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

[Jerry Mathers]

The question to be answered is why would banks engage in such risky schemes?

How Did the Subprime Mortgage Crisis Start?

How did the U.S. economy get to a point where in 2007, a full-on housing crisis began?

It doesn't happen overnight. In the early-to-mid 2000s, interest rates on house payments were actually quite low. In what looked to be a solid economy after a brief early 2000s recession, more and more people with struggling credit were able to qualify for subprime mortgages with manageable rates, and happily acted on that.

This sudden increase in subprime mortgages was due in part to the Federal Reserve's decision to significantly lower the Federal funds rate to spur growth. People who couldn't afford homes or get approved for loans were suddenly qualifying for subprime loans and choosing to buy, and American home ownership rose exponentially.

Real estate purchases rose not only for subprime borrowers, but for well-off Americans as well. As prices rose and people expected a continuation of that, investors who got burned by the dot com bubble of the early 2000s and needed a replacement in their portfolio started investing in real estate.

https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/mortgages/subprime-mortgage-crisis-14704400

yes regulation was lax, but banks knew these people couldnt pay.

have banks alWays relied on federal regulators to tell them their business?

the risky scheme is not as risky when you consider banks big money comes off bubble crafting, hedging , insider trader etc, even if we presume their goal is profit.

it might be that the money system is now all about control.

central banks are specified in the communist manifesto.

 

[Getin the ring]

You know what's funny is that Barney Frank confronted Bush's Treasury Secretary about the threat to housing in 2003, and you know what Bush's Treasury Secretary said? Everything was fine:

Testimony from W’s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation’ of the GSE’s, September 10th, 2003:

Mr. Frank: Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow: No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.

Ouch. How damaging to your argument.

here stupid,
let me make this easy for you

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglo...ngerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

 

[LV426]

im not arguing against any of that. why would banks need to have feds force due diligence if loans are how they make money?

Because the feds weren't forcing "due diligence" in 2004 specifically because if they did, then the lenders wouldn't have been able to issue as many subprimes as they did.

Remember, subprime share of new mortgage issues grew from 10% of all mortgages from 1993-2003, to 40% of all mortgages by 2006.

So going from 10% from 1993-2003 to 40% by 2006 would indicate a bubble appeared in 2004, right?

So who was President in 2004, and who controlled Congress in 2004? And what line of legislation signed by Clinton triggered the weakening of underwriting standards three years after Clinton left office?

 

[Jerry Mathers]

the lion of venice rises to be slain.

 

[Truth Detector]

yes regulation was lax, but banks knew these people couldnt pay.

have banks alWays relied on federal regulators to tell them their business?

the risky scheme is not as risky when you consider banks big money comes off bubble crafting, hedging , insider trader etc, even if we presume their goal is profit.

it might be that the money system is now all about control.

central banks are specified in the communist manifesto.

So we need to destroy the banking system.

People should not be responsible for anything they do.

That sounds as dumb as LV426 manifesto of stupidity.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

Because the feds weren't forcing "due diligence" in 2004 specifically because if they did, then the lenders wouldn't have been able to issue as many subprimes as they did.

Remember, subprime share of new mortgage issues grew from 10% of all mortgages from 1993-2003, to 40% of all mortgages by 2006.

So going from 10% from 1993-2003 to 40% by 2006 would indicate a bubble appeared in 2004, right?

So who was President in 2004, and who controlled Congress in 2004? And what line of legislation signed by Clinton triggered the weakening of underwriting standards three years after Clinton left office?

even if the regulation was lax, bankers could have voluntarily not done dumb things.

 

[LV426]

Bush's regulators are not the banks themselves.

OK, and?

Bush's regulators stopped enforcing lending standards in 2004.

Did they do that on their own accord, or were they directed to do that? If they did it on their own, why?

 

[LV426]

STUPID X 10 ^^^^^
And you're a troll to boot
why don't you go to a thread where you may actually know something about

You want to blame Greenspan for the actions taken by Bush's own people because you don't want to admit to being led around like a fool all this time by the people responsible for the crisis.

And it's painfully obvious you are in way over your head on this thread. You cannot even make an argument that I don't immediately trash and shit upon with a bevy of links and evidence.

 

[Truth Detector]

here stupid,
let me make this easy for you

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglo...ngerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/

Let's not forget about that Party of the Jackass favorite; Franklin Raines. He was chairman and chief executive officer of the Federal National Mortgage Association who abetted widespread accounting errors, which included the shifting of losses so senior executives, such as himself, could earn large bonuses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Raines

 

[Getin the ring]

OK, and?

Bush's regulators stopped enforcing lending standards in 2004.

Did they do that on their own accord, or were they directed to do that? If they did it on their own, why?

because they were being sued for claiming minorities using unemployment for proof of income was not a good idea


Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.
http://archive.boston.com/bostonglo...ngerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/

and that's^^^ the boston globe, Barneys hometown newspaper, among the most liberal in the country,
I was right here when it happened, Barney Frank was pandering for votes, and he had ted kennedy backing him up, and the Globe called them out

 

[LV426]

We get it man. The democrat party is perfect. Their legislative proposals always work as plan. You are so lucky to belong to such a perfect party.

What a little bitch.

Instead of defending his argument, he cries about how perfect Democrats are because accepting that Conservatives were to blame for the Bush Mortgage Bubble would be like pulling at a thread and watching the whole fucking sweater unravel.

 

[Truth Detector]

Because the feds weren't forcing "due diligence" in 2004 specifically because if they did, then the lenders wouldn't have been able to issue as many subprimes as they did.

Remember, subprime share of new mortgage issues grew from 10% of all mortgages from 1993-2003, to 40% of all mortgages by 2006.

So going from 10% from 1993-2003 to 40% by 2006 would indicate a bubble appeared in 2004, right?

So who was President in 2004, and who controlled Congress in 2004? And what line of legislation signed by Clinton triggered the weakening of underwriting standards three years after Clinton left office?

^Stuck on moron. There is no turning back once a leftist dupe gets stuck on moron.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

So we need to destroy the banking system.

People should not be responsible for anything they do.

That sounds as dumb as LV426 manifesto of stupidity.

banks shouldn't be allowed to blame regulators. that sounds like people being not held accountable to me.

why do you love bankers?

 

[Teflon Don]

the mortgage crisis and the ensuing recession was the fault of Democrats, as usual they want to blame someone else.

Actually it was a bipartisan clusterfuck

 

[Truth Detector]

OK, and?

Bush's regulators stopped enforcing lending standards in 2004.

Did they do that on their own accord, or were they directed to do that? If they did it on their own, why?

Watch as Democrats attack the regulator and race hustle in the hearings in 2004 trying to get a handle on the impending crisis; yes the DEMOCRATS are the reason nothing was done folks:
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Hearings 2004

 

[Truth Detector]

You want to blame Greenspan for the actions taken by Bush's own people because you don't want to admit to being led around like a fool all this time by the people responsible for the crisis.

And it's painfully obvious you are in way over your head on this thread. You cannot even make an argument that I don't immediately trash and shit upon with a bevy of links and evidence.

Watch as Democrats attack the regulator and race hustle in the hearings in 2004 trying to get a handle on the impending crisis; yes the DEMOCRATS are the reason nothing was done folks:
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Hearings 2004

 

[Teflon Don]

You're a dumb asshole who is in way over his head.




The problem was caused by Bush's overzealousness to cover for the failure of his tax cuts to deliver on any of the promises made of them by inflating a housing bubble in time for the 2004 election.




Wow, now I've heard it all...blaming the CRA, blaming Clinton, blaming Carter...now blaming FDR for the decision Bush made 70 years later to have his regulators cease the enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans, which were invented almost 50 years after FDR died.

It's amazing how much the ghost of FDR was able to control the minds of Republicans 70 years after his death.

Like I said you are too simplistic a thinker.

It was FDR that got the federal gobblement into the housing business. Once that happened the rest was inevitable

 

[Truth Detector]

banks shouldn't be allowed to blame regulators. that sounds like people being not held accountable to me.

why do you love bankers?

I don't disagree with this statement. I also agree that no one forced these banks to behave irresponsibly which is why I also disagreed with the massive tax funded bailouts of these banks.

That is why failure is a part of free market enterprise and they should have let them fail. Otherwise, the poor management continues at the cost of taxpayers.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

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.

Sorry sport but deregulation was signed by Clinton in 1999! In case you forgot Bush didn't take office till Jan 2000. DUH!

 

[Truth Detector]

Actually it was a bipartisan clusterfuck

Republicans attempted to reign in the catastrophe; the Party of the Jackass wanted nothing to do with it.

Watch as Democrats attack the regulator and race hustle in the hearings in 2004 trying to get a handle on the impending crisis; yes the DEMOCRATS are the reason nothing was done folks:
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Hearings 2004