factual links vern posts.

"He is studying to be a teacher. If he keeps saying he is right you will believe him. "

And walks, thanks for proving a theory I had about you merging the threads.  I'm not saying I'm right. I'm proving I'm right.  again, I've backed up every point I've made.  Hey remember when you guys used to think "bush tried to stop the bubble"?  I do.
Title: Re: how ironic, he tells solar "If he keeps saying he is right you will believe him"
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 12:37:25 PM
Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 12:20:35 PM
"I guess 16 trillion in debt is all Bush's fault as well, that is, according to Vern's form of lib logic and math."

ah the classic deflection of mocking things nobody said.  helps avoid the solid factual links vern posts.

"He is studying to be a teacher. If he keeps saying he is right you will believe him. "

And walks, thanks for proving a theory I had about you merging the threads.  I'm not saying I'm right. I'm proving I'm right.  again, I've backed up every point I've made.  Hey remember when you guys used to think "bush tried to stop the bubble"?  I do.
Avoiding the actual content of my earlier posts is also pure deflection on your part.
Did Bush lower standards, sure, but does this somehow make him solely responsible for the bubble, a bubble he tried to correct?
Was he in office when the Community Lending Act went into law?
Lets be honest, this is where the problem started, It's true that the CRA requirements were relaxed during the Bush administration. But at this point the lax lending standards were already in place. In any case, the relaxation took a peculiar form that actually made CRA lending more important rather than less. You see, the government let banks drop things like putting in ATMs in rural areas in favor of letting their compliance be judged entirely on CRA loans. This means the CRA had more of an influence on home lending after the requirements were relaxed, not less.

Regulators in charge of enforcing the CRA was pleased with lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required.


Title: Re: sadly they want to be lied to
Post by: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 12:41:23 PM
Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 12:11:34 PM
good job with the false analogy there kramrat.  Lets face its all you can do. You have to pretend that Bush didnt force GSEs to buy more low income home loans, PROTECT PREDATORY LENDERS,  allow GSEs to use abusive subprime loans to meet the goals he raised, stop GSE reform in 2003 and 2005. And again, thats not all of Bush's policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble to start in late 2004.

any 'editorial' that doesnt tell you it started in late 2004 is lying to you
any 'editorial' uses the phrase "forced banks" is lying to you
any 'editorial' that doesnt tell about any of Bush's policies is lying to you.

"Nice blind bias there Vern."

sorry solar, between your silly factless posts and the clutter of the merged threads, I really stopped reading your posts.  If its the video of Clinton saying "what responsibility may rest with dems" then I've seen it. 

Please notice you're posting quotes. I'm posting policies and quotes.  Remember when Bush said he wanted "have 5.5 million minority homeowners in the country by the end of the decade." or when he said "there is no crisis with Freddie and Fannie".  And the policies I'm posting all seem to have taken place in 2004 and thats the same year that the Bush Mortgage Bubble started.  talk about blind bias.

False analogy?

I posted a government website that specifically says that it is illegal for lending institutions to descriminate against people on public assistance.

Just what in the hell do think that means?

You obviously can't figure it out, so I'll tell you. Refusing loans to people that can't possibly pay it back, is still illegal. This is not Bush, dimwit. The government is putting the pressure on banks to write bad loans. It's utter stupidity.
Title: Re: how ironic, he tells solar "If he keeps saying he is right you will believe him"
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 12:42:16 PM
Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 12:20:35 PM
"I guess 16 trillion in debt is all Bush's fault as well, that is, according to Vern's form of lib logic and math."

ah the classic deflection of mocking things nobody said.  helps avoid the solid factual links vern posts.

"He is studying to be a teacher. If he keeps saying he is right you will believe him. "

And walks, thanks for proving a theory I had about you merging the threads.  I'm not saying I'm right. I'm proving I'm right.  again, I've backed up every point I've made.  Hey remember when you guys used to think "bush tried to stop the bubble"?  I do.
He merged the threads per my request, there is no need to have multiple threads on the same subject.
You are not the owner of this forum nor have the credibility to dictate how the forum is run.
Title: Re: sadly they want to be lied to
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 12:43:34 PM
Quote from: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 12:41:23 PM
False analogy?

I posted a government website that specifically says that it is illegal for lending institutions to descriminate against people on public assistance.

Just what in the hell do think that means?

You obviously can't figure it out, so I'll tell you. Refusing loans to people that can't possibly pay it back, is still illegal. This is not Bush, dimwit. The government is putting the pressure on banks to write bad loans. It's utter stupidity.
Toward Liberty nailed it earlier when he said it all falls back on the Fed Reserve, they are really the culprits in all of this.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: 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.
Title: they dont like authority figures
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: they dont like authority figures
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 01:00:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 01:01:20 PM
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...
Title: Re: they dont like authority figures
Post by: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 01:10:02 PM
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/ (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:
Title: it would be nice if solar found someone else to babble to
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: it would be nice if solar found someone else to babble to
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 01:21:20 PM
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...
Title: Re: they dont like authority figures
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 01:22:32 PM
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/ (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.
Title: Re: they dont like authority figures
Post by: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 01:56:24 PM
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 (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/obama-sued-citi.html)
Title: Re: they dont like authority figures
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 02:10:00 PM
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 (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.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: taxed on January 27, 2013, 02:11:44 PM
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....
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 02:18:58 PM
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:
Title: Re: they dont like authority figures
Post by: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 02:26:11 PM
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:
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 02:26:28 PM
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!
Title: uh oh, kram is in the "delusion to justify delusion" mode aka Solar Mode
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 02:27:55 PM
"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.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 02:31:25 PM
Quote from: Solar on January 27, 2013, 02:26:28 PM
How can someone be so blind as to not see the real problem? Big Govt!

Exactly. I don't think Vern spent much time perusing the site before he blasted off.

Blind worship of republicans, (including Bush), doesn't exist here.
Title: Re: am I the only person who thinks the quote function is clunky &slows the thread?
Post by: taxed on January 27, 2013, 02:35:03 PM
Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 07:31:48 AM
  And FYI dont me questions like taxed.

One thing about liberals is they are VERY, VERY scared to commit to a fact on their own.  This is because liberal propaganda is not built on fact, but a smokescreen.  By committing and admitting to a fact, you build a piece of the foundation of the argument against you (also known as "the truth").

Any visitors, from this point on, will not only see the facts Solar, Kram, Boo, TL, etc., have presented, they will see you cowering away from answering a very simple question, simply because you don't have the intellect to continue the discussion on a factual basis.

Let me ask again and see if you are willing to answer a simple question:  who held the House, Senate, and the Office during the CRA?
Title: Re: remove disincentives to subprime lending and increase the supply of credit..
Post by: taxed on January 27, 2013, 02:42:16 PM
Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 07:57:21 AM
wow, talk about a smoking gun.  could you imagine the screams from the right if Barney Frank said that? (again taxed, its a rhetorical question). 

He was a ranking member on the Financial Services Committee, genius.  Chris Dodd was Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

For the forum record, what party member did these two belong to?
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: taxed on January 27, 2013, 02:43:27 PM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on January 27, 2013, 09:14:03 AM
The housing bubble was part of an even larger credit bubble in the derivatives market.

And I have yet to see a single post address the real causal forces that enabled the bubble. Not a word has been said on it.

But much has been said about the CRA and Fannie and Freddie- which are interventions that distorted the housing market, but did not create the bubble as much as they steered it.

Credit bubbles are rooted in monetary manipulations, specifically, credit expansion and artificially low interest rates.

And the shadow banking conduits of repurchase agreements and re-hypothecation, which effectively are the creation of a banking system with no deposits, much larger than the traditional one, is the arena where 21st century credit bubbles play out.

The boom and bust we saw in the housing market was merely a symptom of the boom and bust in leveraged credit "money," or what has been referred to as the "churn."
Totally!
Title: Re: mmm, notice how everybody is talking about everything except the facts I posted
Post by: taxed on January 27, 2013, 02:46:43 PM
Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 10:28:37 AM
". That's the real Barney Frank, (in 2003), saying that there is no crisis. I don't know WTF I can do to get you to acknowledge that."

er uh kram, I've never denied Barney Frank saying there is no crisis in 2003.  Like all republicans, you are arguing a false point to avoid arguing the actual facts. You are denying the fact that Bush told barney in 2003 that there was no crisis.  . You are denying that Bush stopped reform in 2003 (read that part again and slowly). You are denying that the Bush Mortgage Bubble didnt start until late 2004. And you are denying the Bush policies that encouraged, protected and funded the Bush Mortgage bubble that bush enacted in 2004. there's that year again.

what did you think about bush stopping reform again in 2005?

You are adorable.

First of all, you need to start using the quote function.  Your liberal attempt to obfuscate the discussion won't work here.  Use the quote button, please.

Secondly, why did Frank say that?  What was he opposing that Bush was trying to do, and why was Bush trying to do it?  Again, simple, easy questions.
Title: can some one explain to taxed who controlled congress in 2003
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 02:58:06 PM
One thing about liberals is they are VERY, VERY scared to commit to a fact on their own.  "

holy jesus taxed. I've done nothing but make clear straightforward statements and then backed them up with solid factual links. Show this thread to somebody because I think you need help.

"Let me ask again and see if you are willing to answer a simple question:  who held the House, Senate, and the Office during the CRA?"

first off, you were not clear the first time you asked. And the first two times you asked you seem to leave off the fact that there is a senate chamber in congress.  And again, your phrasing "during the CRA" makes no sense.  If you mean who was president and who controlled congress when the CRA was passed why cant you just say it and make your silly point. 

hey taxed, do me a favor and start a thread blaming the CRA with the answer to your silly question.  If I start one Mr Stall will merge it to make it hard to follow the clear straightforward points that I make and back up with solid factual links.

"Secondly, why did Frank say that?  "

he was repeating what Bush told him and because in 2003 there was nothing wrong with freddie and fannie

"He was a ranking member on the Financial Services Committee, genius.  Chris Dodd was Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee."

er uh taxed, republicans controlled congress. If you cant even get those simple facts right, I cant help you.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Cryptic Bert on January 27, 2013, 02:59:32 PM
I love the "refusing to make a loan to someone that cannot pay it back is illegal" argument. If that were actually the case then everyone would get approved for loans. That would not be a need for credit rating...or a job.
Title: Re: mmm, notice how everybody is talking about everything except the facts I posted
Post by: walkstall on January 27, 2013, 03:01:07 PM
Quote from: taxed on January 27, 2013, 02:46:43 PM
You are adorable.

First of all, you need to start using the quote function.  Your liberal attempt to obfuscate the discussion won't work here.  Use the quote button, please.

Secondly, why did Frank say that?  What was he opposing that Bush was trying to do, and why was Bush trying to do it?  Again, simple, easy questions.

This will be the second time he as ast to use the quote function.  It must be bush's fault that he don't know how. 
Title: Re: wow vern, more great links
Post by: taxed on January 27, 2013, 03:04:56 PM
Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 11:54:40 AM
In 2004, 4.3 % of mortgages were No Doc loans.  thats how you give loans to cab drivers and other people without a W2. 

In 2006 over 50 % of all loans were No Doc loans. Thats how you give loans to people who cant afford the loan. Strangely Bush's regulators let them.  "easing" is another way of saying lower lending standards.

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf (http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf)

Here is Barney Frank in 2005, saying there is no bubble.
Barney Frank in 2005: What Housing Bubble? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE#)

Now, that's interesting, because that's when I got into real estate investing, and saw, and recognized the bubble first hand.  I saw tons of those no docs all over the place.  I could write a book on it from my experience.

My question is if little old me plainly saw an acknowledged an emerging bubble, then why not Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, or his main fannie Herb Moses at Fannie, who was making a ton off the legislation and policy Frank supported and pushed?
Title: Re: can some one explain to taxed who controlled congress in 2003
Post by: taxed on January 27, 2013, 03:12:08 PM
Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 02:58:06 PM
One thing about liberals is they are VERY, VERY scared to commit to a fact on their own.  "

holy jesus taxed. I've done nothing but make clear straightforward statements and then backed them up with solid factual links. Show this thread to somebody because I think you need help.

"Let me ask again and see if you are willing to answer a simple question:  who held the House, Senate, and the Office during the CRA?"

first off, you were not clear the first time you asked. And the first two times you asked you seem to leave off the fact that there is a senate chamber in congress.  And again, your phrasing "during the CRA" makes no sense.  If you mean who was president and who controlled congress when the CRA was passed why cant you just say it and make your silly point. 

hey taxed, do me a favor and start a thread blaming the CRA with the answer to your silly question.  If I start one Mr Stall will merge it to make it hard to follow the clear straightforward points that I make and back up with solid factual links.

"Secondly, why did Frank say that?  "

he was repeating what Bush told him and because in 2003 there was nothing wrong with freddie and fannie

"He was a ranking member on the Financial Services Committee, genius.  Chris Dodd was Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee."

er uh taxed, republicans controlled congress. If you cant even get those simple facts right, I cant help you.

Let's try this again.  8 times is a charm.

Who had control during the passing of the CRA?  Come on... you can do it....
Title: Re: can some one explain to taxed who controlled congress in 2003
Post by: taxed on January 27, 2013, 03:17:12 PM
Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 02:58:06 PM
hey taxed, do me a favor and start a thread blaming the CRA with the answer to your silly question.  If I start one Mr Stall will merge it to make it hard to follow the clear straightforward points that I make and back up with solid factual links.
I'm not blaming the CRA itself.  I'm going to build the case that liberalism did this, using your own words, piece by piece.

Let's get this first one out of the way.  Who passed the CRA?


Quote
"Secondly, why did Frank say that?  "

he was repeating what Bush told him and because in 2003 there was nothing wrong with freddie and fannie
What was Bush trying to do that Frank opposed?  Again, another very, very easy answer.


Quote
"He was a ranking member on the Financial Services Committee, genius.  Chris Dodd was Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee."

er uh taxed, republicans controlled congress. If you cant even get those simple facts right, I cant help you.

That's correct.  Aside from you showing you don't understand what committee seats mean, what is your point?
Title: Re: wow vern, more great links
Post by: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 03:28:42 PM
Quote from: taxed on January 27, 2013, 03:04:56 PM
Here is Barney Frank in 2005, saying there is no bubble.
Barney Frank in 2005: What Housing Bubble? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE#)

Now, that's interesting, because that's when I got into real estate investing, and saw, and recognized the bubble first hand.  I saw tons of those no docs all over the place.  I could write a book on it from my experience.

My question is if little old me plainly saw an acknowledged an emerging bubble, then why not Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, or his main fannie Herb Moses at Fannie, who was making a ton off the legislation and policy Frank supported and pushed?

I wonder if Bush told him to say that? :biggrin:

I know a guy that was getting no doc loans back in those days, and buying property. Even he couldn't believe they were loaning him money with no proof required that he could pay it back. It was a freaking government created feeding frenzy.

Nice catch on the video. There's the big dummy himself saying that there aren't any problems because houses are real, and they will be pushing more of these idiotic loans.

Vern-When he says "push" he means they will continue to force the banks to loan money to people that can't pay it back.
Title: Re: wow vern, more great links
Post by: taxed on January 27, 2013, 03:39:38 PM
Quote from: kramarat on January 27, 2013, 03:28:42 PM
I wonder if Bush told him to say that? :biggrin:

I know a guy that was getting no doc loans back in those days, and buying property. Even he couldn't believe they were loaning him money with no proof required that he could pay it back. It was a freaking government created feeding frenzy.

Nice catch on the video. There's the big dummy himself saying that there aren't any problems because houses are real, and they will be pushing more of these idiotic loans.

Vern-When he says "push" he means they will continue to force the banks to loan money to people that can't pay it back.

Yeah, Vern is way over his head on this topic.....
Title: Re: can some one explain to taxed who controlled congress in 2003
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 04:02:05 PM
Quote from: taxed on January 27, 2013, 03:17:12 PM
That's correct.  Aside from you showing you don't understand what committee seats mean, what is your point?

er uh taxed, you cant be 'chairman' if your party is in the minority.

Quote from: taxed on January 27, 2013, 03:12:08 PM
Let's try this again.  8 times is a charm.

Who had control during the passing of the CRA?  Come on... you can do it....

Well I know Carter was president and I'm guessing dems controlled congress congress in 1977 but that has nothing to do with the Bush Mortgage Bubble that started in 2004. why cant people just make a point? (again taxed, its a rhetorical question)

Quote from: walkstall on January 27, 2013, 03:01:07 PM
This will be the second time he as ast to use the quote function.  It must be bush's fault that he don't know how. 

Great moderating there Mr Stall. Its good to know you take your duties seriously. While you are moderating, maybe you could help explain the republican obsession with Barney Frank. 
Title: again, the 'quote' feature is clunky Mr Stall
Post by: Vern on January 27, 2013, 04:23:08 PM
mmmm, a minority member of congress thinks there is no bubble. Can someone tell me how that makes him responsible?  Its not like Barney forced Freddie and Fannie to buy more low income home loans (barney criticized that). Its not like barney allowed freddie and fannie to buy abusive subprime loans (barney criticized that). its not like barney PROTECTED PREDATORY LENDERS (barney criticized that).

If bush says the same thing, will cons blame him? probably not

Thursday, October 27, 2005; Page D01
Ben S. Bernanke does not think the national housing boom is a bubble that is about to burst, he indicated to Congress last week, just a few days before President Bush nominated him to become the next chairman of the Federal Reserve.
U.S. house prices have risen by nearly 25 percent over the past two years, noted Bernanke, currently chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, in testimony to Congress's Joint Economic Committee. But these increases, he said, "largely reflect strong economic fundamentals

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/AR2005102602255.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/AR2005102602255.html)
Title: Re: can some one explain to taxed who controlled congress in 2003
Post by: taxed on January 27, 2013, 04:57:52 PM
Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 04:02:05 PM
er uh taxed, you cant be 'chairman' if your party is in the minority.
Yes you can.  If you don't know that, you really shouldn't be discussing this stuff.  Nevertheless, Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010, when Dems had control.


QuoteWell I know Carter was president and I'm guessing dems controlled congress congress in 1977 but that has nothing to do with the Bush Mortgage Bubble that started in 2004. why cant people just make a point? (again taxed, its a rhetorical question)
You "guess"?  Son, if you don't know who had control then, and how chairs are appointed in committees, then you are worse off than I thought.

Please, in your own words, i.e., not a talking point from a lib source, summarize what the CRA is.  You don't know the basics on our government, so I guess you have no clue, even though it plays a part in the housing crisis.
Title: Re: can some one explain to taxed who controlled congress in 2003
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 05:41:16 PM
Quote from: taxed on January 27, 2013, 04:57:52 PM
Yes you can.  If you don't know that, you really shouldn't be discussing this stuff.  Nevertheless, Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010, when Dems had control.

You "guess"?  Son, if you don't know who had control then, and how chairs are appointed in committees, then you are worse off than I thought.

Please, in your own words, i.e., not a talking point from a lib source, summarize what the CRA is.  You don't know the basics on our government, so I guess you have no clue, even though it plays a part in the housing crisis.
Amazing! How can anyone sit there and place blame in it's entirety upon Bush over this mess and not accept the Dims held culpability at all is beyond reason.

The old tired line "It All Bush's Fault" is getting real tedious.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: taxed on January 27, 2013, 06:02:51 PM
Quote from: Vern on January 27, 2013, 04:23:08 PM
mmmm, a minority member of congress thinks there is no bubble. Can someone tell me how that makes him responsible?

  Its not like Barney forced Freddie and Fannie to buy more low income home loans (barney criticized that). Its not like barney allowed freddie and fannie to buy abusive subprime loans (barney criticized that). its not like barney PROTECTED PREDATORY LENDERS (barney criticized that).
Actually, genius, he was very much part of it, and did indeed force Freddie and Fannie to purchase low income home loans.  In 1992, he (a DEMOCRAT) was an architect and pretty much led the charge to force Fannie and Freddie to make these purchases.  Before they passed it (signed by Clinton, a DEMOCRAT), they were only required to buy PRIME mortgages that institutional investors buy.  Frank, and the other DEMOCRATS, thought this was unfair to the po' folks.  After the passage of this, over 50% of mortgages they bought were low income.  So, Bush inherits Clinton's mortgage mess, pushed by Frank, then it starts tanking, and then Frank starts blaming Bush and the Republicans (yes, there were indeed Republicans to blame too, but in 1992, it was a DEMOCRAT change to the legislation).
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Cryptic Bert on January 27, 2013, 06:16:29 PM
This is very simple to solve.If it is Bush's fault then there will be executive orders or legislation passed that Bush signed that makes denying loans based on income illegal and/or forcing quotas on financial institutions.

Since Verne claims to have all the facts he should be able to supply these bills/EO's.  They will be on the government website.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 06:33:41 PM
Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 27, 2013, 06:16:29 PM
This is very simple to solve.If it is Bush's fault then there will be executive orders or legislation passed that Bush signed that makes denying loans based on income illegal and/or forcing quotas on financial institutions.

Since Verne claims to have all the facts he should be able to supply these bills/EO's.  They will be on the government website.
That would require him to first accept Dim culpability, and since he can't he is blind to the facts.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Cryptic Bert on January 27, 2013, 07:14:56 PM
Looks like Vern has left the party...
Title: can you guys babble at me one at a time please
Post by: Vern on January 28, 2013, 03:22:44 AM
You silly pubs are truly confused.  Lets review the facts you've learned in this thread

The Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004 when Banks lowered their lending standards (you dont get to pretend it started in 1992 or 1977)
Bush's regulators not only didnt stop it. They encouraged it.
Bush stopped GSE 'reform' in 2003. It had nothing to do with subprime
Bush reversed the clinton rule that 'reined in' freddie and fannie
Bush forced GSEs to buy more low income home loans
Bush PROTECTED PREDATORY LENDERS
Bush stopped real GSE reform in 2005

and thats not even all of his toxic policies. and can someone explain to taxed that republicans controlled congress from 2003 to 2007 so Dodd wasnt chairman during the Bush mortgage Bubble. I told him but you guys know better than me how you dont like facts
Title: Re: can you guys babble at me one at a time please
Post by: kramarat on January 28, 2013, 04:19:01 AM
Quote from: Vern on January 28, 2013, 03:22:44 AM
You silly pubs are truly confused.  Lets review the facts you've learned in this thread

The Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004 when Banks lowered their lending standards (you dont get to pretend it started in 1992 or 1977)
Bush's regulators not only didn't stop it. They encouraged it.
Bush stopped GSE 'reform' in 2003. It had nothing to do with subprime
Bush reversed the clinton rule that 'reined in' freddie and fannie
Bush forced GSEs to buy more low income home loans
Bush PROTECTED PREDATORY LENDERS
Bush stopped real GSE reform in 2005

and that's not even all of his toxic policies. and can someone explain to taxed that republicans controlled congress from 2003 to 2007 so Dodd wasn't chairman during the Bush mortgage Bubble. I told him but you guys know better than me how you dont like facts

There's no doubt that Bush allowed himself to get caught up in the fake housing boom that democrats created. Allowing banks to repackage bad paper and sell it to investors, was monumentally stupid. It created a runaway train, and nobody's arguing involvement by the Bush administration; which you're choosing to ignore.

The term "predatory lender" was invented to lay the blame on the people that made bad loans............while following government dictates. No one was forced to take out a loan.

If you really want to get to the crux of the problem, in fact, most of our problems, they have their basis in FDR's New Deal, and Johnson's Great Society. Other president's have built on them, but these are where things really took root. It was the idea that people that didn't earn things, deserved to have them anyway. Policies were implemented to make it happen; including getting people with no money into home ownership. The thought was, get them into houses, and it would motivate them into becoming responsible citizens, getting full time jobs, making their payments, etc. It didn't work. Turns out there was a reason they didn't own homes before, and it wasn't because lenders were being discriminatory; it was because they didn't have the motivation or the money to own a home.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 28, 2013, 04:39:17 AM
Not that this will matter. :glare:

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html (http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html)

You're also fooling yourself if you think things will be just fine with Bush gone. Things are going to get much worse.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/312807/burn-down-suburbs-stanley-kurtz# (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/312807/burn-down-suburbs-stanley-kurtz#)
Title: Re: can you guys babble at me one at a time please
Post by: Cryptic Bert on January 28, 2013, 10:08:21 AM
Quote from: Vern on January 28, 2013, 03:22:44 AM
You silly pubs are truly confused.  Lets review the facts you've learned in this thread

The Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004 when Banks lowered their lending standards (you dont get to pretend it started in 1992 or 1977)
Bush's regulators not only didnt stop it. They encouraged it.
Bush stopped GSE 'reform' in 2003. It had nothing to do with subprime
Bush reversed the clinton rule that 'reined in' freddie and fannie
Bush forced GSEs to buy more low income home loans
Bush PROTECTED PREDATORY LENDERS
Bush stopped real GSE reform in 2005

and thats not even all of his toxic policies. and can someone explain to taxed that republicans controlled congress from 2003 to 2007 so Dodd wasnt chairman during the Bush mortgage Bubble. I told him but you guys know better than me how you dont like facts
If these are facts Vera then you provide links for each example.
Title: Boo, do me a favor and start a thread about the CRA. I dont want anger Mr Stall
Post by: Vern on January 28, 2013, 02:38:46 PM
Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 28, 2013, 10:08:21 AM
If these are facts Vera then you provide links for each example.

holy mother mary of god!!! boo, I did provide links.  The only thing I didnt specifically provide a link for was "They encouraged it."  let me know when you are ready for that specific link.

Quote from: kramarat on January 28, 2013, 04:39:17 AM
Not that this will matter.

You're right kram, it doesnt matter because your 'editorial' continues to ignore the fact that the Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004. Read this slowly. You can post links to thousands of housing policies from every president but when you do, you have to explain the connection between it and banks lowering their lending standards in late 2004 and Bush's regulators letting them.  Your 'editorial' cant so thats why it doesnt.   Its entire premise is "clinton promoted paper thin down payments".  Notice its kinda of vague about what constitutes 'paper thin'. And please notice that iIt leaves out that "bush implemented 0 downpayments and gave away 40,000 free downpayments".  Calling Bush's actual policies "paper thin" would be a compliment.  guess what year Bush implemented his 2 'super duper paper thin' down payments? yea 2004

Quote from: kramarat on January 28, 2013, 04:19:01 AM
There's no doubt that Bush allowed himself to get caught up in the fake housing boom that democrats created.

there you go again.  You repeating your factless linkless self serving delusions doesnt change the facts that Bush encouraged, protected and funded the bubble that started in late 2004.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 28, 2013, 02:45:30 PM
Here's the HUD release, bragging about the start of the bubble. Year: 1996

http://archives.hud.gov/news/1996/pr96-011.cfm (http://archives.hud.gov/news/1996/pr96-011.cfm)

President Clinton launched the National Homeownership Strategy in November, 1994. He directed Cisneros to form the "National Partners in Homeownership," in which 56 major housing and finance industry groups are now working with government and nonprofit organizations to reduce barriers to homeownership.

If you are not smart enough to understand that "making it easier to get financing" means, pressuring banks to ease lending requirements, that's not my problem.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 28, 2013, 02:58:19 PM
Quote from: kramarat on January 28, 2013, 02:45:30 PM
Here's the HUD release, bragging about the start of the bubble. Year: 1996

http://archives.hud.gov/news/1996/pr96-011.cfm (http://archives.hud.gov/news/1996/pr96-011.cfm)

President Clinton launched the National Homeownership Strategy in November, 1994. He directed Cisneros to form the "National Partners in Homeownership," in which 56 major housing and finance industry groups are now working with government and nonprofit organizations to reduce barriers to homeownership.

If you are not smart enough to understand that "making it easier to get financing" means, pressuring banks to ease lending requirements, that's not my problem.
He refuses to accept that the left were in anyway culpable in creating the bubble.
This speaks more about a sanity issue, if anything.

And the mantra continues "Bush's Fault"!
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: JustKari on January 28, 2013, 03:01:41 PM
Quote from: Solar on January 28, 2013, 02:58:19 PM
He refuses to accept that the left were in anyway culpable in creating the bubble.
This speaks more about a sanity issue, if anything.

And the mantra continues "Bush's Fault"!

I am sure in his mind Bush gave Eve the apple.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 28, 2013, 03:03:21 PM
There's more:

http://theaffordablemortgagedepression.com/2010/03/11/origin-of-the-housing-bubble-the-national-homeownership-strategy.aspx (http://theaffordablemortgagedepression.com/2010/03/11/origin-of-the-housing-bubble-the-national-homeownership-strategy.aspx)

More broadly The National Homeownership Strategy encompassed parallel regulatory and legislative reforms during 1994 and 1995.  Examples include: 

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was revised to force lenders to make loans to uncreditworthy borrowers as a cost of doing business

The Riegle-Neal Act was passed making compliance with The Community Reinvestment Act a prerequisite for banks to expand, make acquisitions or operate in more than one state
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 28, 2013, 03:03:48 PM
Quote from: JustKari on January 28, 2013, 03:01:41 PM
I am sure in his mind Bush gave Eve the apple.  :rolleyes:
You give him too much credit, Bush is evil incarnate, he is the Devil himself. :laugh:
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 28, 2013, 03:10:01 PM
I think the party's over. :laugh:
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Cryptic Bert on January 28, 2013, 04:25:00 PM
Well i asked Vera to show what specific bills that were passed by Republicans and executive orders issued by Bush that led to the housing crisis and he has not been able to do so. Game over.

I wonder what website gave him the idea to start this thread...
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: taxed on January 28, 2013, 04:30:53 PM
Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 28, 2013, 04:25:00 PM
Well i asked Vera to show what specific bills that were passed by Republicans and executive orders issued by Bush that led to the housing crisis and he has not been able to do so. Game over.

I wonder what website gave him the idea to start this thread...

Hi hear Chris Hayes has a blog...
Title: Re: Boo, do me a favor and start a thread about the CRA. I dont want anger Mr Stall
Post by: taxed on January 28, 2013, 04:35:20 PM
Quote from: Vern on January 28, 2013, 02:38:46 PM
holy mother mary of god!!! boo, I did provide links.  The only thing I didnt specifically provide a link for was "They encouraged it."  let me know when you are ready for that specific link.

The only proof you provided is that you have no idea what you're talking about.  I'm sorry whoever told you to think Bush is responsible for the housing market didn't know much about the topic either.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Cryptic Bert on January 28, 2013, 04:53:22 PM
Quote from: taxed on January 28, 2013, 04:30:53 PM
Hi hear Chris Hayes has a blog...
And Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough and Chris O'Donnell. They're all the same person....

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1076.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw441%2FKrellkneen%2F5_zps7462a5a1.jpg&hash=c263b7dd7c7d4cef066f3d8d0f32e2f8c869c54c)(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1076.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw441%2FKrellkneen%2F8_zps612b49e4-1_zps0e2da0b4.jpg&hash=0be798cd8e7e9639775efc6e36efe079c0278f76)(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1076.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw441%2FKrellkneen%2F3_zpsa196e07d.jpg&hash=baa3cddbea7e3974568f5b0075d81db25c2b9582)(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi39.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe157%2FBertspivey%2Fchris_o_donnell01-1.jpg&hash=f0e95934aa8da85a166bd200a76e1372f9d42209)
Title: Re: can you guys babble at me one at a time please
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 28, 2013, 05:01:54 PM
Quote from: Vern on January 28, 2013, 03:22:44 AM
You silly pubs are truly confused.  Lets review the facts you've learned in this thread

The Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004 when Banks lowered their lending standards (you dont get to pretend it started in 1992 or 1977)
Bush's regulators not only didnt stop it. They encouraged it.
Bush stopped GSE 'reform' in 2003. It had nothing to do with subprime
Bush reversed the clinton rule that 'reined in' freddie and fannie
Bush forced GSEs to buy more low income home loans
Bush PROTECTED PREDATORY LENDERS
Bush stopped real GSE reform in 2005

and thats not even all of his toxic policies. and can someone explain to taxed that republicans controlled congress from 2003 to 2007 so Dodd wasnt chairman during the Bush mortgage Bubble. I told him but you guys know better than me how you dont like facts


Here is the policy that caused the bubble.

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.mises.org%2F3130%2FFigure1.png&hash=0893202ad2065c99a92bc5007508b8604396b6df)

It began in 2001 as a response to the bursting of the tech bubble.

These artificially low rates were achieved through expanding money and credit.

Hence the credit bubble.

Both the housing and tech bubbles were the work of Greenspan. Krugman was even quoted saying that "we" need to replace the tech bubble with a housing bubble, in support of this policy of accommodative monetary policy, to "grow" the economy out of it's malaise.
Title: Re: can you guys babble at me one at a time please
Post by: kramarat on January 28, 2013, 06:40:51 PM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on January 28, 2013, 05:01:54 PM

Here is the policy that caused the bubble.

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.mises.org%2F3130%2FFigure1.png&hash=0893202ad2065c99a92bc5007508b8604396b6df)

It began in 2001 as a response to the bursting of the tech bubble.

These artificially low rates were achieved through expanding money and credit.

Hence the credit bubble.

Both the housing and tech bubbles were the work of Greenspan. Krugman was even quoted saying that "we" need to replace the tech bubble with a housing bubble, in support of this policy of accommodative monetary policy, to "grow" the economy out of it's malaise.

The housing boom was intentionally created during the Clinton era. The tech bubble had no government involvement or manipulation involved, and therefore, while bad, it wasn't a killer.

After 9-11, there was a genuine fear of having the economy collapse. Lowering the interest rates provided almost free money to the banks, and not only kept Clinton's plan going, but sent it into overdrive, which led to the eventual burst of the bubble. They ran out of people to sell the crap mortgages to.

Without Clinton's loosening of the lending standards, and forcing banks to make bad loans, none of it would have happened.

You know what really sucks? With the free money being given to the banks, Obama and the fed are continuing the same reckless policies....................this time around, it's barely keeping our heads above water. There will be no booms.
Title: Re: can you guys babble at me one at a time please
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 28, 2013, 06:53:23 PM
Quote from: kramarat on January 28, 2013, 06:40:51 PM
The housing boom was intentionally created during the Clinton era.

I would disagree.

Quote

The tech bubble had no government involvement or manipulation involved, and therefore, while bad, it wasn't a killer.

Disagree there, too.

The same policy that created the housing bubble created the tech bubble.

Quote

After 9-11, there was a genuine fear of having the economy collapse. Lowering the interest rates provided almost free money to the banks, and not only kept Clinton's plan going, but sent it into overdrive, which led to the eventual burst of the bubble. They ran out of people to sell the crap mortgages to.

Without Clinton's loosening of the lending standards, and forcing banks to make bad loans, none of it would have happened.

You know what really sucks? With the free money being given to the banks, Obama and the fed are continuing the same reckless policies....................this time around, it's barely keeping our heads above water. There will be no booms.

Without credit expansion and low interest rates, there would have been no credit bubble nor housing bubble.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Vern on January 29, 2013, 03:41:31 AM
can someone tell boo that the policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble were policies.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on January 28, 2013, 06:53:23 PM

The same policy that created the housing bubble created the tech bubble.

Without credit expansion and low interest rates, there would have been no credit bubble nor housing bubble.

the credit expanision in no way explains why banks lowered their lending standards in late 2004 and Bush's regulators let them (see the first post for the link).  Greenspan did turn out to be party hack.  He couldn t pop the tech bubble fast enough for the 2000 election. he claimed not to see the housing bubble.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 29, 2013, 04:25:18 AM
Quote from: Vern on January 29, 2013, 03:41:31 AM
can someone tell boo that the policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble were policies.

the credit expanision in no way explains why banks lowered their lending standards in late 2004 and Bush's regulators let them (see the first post for the link).  Greenspan did turn out to be party hack.  He couldn t pop the tech bubble fast enough for the 2000 election. he claimed not to see the housing bubble.
Greenspan is a party hack, which ever party is in charge.
Playing God with the economy is why were in the mess were in, both party's are to blame.
Now show the Bills or EO that Boo asked for.
If he was dictating, then there should be evidence, correct?
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 29, 2013, 04:28:45 AM
Quote from: Vern on January 29, 2013, 03:41:31 AM
can someone tell boo that the policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble were policies.

the credit expanision in no way explains why banks lowered their lending standards in late 2004 and Bush's regulators let them (see the first post for the link).  Greenspan did turn out to be party hack.  He couldn t pop the tech bubble fast enough for the 2000 election. he claimed not to see the housing bubble.

As I've already shown, lending standards were lowered in 1994 in order to get people into home ownership, that otherwise couldn't afford it. Banks were forced to give out shakey loans, as a part of doing business. Ir's just a fact.

A couple of things happened while Bush was in office that created the perfect storm, but we can't let Clinton off the hook.

As Liberty pointed out, the fed dropped the interest rate to close to zero, which freed up huge amounts of cheap money that became available to the banks. But something else happened that played an even bigger part; there was a vast realization that the no doc loans that Clinton had implemented, weren't just for poor people. Banks were loaning money to anyone with a pulse, no documentation required.

If we assume that the drop in interest rates was solely to blame, we would be experiencing a boom today. What changed?
Lending standards have been tightened back up.

Even with the low interest rates, if everybody would have had to prove that they could pay back the loans and make the payments, there would have been no boom; and if there had been, it only would have involved people that could pay back the loans, therefore, there would have been no bust.

Clinton relaxed the lending standards, low rates came under Bush, and old fashioned human greed took over from there.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 29, 2013, 04:49:22 AM
Quote from: kramarat on January 29, 2013, 04:28:45 AM
As I've already shown, lending standards were lowered in 1994 in order to get people into home ownership, that otherwise couldn't afford it. Banks were forced to give out shakey loans, as a part of doing business. Ir's just a fact.

A couple of things happened while Bush was in office that created the perfect storm, but we can't let Clinton off the hook.

As Liberty pointed out, the fed dropped the interest rate to close to zero, which freed up huge amounts of cheap money that became available to the banks. But something else happened that played an even bigger part; there was a vast realization that the no doc loans that Clinton had implemented, weren't just for poor people. Banks were loaning money to anyone with a pulse, no documentation required.

If we assume that the drop in interest rates was solely to blame, we would be experiencing a boom today. What changed?
Lending standards have been tightened back up.

Even with the low interest rates, if everybody would have had to prove that they could pay back the loans and make the payments, there would have been no boom; and if there had been, it only would have involved people that could pay back the loans, therefore, there would have been no bust.

Clinton relaxed the lending standards, low rates came under Bush, and old fashioned human greed took over from there.
Doesn't matter, it's still all Bush's Fault. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 29, 2013, 04:52:29 AM
Quote from: Solar on January 29, 2013, 04:49:22 AM
Doesn't matter, it's still all Bush's Fault. :rolleyes:

But the big question is.............does big government ever stop doing stupid things?

Hell no!!!! :angry:

Obama's still at it:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/012413-641859-obama-community-reinvestment-act-low-income-loans.htm?ref=SeeAlso&p=full (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/012413-641859-obama-community-reinvestment-act-low-income-loans.htm?ref=SeeAlso&p=full)

Don't you know? Not loaning money to people that can't afford to pay it back, is racism. :blink:
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 29, 2013, 05:03:46 AM
Quote from: kramarat on January 29, 2013, 04:52:29 AM
But the big question is.............does big government ever stop doing stupid things?

Hell no!!!! :angry:

Obama's still at it:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/012413-641859-obama-community-reinvestment-act-low-income-loans.htm?ref=SeeAlso&p=full (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/012413-641859-obama-community-reinvestment-act-low-income-loans.htm?ref=SeeAlso&p=full)

Don't you know? Not loaning money to people that can't afford to pay it back, is racism. :blink:
And now we have his administration dictating who banks should loan to, even well established business.
To not see that Husein is destroying the economy is, makes a person a special kind of stupid.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 29, 2013, 05:28:51 AM
Quote from: Solar on January 29, 2013, 05:03:46 AM
And now we have his administration dictating who banks should loan to, even well established business.
To not see that Husein is destroying the economy is, makes a person a special kind of stupid.

I wasn't able to buy a house until I was 40. Took a long time to save up the down payment. That's just the way I was taught that things worked.
As long as democrats are stuck on fairness and redistribution, we're gonna have problems. Giving people money doesn't make them responsible; it has to be taught and learned. It's the notion that people of color are incapable of learnng those things, that is racist.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 29, 2013, 06:01:43 AM
Quote from: kramarat on January 29, 2013, 05:28:51 AM
I wasn't able to buy a house until I was 40. Took a long time to save up the down payment. That's just the way I was taught that things worked.
As long as democrats are stuck on fairness and redistribution, we're gonna have problems. Giving people money doesn't make them responsible; it has to be taught and learned. It's the notion that people of color are incapable of learnng those things, that is racist.
I too was raised that you don't buy it unless you can afford it. I bought my place with a third down and the land owner carried the paper at 10% interest, came to around $400.0 per month, which is cheaper than rent, lived in my motor home till I could afford to build, which I did, all by myself, hired no one, no friends chipped in, but again, self sufficiency is how I was raised.
I have no bills to this day.

It's beyond me why a couple would buy a 6 bedroom home that never planned on having kids, only makes $2000.0 per month between them, house payment of $1800.0 per month.
And this couple loses everything and files bankruptcy.

That too is a special kind of stupid.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: supsalemgr on January 29, 2013, 06:22:37 AM
When lenders began lending money with no equity on the part of the buyer it was a known loser. Not to worry for the lenders because Freddie and Fannie said we will back the loans. Why not? The lender gets to collect all the fees and then rids themselves of any loss. Wow, what a deal.

Along those lines there is another different issue from past recessions. Many of us remember the 70's and there were a lot of folks in trouble then. I spent my entire career in insurance and saw this first hand. Back then we had a lot of fires and this time we did not. Why? Back then the ownwers had equity and a fire allowed them to collect and pay off their mortgage. This time folks just walked away because there was no equity to be had. It is not bad we didn't have the arson, but it is a lesson in human nature.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 29, 2013, 07:25:33 AM
Quote from: Vern on January 29, 2013, 03:41:31 AM
can someone tell boo that the policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble were policies.

the credit expanision in no way explains why banks lowered their lending standards in late 2004 and Bush's regulators let them (see the first post for the link).  Greenspan did turn out to be party hack.  He couldn t pop the tech bubble fast enough for the 2000 election. he claimed not to see the housing bubble.

You are right about Greenspan being a hack. But he was a FED chairman- so what do you expect?

You dont get that job without genuflecting to the banksters.

The lowered lending standards would not have been possible without credit expansion for these new standards allowed marginal borrowers access to credit that was previously cut off from them. From the laws of supply and demand, we know that increasing demand will increase price. In this case, the new borrowers would drive up interest rates as their demand for loans bid up the price of credit.

Rising interest rates cool or pop bubbles- so this was resisted with credit expansion. Lowering lending standards could not produce a housing bubble, merely on their own, for the inevitable rise in interest rates would prevent the kind of reflexivity needed for bubbles to form.

The housing bubble is only part of the story. The bigger story is the credit bubble in the derivatives markets.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 29, 2013, 07:33:28 AM
Quote from: kramarat on January 29, 2013, 04:28:45 AM


If we assume that the drop in interest rates was solely to blame, we would be experiencing a boom today. What changed?
Lending standards have been tightened back up.

Even with the low interest rates, if everybody would have had to prove that they could pay back the loans and make the payments, there would have been no boom; and if there had been, it only would have involved people that could pay back the loans, therefore, there would have been no bust.

Clinton relaxed the lending standards, low rates came under Bush, and old fashioned human greed took over from there.

Not necessarily.

Artificially low rates are the key factor for mispricing risk, time and capital. This mispricing is how phantom profits are created, which leads to an investment boom, which later turns out to be a bust, as people discover the actual price of risk, time and capital, and the boom collapses.

Right now the same thing is happening. Capital, Risk and Time are mispriced and this is leading entrepreneurs and investors to put capital into projects that will later be found to be uneconomical and unprofitable.

Another bust is coming.

And in many ways, monetary and fiscal policy have been attempts to re-inflate the economy along the old pattern. The pattern of the bubble.

And these policies have led some growth to occur, in places like housing, again as people are misled through mispricing, to invest in things people dont really want.

If relaxing lending standards was the major issue here then why did the boom not occur much sooner? Why did it "wait" for Greenspan to lower interest rates?
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 29, 2013, 09:19:24 AM
QuoteIf relaxing lending standards was the major issue here then why did the boom not occur much sooner? Why did it "wait" for Greenspan to lower interest rates?

When rates were lowered, it brought out people that otherwise weren't in the market for a loan. But like I said earlier, once it was realized that anybody could get a no doc loan, the floodgates were opened. I saw it with my own eyes.

It was no longer about getting poor people into home ownership. The combination of low rates and loosened lending standards created a frenzy. Normally sane people were taking out multiple loans for investment properties, and way overextending themselves. For a while it made sense; housing prices were going up so fast that they could roll over properties in two years and make a killing. It worked for a little while; the early birds did pretty well. The ones that got in late got burned, but they brought it upon themselves, as far as I"m concerned.

I bought my house during the early part of the frenzy. I can't tell you how many people told me I was stupid for buying my crappy, abandoned fixer upper. I was being pushed by both the realtors and the lenders to buy more house than I needed or could realistically afford. It sounded to good to be true, and it was.

So, I got a 2000 sq ft house on an acre of land, no close neighbors, a yard full of 100+ year old oak trees, for $103 K. Over time I have cleaned the place up and improved it with my own time and labor, and although I'm not finished, it appraises at $170 K.

The trick was not following the crowd and going stupid. :wink:

Everybody seems to want to leave the stupid, greedy borrowers out of the equation. Nobody was forced to take out a loan, and being a renter is not something to be ashamed of.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Vern on January 29, 2013, 03:16:27 PM
Quote from: kramarat on January 29, 2013, 04:28:45 AM
As I've already shown, lending standards were lowered in 1994 in order to get people into home ownership, that otherwise couldn't afford it. Banks were forced to give out shakey loans, as a part of doing business. Ir's just a fact.

sorry kram, you posted a housing policy from 1994.  You, just like every pub editorial, has to overlook the documented fact that the Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004 when banks lowered their lending standards and Bush's regulators let them.  You have to overlook it because there is no way to connect it to the Bush Mortgage Bubble.  Like a drowing man, you'll cling to anything that floats your way. 

Toward Liberty at least posted something from the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble. However, low interest rates dont cause banks to stop checking peoples income and Bush's regulators to let them.  Also, with  "interest only", "teaser rates" and "5 and 10 year ARMs", interest rates were not really a concern and your graph proves it. The bush mortgage bubble started late 2004 and interest rates climbed throughout 2005 snd 2006. 2006 was the peak of the bubble.  And get this, in 2006, subprime loans peaked at 40 % of all mortgages (from 10 % in 2003).  They pay higher interest for that.  In 2006, over 50 % were No Doc loans (from 4.3% in 2004). they pay higher interest for that too. 

so people were not 'rate sensitive'.  And if they couldnt afford the loan, why would they be?

(and taxed is funny, I post one of Bush's toxic housing policies that preempts all state laws against predatory lending for the explicitly stated purpose of "increasing credit to subprime borrowers" and he conveniently says "what legislation"? )
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 29, 2013, 03:47:49 PM
Quote from: kramarat on January 29, 2013, 09:19:24 AM
When rates were lowered, it brought out people that otherwise weren't in the market for a loan. But like I said earlier, once it was realized that anybody could get a no doc loan, the floodgates were opened. I saw it with my own eyes.


No doubt.

And a major reason why these no doc or NINJA loans were possible is because a bank somewhere was willing to buy them, slice and dice them, bundle the bits, and sell them in securitized form.

The market for these securities was a awash in credit.

These markets allow these securities to be pledged multiple times against lines of credit, in effect "pyramiding" loans after loans on top of dwindling pool of highly risky assets serving as collateral.

This highly leveraged shadow banking system is where the demand for those risky mortgage securities came from, allowing banks to make the risks they did.

And none of that highly levered money would exist without obscene low levels of interest, and continual credit injections.

It is not the stock of credit that matters, but the flow of credit, which means credit has to be continually created.

This "bubble" in the derivatives market is where the true story is- what happened in housing was a mere symptom.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 29, 2013, 03:57:42 PM
Quote from: Vern on January 29, 2013, 03:16:27 PM
Toward Liberty at least posted something from the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble. However, low interest rates dont cause banks to stop checking peoples income and Bush's regulators to let them.

Well in a way they do.

Low interest rates fuel the credit bubble in the derivatives market which fuels demand for mortgage securities.

Having a market with an insatiable demand for bundled mortgage loans means that more risky loans can be made, for they do not need to be held on the bank's books.

So banks took more risks.

This is what is known as moral hazard.

In a low interest environment, traditional income streams, like interest income from fixed investments, such as bonds, is diminished.

So investors look for yield and in the process take on more risk.

Though the mis-pricing of risk is one of the keys to any boom and bust cycle.
Quote

Also, with  "interest only", "teaser rates" and "5 and 10 year ARMs", interest rates were not really a concern and your graph proves it. The bush mortgage bubble started late 2004 and interest rates climbed throughout 2005 snd 2006. 2006 was the peak of the bubble.

Which confirms my story.

The historic low rates of 01-04 led to a boom in housing that became visible in 2004. Then the rates increases of 05-07 led to the re-pricing of risk, and this led to losses. Thus the collapse.
Quote

And get this, in 2006, subprime loans peaked at 40 % of all mortgages (from 10 % in 2003).  They pay higher interest for that.  In 2006, over 50 % were No Doc loans (from 4.3% in 2004). they pay higher interest for that too. 

so people were not 'rate sensitive'.  And if they couldnt afford the loan, why would they be?

People are rate sensitive. Thus the interest deduction on mortgage payments. And the teaser rates we all know so much about!

Being rate sensitive is just being price sensitive.

And it makes sense that sub-prime loans peak with the bubble, a mature bubble will have already enthralled the smart money long ago. You know a bubble is coming to an end when the investment asset in question has saturated the market and even amateur investors come into the fold and start speculating. (or perhaps become real estate agents!)

The stock boom of the 1920's is a good example.

Tulipmania in 16th century Holland being another.

Title: Bush didnt have to tell me. The facts told me.
Post by: Vern on January 29, 2013, 04:09:46 PM
toward, at least you make intelligent points and use well thought out rhetoric (solar, taxed, boo, kram, kari take notes) . But you keep avoiding the elephant in the room:  banks lowered their lending standards in late 2004 and Bush's regulators let them.  Any financial product based on a bad mortgage was going to be a bad financial product.

Even Bush told you it started in late 2004 when banks lowered their lending standard. He sorta left out the part that his regulators not only let them but encouraged them.

Title: Re: Bush didnt have to tell me. The facts told me.
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 29, 2013, 04:34:54 PM
Quote from: Vern on January 29, 2013, 04:09:46 PM
toward, at least you make intelligent points and use well thought out rhetoric (solar, taxed, boo, kram, kari take notes) .

But you keep avoiding the elephant in the room:  banks lowered their lending standards in late 2004 and Bush's regulators let them.

I dont dispute that.

I just dispute that this act "caused" the housing bubble.

It certainly prolonged it and played a significant role.

But ultimately it was the market demand for these risky securities which enabled the loans to be made in the first place. Without a market for securitized subprime paper there wouldn't be subprime loans.

Basically, the market said, "we want to buy assets of a riskier nature," and the regulators said, "ok."

So the real elephant in the room is that question: why was there such demand for securitized subprime paper?

And that answer can be found in those low interest rates- which destroy fixed income or "conservative" income streams and therefore sends investors (read hedge funds and banks) into the hunt for yield, which means taking on more risk.
Quote
  Any financial product based on a bad mortgage was going to be a bad financial product.

Even Bush told you it started in late 2004 when banks lowered their lending standard. He sorta left out the part that his regulators not only let them but encouraged them.

Sure.

If you are knowingly blowing a bubble in the economy, with full knowledge of the inevitable bust and bailouts of banks that will follow, it makes sense to include some fuzzy notion of acting with "the best intentions" and in the interests of the "working classes," from a political standpoint.

It is just good politics.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 29, 2013, 06:01:24 PM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on January 29, 2013, 03:47:49 PM
No doubt.

And a major reason why these no doc or NINJA loans were possible is because a bank somewhere was willing to buy them, slice and dice them, bundle the bits, and sell them in securitized form.

The market for these securities was a awash in credit.

These markets allow these securities to be pledged multiple times against lines of credit, in effect "pyramiding" loans after loans on top of dwindling pool of highly risky assets serving as collateral.

This highly leveraged shadow banking system is where the demand for those risky mortgage securities came from, allowing banks to make the risks they did.

And none of that highly levered money would exist without obscene low levels of interest, and continual credit injections.

It is not the stock of credit that matters, but the flow of credit, which means credit has to be continually created.

This "bubble" in the derivatives market is where the true story is- what happened in housing was a mere symptom.

No arguments with any of it. All you had to add, was that no doc loans never would have existed without Clinton's policies. I'm not trying to excuse what took place during the Bush years.

Vern is not interested in facts at all, so his posts have become irrelevant.

When government makes attempts to manipulate markets, it doesn't matter what the excuses are, it always turns out badly. This includes Clinton's insistence that people with no steady income, become home owners.

Banks started with the no doc loans in 1994. They were forced to by Clinton, in the interest of fairness to minorities that didn't have any way to become home owners.............but anyone could get them.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: TowardLiberty on January 29, 2013, 06:11:58 PM
Quote from: kramarat on January 29, 2013, 06:01:24 PM
No arguments with any of it. All you had to add, was that no doc loans never would have existed without Clinton's policies. I'm not trying to excuse what took place during the Bush years.

Vern is not interested in facts at all, so his posts have become irrelevant.

When government makes attempts to manipulate markets, it doesn't matter what the excuses are, it always turns out badly. This includes Clinton's insistence that people with no steady income, become home owners.

Agreed.

That is the funny thing about economics.

Real economic theory is nothing but the analysis of how tinkering with markets creates distortions.

But one wouldn't know that studying mainstream economics, taking college econ classes, or by reading the majority of academic journals..

Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: redlom xof on January 29, 2013, 07:57:40 PM
I can't believe I missed this thread. Is a good one.

Before I post about this directly, for I have 10 pages of info to go through properly, has anyone seen the documentary " Inside Job". I think it tells the story of the Global Financial Crisis very accurately.

Blaming government, wall st and the federal reserve for the majority of the problems.


Also, some people's responses so far have been hilarious.

Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 03:33:11 AM
Quote from: TowardLiberty on January 29, 2013, 06:11:58 PM
Agreed.

That is the funny thing about economics.

Real economic theory is nothing but the analysis of how tinkering with markets creates distortions.

But one wouldn't know that studying mainstream economics, taking college econ classes, or by reading the majority of academic journals..

I think I understand now how Vern is getting himself confused. Ironically, every chart on the housing bubble starts in 2000, the year Bush took office.

The following links on home sales, clearly show when the party got started:

http://piggington.com/historical_home_sale_volume_measured_in_dollars (http://piggington.com/historical_home_sale_volume_measured_in_dollars)

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblownmortgage.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F06%2Fhomesales.png&hash=f94d429440fc28aa42ad9ab61f887d4b9499f08d)
Title: con brains will never grasp BUSH PROTECTED PREDATORY LENDERS
Post by: Vern on January 30, 2013, 03:52:50 AM
er uh kram,
Quote from: kramarat on January 29, 2013, 06:01:24 PM

Vern is not interested in facts at all, so his posts have become irrelevant.


er uh kram, how how how have you not noticed that I make a point and I back it up.  And I cut and paste the relevent part of the link.  You post one Hud Link (strangely he ignores the HUD links I posted) and the rest were lying editorials.  You can tell they are lying because the say "X forced banks". Stop.  The second you see 'forced', you know its lying. And every lying editorial you post never mentions :

The Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004
Bush forced freddie and fannnie to buy more low income home loans 2004
bush PROTECTED PREDATORY LENDERS with the explicity purpose of increasing credit to subprime borrowers 2004
bush reversed the clinton rule in 2004 that 'reined in' freddie and fannie

And those are not all of Bush's toxic housing policies.  read this slowly

2003 subprime mortgages 10 % .  2006 40%
2004 No Doc loans 4.3 %  2006 over 50 %

and kram, you're chart shows the Bubble started in 1996.  just like the Scotus overturned bush's protection of predatory lenders in 2009. 
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 03:57:18 AM
I don't know how to resize that graph. :sad:

Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 04:19:05 AM
More pesky facts:

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-bill-clintons-balanced-budget-destroyed-the-economy-2012-9 (http://www.businessinsider.com/how-bill-clintons-balanced-budget-destroyed-the-economy-2012-9)
Title: Re: con brains will never grasp BUSH PROTECTED PREDATORY LENDERS
Post by: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 04:25:22 AM
Quote from: Vern on January 30, 2013, 03:52:50 AM
er uh kram,
er uh kram, how how how have you not noticed that I make a point and I back it up.  And I cut and paste the relevent part of the link.  You post one Hud Link (strangely he ignores the HUD links I posted) and the rest were lying editorials.  You can tell they are lying because the say "X forced banks". Stop.  The second you see 'forced', you know its lying. And every lying editorial you post never mentions :

The Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004
Bush forced freddie and fannnie to buy more low income home loans 2004
bush PROTECTED PREDATORY LENDERS with the explicity purpose of increasing credit to subprime borrowers 2004
bush reversed the clinton rule in 2004 that 'reined in' freddie and fannie

And those are not all of Bush's toxic housing policies.  read this slowly

2003 subprime mortgages 10 % .  2006 40%
2004 No Doc loans 4.3 %  2006 over 50 %

and kram, you're chart shows the Bubble started in 1996.  just like the Scotus overturned bush's protection of predatory lenders in 2009.

Sorry Vern. I know you want it to all be Bush's fault, but repeating it won't make it happen.

It makes about as much sense as me starting a thread on, "Obama's Wars".
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: redlom xof on January 30, 2013, 04:58:56 AM
Kramarat, unless I'm not seeing your graph correctly, it clearly shows home ownership going up dramatically under the Bush years. 

Why do people feel the need to defend Bush on this forum ?
Title: Re: con brains will never grasp BUSH PROTECTED PREDATORY LENDERS
Post by: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 05:01:57 AM
Quote from: Vern on January 30, 2013, 03:52:50 AM
er uh kram,
er uh kram, how how how have you not noticed that I make a point and I back it up.  And I cut and paste the relevent part of the link.  You post one Hud Link (strangely he ignores the HUD links I posted) and the rest were lying editorials.  You can tell they are lying because the say "X forced banks". Stop.  The second you see 'forced', you know its lying. And every lying editorial you post never mentions :

The Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004
Bush forced freddie and fannnie to buy more low income home loans 2004
bush PROTECTED PREDATORY LENDERS with the explicity purpose of increasing credit to subprime borrowers 2004
bush reversed the clinton rule in 2004 that 'reined in' freddie and fannie

And those are not all of Bush's toxic housing policies.  read this slowly

2003 subprime mortgages 10 % .  2006 40%
2004 No Doc loans 4.3 %  2006 over 50 %

and kram, you're chart shows the Bubble started in 1996.  just like the Scotus overturned bush's protection of predatory lenders in 2009.

I read it slowly. One has to wonder what would have happened if Clinton didn't force banks into lowering lending standards and writing no doc loans. Probably not much. Only fully qualified borrowers would have been able to get loans.

You know what really sucks? Every time democrats force this "feel good" BS, it's only about getting more votes. :cry:
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 30, 2013, 05:27:36 AM
Quote from: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 03:33:11 AM
I think I understand now how Vern is getting himself confused. Ironically, every chart on the housing bubble starts in 2000, the year Bush took office.

The following links on home sales, clearly show when the party got started:

http://piggington.com/historical_home_sale_volume_measured_in_dollars (http://piggington.com/historical_home_sale_volume_measured_in_dollars)

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblownmortgage.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F06%2Fhomesales.png&hash=f94d429440fc28aa42ad9ab61f887d4b9499f08d)
That's like claiming the fire started when we finally saw smoke, even though the fire had been burning in the underpinnings of the basement.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 05:44:47 AM
Quote from: redlom xof on January 30, 2013, 04:58:56 AM
Kramarat, unless I'm not seeing your graph correctly, it clearly shows home ownership going up dramatically under the Bush years. 

Why do people feel the need to defend Bush on this forum ?

I'm not defending Bush.

I'm refuting the notion that the entire real estate bubble had it's start in 2004. It didn't.

It was more like a relay race, in which Bush escalated bad Clinton policies. Without Clinton's forced lowering of lending standards, none of it would have happened. As I've said repeatedly, this does not excuse what was done under Bush. :cursing:
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 30, 2013, 05:58:02 AM
Quote from: redlom xof on January 30, 2013, 04:58:56 AM
Kramarat, unless I'm not seeing your graph correctly, it clearly shows home ownership going up dramatically under the Bush years. 

Why do people feel the need to defend Bush on this forum ?
No one is defending Bush in the least, it was stuff like this that angered so many of us on the right.
He was micromanaging the free mkt, something in direct opposition to conservative ideals.
It's the reason most of us want to dissolve the fed.

However, that does not absolve the left in the least, they are the worst offenders of all, especially when they write life restricting laws on business, all so they can manipulate it and leach off of it.
Majority of the laws the left creates re: business are not for the people, they are designed to draw revenue, most call it extortion, libs call it taxes or fees.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 05:59:22 AM
In order for Vern's argument to hold water, we would also have to believe that the POTUS sets interest rates. He doesn't.

http://www.thisnation.com/question/033.html (http://www.thisnation.com/question/033.html)
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 30, 2013, 06:06:35 AM
Quote from: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 05:59:22 AM
In order for Vern's argument to hold water, we would also have to believe that the POTUS sets interest rates. He doesn't.

http://www.thisnation.com/question/033.html (http://www.thisnation.com/question/033.html)
Vern has one last chance to prove he can be an honest debater, if he doesn't, I'm booting his ass.
Debating with a liar, is nothing short of arguing with an idiot, no matter how well thought out your response, there's is the equivalence of fingers in the ears screaming I can't hear you.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 06:10:41 AM
Quote from: Solar on January 30, 2013, 05:58:02 AM
No one is defending Bush in the least, it was stuff like this that angered so many of us on the right.
He was micromanaging the free mkt, something in direct opposition to conservative ideals.
It's the reason most of us want to dissolve the fed.

However, that does not absolve the left in the least, they are the worst offenders of all, especially when they write life restricting laws on business, all so they can manipulate it and leach off of it.
Majority of the laws the left creates re: business are not for the people, they are designed to draw revenue, most call it extortion, libs call it taxes or fees.

It's like arguing that a penny is bad..........which it is, since it costs more than 1 cent to make one. One side argues that it's the fault of the "tails" side of the penny, while the other insists that the "heads" side caused it. :biggrin:

Vern is incapable of seeing the whole penny. Only the side with Bush's face on it.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: Solar on January 30, 2013, 06:20:04 AM
Quote from: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 06:10:41 AM
It's like arguing that a penny is bad..........which it is, since it costs more than 1 cent to make one. One side argues that it's the fault of the "tails" side of the penny, while the other insists that the "heads" side caused it. :biggrin:

Vern is incapable of seeing the whole penny. Only the side with Bush's face on it.
Which is exactly my point about Vern, we know both sides are to blame, Vernice on the other hand refuses to go against his masters and accept any culpability on their behalf.
It's like arguing, who is to blame for the girls pregnancy, the boy for impregnating her, or her for seducing him.
Obviously any sane individual can see both are responsible, but Vernice is not an honest or sane individual.
I'll go with pathological liar.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: walkstall on January 30, 2013, 09:44:15 AM
Quote from: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 03:57:18 AM
I don't know how to resize that graph. :sad:


(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblownmortgage.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F06%2Fhomesales.png&hash=f94d429440fc28aa42ad9ab61f887d4b9499f08d)
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 09:56:09 AM
Quote from: walkstall on January 30, 2013, 09:44:15 AM

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblownmortgage.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F06%2Fhomesales.png&hash=f94d429440fc28aa42ad9ab61f887d4b9499f08d)

Thanks Walks. Now you have to tell me how to do it in the future. :wink:
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: walkstall on January 30, 2013, 10:03:59 AM
Quote from: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 09:56:09 AM
Thanks Walks. Now you have to tell me how to do it in the future. :wink:

Go up and click on the quote in my post.  When it opens up, you will see how I did it.
Just adjust the numbers as needed for resizing.   
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 10:46:55 AM
Quote from: walkstall on January 30, 2013, 10:03:59 AM
Go up and click on the quote in my post.  When it opens up, you will see how I did it.
Just adjust the numbers as needed for resizing.   

Got it! :thumbup:
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: walkstall on January 30, 2013, 11:42:07 AM
Quote from: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 10:46:55 AM
Got it! :thumbup:

That should work on all charts and photos.
Just remember the small the number the smaller to photo.
The bigger the number the bigger the photo.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 11:50:13 AM
Quote from: walkstall on January 30, 2013, 11:42:07 AM
That should work on all charts and photos.
Just remember the small the number the smaller to photo.
The bigger the number the bigger the photo.

Rght. And photos and charts can only come off the web right? I can't upload a photo from my HD?
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: walkstall on January 30, 2013, 12:05:13 PM
Quote from: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 11:50:13 AM
Rght. And photos and charts can only come off the web right? I can't upload a photo from my HD?

NO photo from HD's  Only from the web. 
You can upload from your HD to the web by way of photobucket.com or something like that. 
Then post as you like. But remember if you can post it so can other.
Title: Re: Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble
Post by: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 12:08:05 PM
Quote from: walkstall on January 30, 2013, 12:05:13 PM
NO photo from HD's  Only from the web. 
You can upload from your HD to the web by way of photobucket.com or something like that. 
Then post as you like. But remember if you can post it so can other.

Yeah. Mainly wondering if I could pull a photo from the web, dump it on my desktop, then upload to here. Not a big deal.