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

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.
To be clear, not too many were worried about stopping the practice. The paper was gone before the ink was dry. Everyone was riding the wave, and laughing all the way. I remember getting calls from lending houses with terms that made absolutely no sense. When I questioned the telemarketer, they just said that those were the terms. It was contrary to everything I had seen in all my years of borrowing.
 
Sounds like the OP already has her mind made up and isn’t interested in opposing views

One counter argument which the OP fails to think about (not surprising) is that Canada was virtually unscathed.

Why is that? Why would Canada have no housing bubble?

Only simplistic shallow thinkers try to take a complex issue and try to distill it’s cause down to one person.

We get it anything bad is ALWAYS a republicans fault and the democrat party is perfect. The democrat party always makes perfect decisions and their policies are 100% effective with ZERO unintended consequences.
The crash was not due to any housing bubble. Duh. The housing was a vehicle for predatory lending/investing practices.
 
Plenty of people to blame you arrogant prick. However right up there is Billy BJ. Amongst his biggest strokes of free-wheeling capitalism was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation.

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877322,00.html
And who are Gramm/Leach/Bliley?
 
Canadian regulators didn't dramatically weaken enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans, but Bush's regulators did starting in 2004.
Canada, like so many other countries, could have fallen victim. They weren't stupid enough to invest in MBDs as many in Europe were.
 
im not arguing against any of that. why would banks need to have feds force due diligence if loans are how they make money?

(secret real answer: banks really make money by bubble crafting, hedging, and insider trading)
It wasn't just 'banks'. It was private lenders as well. They make the money off of the points/fees, and dump the garbage on Wall St. It's not like they kept the loan and earned the interest.
 
The crash was not due to any housing bubble. Duh. The housing was a vehicle for predatory lending/investing practices.

the housing bubble existed, then it popped. what are you strugglng against?

the too lax standard increased demand short term, though the loans underlying the market were bad. bad loans were mixed with good, securititized, and sold widely. it was a bad asset, a time bomb, and banks knew.
 
the housing bubble existed, then it popped. what are you strugglng against?

the too lax standard increased demand short term, though the loans underlying the market were bad. bad loans were mixed with good, securititized, and sold widely. it was a bad asset, a time bomb, and banks knew.
Agree. But...a lot of the bad paper was for equity loans used to speculate on houses, buy boats, etc. Much of the bad paper did nothing for new housing starts. My properties had twice the equity within a year or two. Many people borrowed against the new equity and spent like drunken sailors.
 
Agree. But...a lot of the bad paper was for equity loans used to speculate on houses, buy boats, etc. Much of the bad paper did nothing for new housing starts. My properties had twice the equity within a year or two. Many people borrowed against the new equity and spent like drunken sailors.

many were to blame.

who is charged with due diligence?
 
The regulators were the ones who were supposed to protect us from the duplicity. Instead, they backed off to allow the duplicity to happen.

So the question is, why did Bush's regulators back off from the duplicity starting in 2004?
Let's not forget to include AIG here.
 
many were to blame.

who is charged with due diligence?
Nobody. When AIG is telling Wall St. that the paper is gold, and when the banks take their fees/points and immediately dump the paper, why not just play the game? How ridiculous is it when Wall St. starts trading bad paper in credit default swaps?

Absurd.
 
Nobody. When AIG is telling Wall St. that the paper is gold, and when the banks take their fees/points and immediately dump the paper, why not just play the game? How ridiculous is it when Wall St. starts trading bad paper in credit default swaps?

Absurd.

who is expected to refuse loans to poor credit risks?
 
Back
Top