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

AssHatZombie said:
I blame bankers. you're really mischaracterizing.
Click to expand...

But that's wrong and stupid, because those bankers were always going to act unethically because of capitalism.

The responsibility to regulate those bankers falls on the government and in 2004-7, the Conservatives -who controlled government at that time- chose to help the banksters for the sake of the reputation of their belief systems, namely that tax cuts are good for the economy.


they create the money, and they bribe everyone to not regulate them.
Click to expand...

And they succeeded in 2004. And with whom did they succeed? With Bush.

So you have to ask yourself, why was the Bush Administration and Conservatism so eager to help these bankers? Because otherwise, the voters would have held them accountable at the polls.


i think you're playing the blame game. and you've erroneously put it all on patsy.
Click to expand...

Bush and the Conservatives chose to do everything they did.

No one forced them to do it. No one forced them to relax enforcement of underwriting standards. No one forced them to wipe out state protections against predatory lending.

They made the choice to do those things, and they did it because the prospect of being held to account for failed economic dogma was far too damaging to Conservatism than if they destroyed the economy.

That's why they did what they did, and that's why Conservatives are trying to cover for it today; because ultimately, it comes back to the point that Conservative economic dogma is fucking wrong about everything.
 
LV426 said:
But that's wrong and stupid, because those bankers were always going to act unethically because of capitalism.

The responsibility to regulate those bankers falls on the government and in 2004-7, the Conservatives -who controlled government at that time- chose to help the banksters for the sake of the reputation of their belief systems, namely that tax cuts are good for the economy.




And they succeeded in 2004. And with whom did they succeed? With Bush.

So you have to ask yourself, why was the Bush Administration and Conservatism so eager to help these bankers? Because otherwise, the voters would have held them accountable at the polls.




Bush and the Conservatives chose to do everything they did.

No one forced them to do it. No one forced them to relax enforcement of underwriting standards. No one forced them to wipe out state protections against predatory lending.

They made the choice to do those things, and they did it because the prospect of being held to account for failed economic dogma was far too damaging to Conservatism than if they destroyed the economy.

That's why they did what they did, and that's why Conservatives are trying to cover for it today; because ultimately, it comes back to the point that Conservative economic dogma is fucking wrong about everything.
Click to expand...


its the fiat currency that ruins capitalism. we need trade and markets, and productivity, and meritocracy, but allowing bad actors to create money out of thin air is just foolish.

central banks are specified in the communist manifesto, so are they capitalism?
 
AssHatZombie said:
its the fiat currency that ruins capitalism. we need trade and markets, and productivity, and meritocracy, but allowing bad actors to create money out of thin air is just foolish.
Click to expand...

You're going to have to come to terms with the fact that capitalism itself is fatally flawed by the human condition of greed.

But again, no one forced Bush to do the things he did from 2004-7. Conservatives and Bush chose to do everything they did, and they did so because it was easier to destroy the economy and blame someone else, than it is to admit the central governing economic dogma that guides every decision they make is a stinking crock of shit.
 
LV426 said:
You're going to have to come to terms with the fact that capitalism itself is fatally flawed by the human condition of greed.

But again, no one forced Bush to do the things he did from 2004-7. Conservatives and Bush chose to do everything they did, and they did so because it was easier to destroy the economy and blame someone else, than it is to admit the central governing economic dogma that guides every decision they make is a stinking crock of shit.
Click to expand...

and banker greed is worst. and yes there are corrupt politicians, of both parties.

independent popular working people are really the good people of earth.

most people are good. the corrupt ones at the top in business and government and the brainwashed globalists, damned by their spiritual perfidy.
 
LV426 said:
I see Conservatives are still blaming everything in the world except for themselves for the Bush Economic Collapse and Bush Mortgage Bubble.

The reason it's Bush's Mortgage Bubble and not Clinton's, is simply because Bush's regulators ceased the enforcement of lending standards on subprime loans, beginning in 2004, like Bush says himself via his Working Group on Financial Markets:

“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

And before a Conservative posts a lying Op-Ed blaming the CRA, here's the Federal Reserve, telling those people to go back to stapling teabags to their faces:

"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
Click to expand...
We beat this thing until it was dead on another board. Debunking the 'CRA did it' nonsense is simple. Bloomberg didn't exactly come out and blame it, but he (somewhat correctly) addressed the concept of sub prime lending as being a big part of the cause. Sub prime was borne out of the CRA, but Wall St. was demanding paper.
Any paper. They didn't care what it looked like.

In '2000, BOA hailed CRA loans as some of the best investment vehicles on the market based on performance.
 
AssHatZombie said:
and banker greed is worst. and yes there are corrupt politicians, of both parties.
Click to expand...

Again, not in this instance, in the context of the economic collapse.

You keep wanting to cast a pox on both houses, but the problem is that there is so much overwhelming evidence that you can't sincerely heap scorn on both sides.

It's coming to terms with that evidence that seems to be your greatest obstacle.

Sometimes only one person or side is to blame; the Bush Mortgage Bubble is one of those things.


independent popular working people are really the good people of earth.
Click to expand...

I don't know what this means, but if you're using your own moral compass to guide you into determining who is and isn't "good", then I would recommend getting a new moral compass because yours is definitely fucked up.


most people are good. the corrupt ones at the top in business and government and the brainwashed globalists, damned by their spiritual perfidy.
Click to expand...

No. Most people are not good. You have to work at being good; being bad is effortless. Most people don't put in the effort to be good either because they're scared or lazy...or both. Being good also isn't something one can measure, and is all subjective.

So your version of "good" is certainly different than mine.
 
LV426 said:
So how did Bush actually create the bubble?

There were a few levers he pulled, but the biggest lever to pull was letting Wall Street self-regulate in 2004 in exchange (!) for easing leveraging restrictions: https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-49830.pdf. By doing this, Bush the Dumber let all those Wall Street banks over-leverage themselves to purchase all those garbage subprime mortgages that they then immediately packaged, insured, and then flipped onto unsuspecting investors while concealing the risk of these loans and securities.

As Bush's Working Group says, “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.”

The net result of the easing of lending restrictions caused a spike in subprime lending.

From 1993-2001, subprimes constituted about 8-10% of all new mortgages, and their default/delinquency rate was below the national average.

But beginning in 2004, subprimes constitued an increasing number of all new mortgages, rising to 40% of all new mortgages by 2006:

“Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages. Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006.”

“In dollar terms, non-prime (subprime) mortgages represented 32 percent of all mortgage origination in 2005, more than triple their 10 percent share only two years earlier"
https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2008/200859/

So there goes the narrative that the Bush Mortgage Bubble was somehow Clinton's fault.
Click to expand...
Add to that the fact that the private lenders who were flooding the market with junk paper, were NOT governed by CRA parameters. Also...sub prime terms were sold to borrowers with excellent credit, citing a plan to only pay the interest until the balloon came due while using the extra money to invest in the market.
 
Althea said:
We beat this thing until it was dead on another board. Debunking the 'CRA did it' nonsense is simple. Bloomberg didn't exactly come out and blame it, but he (somewhat correctly) addressed the concept of sub prime lending as being a big part of the cause. Sub prime was borne out of the CRA, but Wall St. was demanding paper.
Any paper. They didn't care what it looked like.

In '2000, BOA hailed CRA loans as some of the best investment vehicles on the market based on performance.
Click to expand...

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors literally said that the CRA wasn't the cause of the crisis, and it was the subprimes issued between 2004-7 that were.

But also in 2000, HUD placed restrictions on GSE's that prohibited them from counting risky subprime loans toward affordable housing goals.

Those restrictions were removed in 2004. Three guesses as to why!
 
Althea said:
Add to that the fact that the private lenders who were flooding the market with junk paper, were NOT governed by CRA parameters. Also...sub prime terms were sold to borrowers with excellent credit, citing a plan to only pay the interest until the balloon came due while using the extra money to invest in the market.
Click to expand...

Yup, and any state that tried to combat predatory lending was overruled by the federal government when they invoked an OCC rule from the 1860's that wiped out state protections against predatory lending.
 
AssHatZombie said:
obama bailed out the banks. true scientific fact.
Click to expand...
After the fact. And...the govt got the bailout money back with interest. Banks couldn't wait to pay the loans back, as they were restricted from risky investing until they did.

Obama was a genius. Govt. made a nice profit off of the banks.
 
LV426 said:
Again, not in this instance, in the context of the economic collapse.

You keep wanting to cast a pox on both houses, but the problem is that there is so much overwhelming evidence that you can't sincerely heap scorn on both sides.

It's coming to terms with that evidence that seems to be your greatest obstacle.

Sometimes only one person or side is to blame; the Bush Mortgage Bubble is one of those things.




I don't know what this means, but if you're using your own moral compass to guide you into determining who is and isn't "good", then I would recommend getting a new moral compass because yours is definitely fucked up.




No. Most people are not good. You have to work at being good; being bad is effortless. Most people don't put in the effort to be good either because they're scared or lazy...or both. Being good also isn't something one can measure, and is all subjective.

So your version of "good" is certainly different than mine.
Click to expand...

I disagree with all that. we'll just agree to disagree. and you can keep being an internationalist fascist banker apologist.
 
LV426 said:
No, actually, Bush bailed them out with the TARP vote in November 2008.

Obama bailed out the auto industry, and they paid everything back with interest, while Trump handed rural trash $30B last year that they will never pay back because they're deadbeats.
Click to expand...
Auto bailout left the govt. a few million short.
 
Althea said:
After the fact. And...the govt got the bailout money back with interest. Banks couldn't wait to pay the loans back, as they were restricted from risky investing until they did.

Obama was a genius. Govt. made a nice profit off of the banks.
Click to expand...

yeah, so, and..

Obama bailed out the banks, we agree.
 
LV426 said:
The Federal Reserve Board of Governors literally said that the CRA wasn't the cause of the crisis, and it was the subprimes issued between 2004-7 that were.

But also in 2000, HUD placed restrictions on GSE's that prohibited them from counting risky subprime loans toward affordable housing goals.

Those restrictions were removed in 2004. Three guesses as to why!
Click to expand...
For a number of reasons. The main reason being that the CRA loans weren't made on McMansions. Checking the zip codes of the failed mortgages, and comparing with CRA zip codes proves that out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top