Why is it the Bush Mortgage Bubble? Because Bush created it.

LV426 said:
Canadian regulators didn't dramatically weaken enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans, but Bush's regulators did starting in 2004.
Click to expand...

regulatory agencies failed, no doubt, but banks control them and lobbied them to do it.

due diligence is part of fiduciary responsibilities. did banks never check credit histories before feds made them do it?

so now banks can shirk their duties by saying "feds didnt force me!".

what large banks do is bubble-crafting, controlling and timing asset value ups and down, and insider trading off the trends they cause.

they created the housing bubble via robopen. resold bad assets, and then bet against them.

credit default swaps were created to give to complicit banks to manage the armageddon moment.

yes. it was a corrupt failure of regulatory safeguards, but the financial institution operate 24/7 in an amoral haze of human degeneracy.

two party politics keep society pointing fingers at each others instead of the alpha abuser, banks.
 
Havana Moon said:
Plenty of people to blame you arrogant prick.
Click to expand...

Weird because the Bush Administration and the Federal Reserve both blame Bush's regulators not enforcing lending standards and the Bush Admin inflating a bubble beginning in 2004.

And they do so right here:

"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. "
https://www.federalreserve.gov/images/20081203_analysis.pdf

And here:

"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. "
https://www.federalreserve.gov/images/20081203_analysis.pdf

Ouch. How embarrassing for you. The people you're trying to defend by socializing blame are literally telling you who and what is to blame for the crisis. You just don't want to accept it because doing so would throw your entire persona and belief system out of whack.
 
LV426 said:
Wrong.

As you see from what I quoted, Clinton isn't to blame since the crisis is rooted in the performance of subprime mortgages issued from 2004-2007, like Bush's Working Group and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors all say:

“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.”
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/Documents/q4progress update.pdf

"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. "
https://www.federalreserve.gov/images/20081203_analysis.pdf

There is no other blame to go around than on Bush and Conservatives whose regulators ceased the enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans, beginning in 2004, for the express purpose of inflating a mortgage bubble to give the impression the economy was growing as a result of tax cuts, when it was actually growing as a result of debt.
Click to expand...

You're wrong Sonny, watch that Two John's video it's all in there. There were plenty to blame so your partisan bullshit should be flushed down the crapper where it belongs.

 
Eagle-Eye said:
Sorry Mr. Economist
Click to expand...


Ah, a lying Op-Ed. Just like I said you would provide earlier on this thread.

Here's the thing, yes, deregulation was the cause...but it was the deregulation of lending standards for subprime loans that caused a bubble to appear.

That's why subprime mortgages made up just 10% of all mortgages issued between 1993-2003, but then that share rose to 40% by 2006.

Going from 10% to 40% is a bubble, isn't it?
 
LV426 said:
Wrong.

As you see from what I quoted, Clinton isn't to blame since the crisis is rooted in the performance of subprime mortgages issued from 2004-2007, like Bush's Working Group and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors all say:

“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.”
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/Documents/q4progress update.pdf

"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. "
https://www.federalreserve.gov/images/20081203_analysis.pdf

There is no other blame to go around than on Bush and Conservatives whose regulators ceased the enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans, beginning in 2004, for the express purpose of inflating a mortgage bubble to give the impression the economy was growing as a result of tax cuts, when it was actually growing as a result of debt.
Click to expand...

Read the Time article you arrogant prick!!

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877322,00.html
 
LV426 said:
Weird because the Bush Administration and the Federal Reserve both blame Bush's regulators not enforcing lending standards and the Bush Admin inflating a bubble beginning in 2004.

And they do so right here:

"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. "
https://www.federalreserve.gov/images/20081203_analysis.pdf

And here:

"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. "
https://www.federalreserve.gov/images/20081203_analysis.pdf

Ouch. How embarrassing for you. The people you're trying to defend by socializing blame are literally telling you who and what is to blame for the crisis. You just don't want to accept it because doing so would throw your entire persona and belief system out of whack.
Click to expand...

bankers won't blame themselves. you gonna believe their crap?

you're the 800 pound moron in the room, bru.
 
LV426 said:
Easy; Canadian regulators didn't dramatically weaken the enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans. But Bush and the Conservatives did, and they did that specifically to inflate a housing bubble to make the economy look like it was growing because of the tax cuts, when it was actually growing because of debt.
Click to expand...

Nope. You highlight your ignorance

and miss the real crux of the problem

The problem really started with FDR. But you are too simplistic a thinker to understand. You put all of your faith in government.
 
Eagle-Eye said:
Thus it was caused by none other than William Jefferson Clinton not Bush.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

As Bush's own Working Group says:

"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. "
https://www.federalreserve.gov/images/20081203_analysis.pdf

Can you please point to any specific line of legislation from any Bill Clinton signed that said, starting in 2004, lending standards for subprime loans were to be dramatically weakened? Because I can provide proof showing Clinton barred GSE's from purchasing risky subprime loans in 2000, only to have Bush reverse that rule four years later:

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

"In 2004, the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."
http://docplayer.net/8921675-Fannie-mae-freddie-mac.html

Ouch. How damaging to your argument.
 
LV426 said:
Only frauds and cowards try to socialize blame for the direct actions taken by them, like dramatically weakening underwriting standards for subprime loans, beginning in 2004.

Subprimes made up just 10% of all new mortgages in 2003, but that share grew to 40% by 2006.

Going from 10% where it stood for a decade, up to 40% in just two years is a bubble.
Click to expand...

You are like Deshtard. You come across some article that fits your worldview and you assume it confers knowledge on a subject where you possess none

You are an uninformed blowhard. Posting links doesn’t change that
 
AssHatZombie said:
regulatory agencies failed, no doubt, but banks control them and lobbied them to do it..
Click to expand...

That's right, because the Bush Administration was staffed with Wall Street lobbyists and those lobbyists were who pushed Bush into having his regulators cease the enforcement of lending standards for subprimes beginning in 2004.

Nothing Clinton signed or did caused Bush's regulators to do that 3 years after Clinton left office.
 
LV426 said:
Wrong.

As Bush's own Working Group says:

"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. "
https://www.federalreserve.gov/images/20081203_analysis.pdf

Can you please point to any specific line of legislation from any Bill Clinton signed that said, starting in 2004, lending standards for subprime loans were to be dramatically weakened? Because I can provide proof showing Clinton barred GSE's from purchasing risky subprime loans in 2000, only to have Bush reverse that rule four years later:

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

"In 2004, the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."
http://docplayer.net/8921675-Fannie-mae-freddie-mac.html

Ouch. How damaging to your argument.
Click to expand...

why don't banks do due diligence on their own volition? why isn't it in their best interests to do so?
 
Havana Moon said:
You're wrong Sonny, watch that Two John's video it's all in there. There were plenty to blame so your partisan bullshit should be flushed down the crapper where it belongs.
Click to expand...

Have you even watched the video? Because that dude doesn't draw any connection between what Clinton did, and what Bush's regulators did 3 years after Clinton left office.

You just don't want to admit your entire economic ideology is based on a lie.

I'll make this real simple for you: In order to prove your case, you would need to provide the specific legislation Clinton signed that let federal regulators cease the enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans 3 years after he left office.

You'll never be able to do that because he never did that.
 
Havana Moon said:
Read the Time article you arrogant prick!!
Click to expand...

Yeah, no. Your lying Op-Ed doesn't counter the factual claims made by Bush and the Federal Reserve as to what caused the crisis.

Both of them -BOTH OF THEM- say that it was caused by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for subprime loans, beginning in 2004.

If what you're saying is true, all you need to do is provide the specific legislation Clinton signed that said regulators can weaken their lending standards for subprimes 3 years after Clinton left office.
 
LV426 said:
Have you even watched the video? Because that dude doesn't draw any connection between what Clinton did, and what Bush's regulators did 3 years after Clinton left office.

You just don't want to admit your entire economic ideology is based on a lie.

I'll make this real simple for you: In order to prove your case, you would need to provide the specific legislation Clinton signed that let federal regulators cease the enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans 3 years after he left office.

You'll never be able to do that because he never did that.
Click to expand...


do you always act stupid?

It's like once you set your mind to it, there's no pulling you back.
This subject is obviously above your pay grade.

to say the mortgage crisis is anyone's fault besides liberal policy and pandering is proof you were not around when it happened, OR.. probably the case with you don't care to research it
Google is your friend
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top