Lets get this party started: The Bush Mortgage Bubble

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Vern

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. 

kramarat



kramarat

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".

redlom xof

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 ?
"Christians are expected to pacify angry Muslims, Communist brats and homosexual radicals and Mexicans who convinced themselves that they own our land. That tells me the Christians are the better people among brutal and violent beasts."  Yawn - 15th May, 2013

kramarat

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:

Solar

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


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.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

kramarat

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:

Solar

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.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

kramarat

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

Solar

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
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.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

kramarat

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.

Solar

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.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

walkstall

A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

kramarat