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

Teflon Don said:
You lie

I reject your faulty premise
Click to expand...
https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/achievement/chap7.html

The President set a goal to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million families by the end of the decade. Through his homeownership challenge, the President called on the private sector to help in this effort. More than two dozen companies and organizations have made commitments to increase minority homeownership - including pledges to provide more than $1.1 trillion in mortgage purchases for minority homebuyers this decade.
Click to expand...
 
its so funny when people with no argument start forgetting what words mean.

"hmmm I think i'll clutch pearls over what high risk means."

they were risky, as it turns out, genius.
 
AssHatZombie said:
aren't they sub prime because they're high risk?
Click to expand...
Sub prime. Below prime rate due to a higher risk based on credit rating.

You're talking about sound lending practices. Not the lending practices that caused the crash. People with A+ credit were being fed sub prime rates. Low introductory rates on a variable rate loan. They were urged to take advantage of the interest only payment for 5 years, using the 'extra' money to invest in an inflated market.

The theory was to refinance the note in 5 years with plenty of money to put down.

Again...why would a bank care about the 'risk', if they didn't own the note for more than 5 minutes? Historically, banks wouldn't loan more than 75% of appraised value.

During the boom, they were lending 125% of an inflated appraised value
 
LV426 said:
LOL!

So you say you're not changing the quote
Click to expand...

????.....why are you saying I'm saying I didn't change your quote........

If it was so desperate and pathetic, you wouldn't need to change it because it would speak for itself.
Click to expand...

your original is still there speaking in its desperate and pathetic originality......I changed it to reflect the truth instead.....
 
Last edited:
Althea said:
Sub prime. Below prime rate due to a higher risk based on credit rating.

You're talking about sound lending practices. Not the lending practices that caused the crash. People with A+ credit were being fed sub prime rates. Low introductory rates on a variable rate loan. They were urged to take advantage of the interest only payment for 5 years, using the 'extra' money to invest in an inflated market.

The theory was to refinance the note in 5 years with plenty of money to put down.

Again...why would a bank care about the 'risk', if they didn't own the note for more than 5 minutes? Historically, banks wouldn't loan more than 75% of appraised value.

During the boom, they were lending 125% of an inflated appraised value
Click to expand...

yeah. high risk. like I said.
 
banks don't care, you're right. and their negligence, solipsism and outright intentional infection of markets with known bad assets is quite evil. humanity sees.
 
LV426 said:
Do you think that spamming links is somehow a winning strategy when you can't even answer the simple question as to where anything was signed into law that forced Bush's regulators to cease enforcement of lending standards for subprimes 3 years after Clinton left office?
Click to expand...

Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans
 
Wolverine said:
Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans
Click to expand...

Wrong.

As the Federal Reserve Board of Governors 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
 
Teflon Don said:
Yeah I know what he did
But like I have said earlier it was the goal of many. If you deny that you lie.
Either you bitch about redlining or you bitch about predatory lending. You fuckers are never happy
Click to expand...

The goal of many was to responsibly increase home ownership; it was Bush's goal to inflate a subprime bubble in 2004 to make the economy look like it was growing because of the tax cuts when it was really growing because of debt.

And Bush tied his tax cuts to that policy while campaigning in 2004; so tax cuts helped cause the housing bubble:

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership
March 26th, 2004
Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.
https://www.foxnews.com/story/bush-ties-policy-to-record-home-ownership
 
Last edited:
Althea said:
Let's not forget to include AIG here.
Click to expand...

Of course!

AIG played a massive part in this by falsely rating securities, but they wouldn't have done that had those securities not been backed initially by these subprimes with no lending standards.

The inciting incident was that backing off of enforcement of lending standards for subprimes. That's where the crisis has its root. It was all about those underlying mortgages that were backing the shady securities.

Conservatives deliberately inflated a housing bubble to make the economy look like it was growing because of the tax cuts in time for the 2004 election, when it was really growing because of debt and had been since 2001.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top