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?

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.

"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.

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

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.

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.

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/fair-notice-on-fair-lending/

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.

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.

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. 

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.