Thread: Mitt should expose Obama's roll in the economic meltdown of 2008..

Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth

Um, again, the "power" of the CRA existed long before the crash, they were a tiny percentage of the total number of loans made after 2002, their default levels were lower than the subprime market BECAUSE they had HIGHER requirements than the non-conforming subprime loans that did default. The speculation and subsequent housing crash was NOT caused by a tiny sector of conforming loans, you just have no understanding of the housing market if you believe this myth.

If you REALLY believe this myth, tell me, how did the CRA requirements cause WORLD-WIDE housing speculation? Did it cause housing speculation in Iceland, both in the residential AND business property markets too?

I see you have the same problem that iguanaman has. See my response to him.

Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth

Um, again, the "power" of the CRA existed long before the crash, they were a tiny percentage of the total number of loans made after 2002, their default levels were lower than the subprime market BECAUSE they had HIGHER requirements than the non-conforming subprime loans that did default. The speculation and subsequent housing crash was NOT caused by a tiny sector of conforming loans, you just have no understanding of the housing market if you believe this myth.

If you REALLY believe this myth, tell me, how did the CRA requirements cause WORLD-WIDE housing speculation? Did it cause housing speculation in Iceland, both in the residential AND business property markets too?

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Now you...you insist on misrepresenting what you are presented with. I said that the CRA...the actions of ACORN (and Obama) were at the root of the meltdown. I didn't say it was all there was to the meltdown. The very first link I presented spelled that out quite well.

Your misrepresentations are noted...and dismissed.

I'm not misrepresenting your position, it is just that your myth doesn't answer how it was a causation for the worldwide speculation on both residential AND business properties.....nor does it explain how, NOW, we are NOT experiencing the same huge build-up in housing prices EVEN THOUGH CRA LOANS CAN STILL BE OBTAINED.

Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth

I'm not misrepresenting your position, it is just that your myth doesn't answer how it was a causation for the worldwide speculation on both residential AND business properties.....nor does it explain how, NOW, we are NOT experiencing the same huge build-up in housing prices EVEN THOUGH CRA LOANS CAN STILL BE OBTAINED.

I think you are correct: You are not misrepresenting anything because you don't know anything. I suggest you actually read the two pages of the report I linked.

Now, I'm sure you won't read it, so here is a small portion:

The problem is summed up succinctly by Stan Liebowitz of the University of Texas at Dallas:

From the current handwringing, you’d think that the banks came up with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with regulators just asleep on the job. In fact, it was the regulators who relaxed these standards--at the behest of community groups and "progressive" political forces.… For years, rising house prices hid the default problems since quick refinances were possible. But now that house prices have stopped rising, we can clearly see the damage done by relaxed loan standards.

The point here is not that low-income borrowers received mortgage loans that they could not afford. That is probably true to some extent but cannot account for the large number of sub-prime and Alt-A loans that currently pollute the banking system. It was the spreading of these looser standards to the prime loan market that vastly increased the availability of credit for mortgages, the speculation in housing, and ultimately the bubble in housing prices.
The American Spectator : The True Origins of This Financial Crisis

You see, the rise in housing prices was not caused by the mess...it hid the mess. And now, when prices are not rising, it's harder to hide any future messes.

Of course, that doesn't mean Obama hasn't been trying to create new messes:

Real Estate Shocker: Obama Brings the 'Zero-Down' Mortgage Back - Institute for Individual Investors

Obama had complete control of the govt for two years, he could have done anything he wanted to do. What did he do? passed obamacare in the dark of night on Christmas eve on a 100% partisan vote before anyone had a chance to read the bill. Passed a stimulus bill that wasted billions of OUR money.

What exactly makes you want to give him another 4 years to continue the damage?

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I think you are correct: You are not misrepresenting anything because you don't know anything. I suggest you actually read the two pages of the report I linked.

Now, I'm sure you won't read it, so here is a small portion:



You see, the rise in housing prices was not caused by the mess...it hid the mess. And now, when prices are not rising, it's harder to hide any future messes.

Of course, that doesn't mean Obama hasn't been trying to create new messes:

Real Estate Shocker: Obama Brings the 'Zero-Down' Mortgage Back - Institute for Individual Investors

Which makes that speech last night by Clinton nearly as entertaining as comedy, as it was shameful snake oil...

Originally Posted by KopeAcetic

You do realize that the housing crisis was started because mortgage companies packaged toxic subprime mortgages as AAA and sold them off as such, so when the purchaser of said "AAA" packaged mortgages found out it was too late and lead to a spiral of debt and unpaid loans right?

Please try harder. I'm not giving anyone a pass. This wasn't all Bush's fault, it was both political parties that put us in this hole, blaming the "other side" because they're not "your team" is actually just making the situation worse.

You do realize that the entire Democratic Party has been blaming Bush for everything... even the temperature, since 2000, right?

He isn't trying to blame Obama solely... he is trying to say this was caused by the very practices of easing mortgage lending that many people had fought for over time, including Obama throughout his entire career...

You also want to be so dismissive as if this happened solely as a result of his time as a lawyer in Chicago... Bush was president since 2001... the economic slowdown and crisis was from 2007-2009... its onset coinciding with the Democratic takeover of Congress in Bush's last term... Among them was Barack Obama... who has had an official national elected role since 2007... and the economy has been attrocious the overwhelming majority of that time (except the year he was hiring census workers and spent $1.2T trying to jumpstart the economy)...

I've never been attached to a single political party... but clearly, the Romney/Ryan ticket has been more active in saying what you just said... that both sides have caused the problem, but we need to stop pointing the finger, and come together to solve it...

Unfortunately, this isn't the case with the Obama campaign... and isn't evidence in Clinton's speech last night, as he tried to bash Republicans for causing problems, when I remember him entering office without any major crisis to handle (Republicans had already passed 3 balanced budget bills to handle the growing debt)... and leaving office with the dotcom bust and the early 2000s recession...

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I think you are correct: You are not misrepresenting anything because you don't know anything. I suggest you actually read the two pages of the report I linked.

Now, I'm sure you won't read it, so here is a small portion:



You see, the rise in housing prices was not caused by the mess...it hid the mess. And now, when prices are not rising, it's harder to hide any future messes.

Of course, that doesn't mean Obama hasn't been trying to create new messes:

Real Estate Shocker: Obama Brings the 'Zero-Down' Mortgage Back - Institute for Individual Investors

You forgot, I already addressed your AS article, the best it had was this gem:

Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth

"Although it is difficult to prove cause and effect, it is highly likely that the lower lending standards required by the CRA influenced what banks and other lenders were willing to offer to borrowers in prime markets."

I am still waiting for you to present the "smoking gun", the admission from LENDERS, like Counrtywide, that the CRA, with HIGH lending requirements (ie "conforming loans) was the reason they LOWERED their own lending requirements (non-conforming loans). So far, NO source material presented by you does that.

If you are going to cling to a myth, you need to produce real fact, not opinion, about the LENDERS being influenced to support your myth.

You also still haven't answered how this myth applies to world-wide real property price increases or defaults.....or how it is that it is not causing price increases or defaults now.


PS...Oh, and just to note, lowered lending requirements does not cause more money to become available, it is just the opposite.....the increase in supply of dollars creates an easing of lending.

As usual, cons have economic understanding all backward.

Originally Posted by IndepCentristMA

You do realize that the entire Democratic Party has been blaming Bush for everything... even the temperature, since 2000, right?

He isn't trying to blame Obama solely... he is trying to say this was caused by the very practices of easing mortgage lending that many people had fought for over time, including Obama throughout his entire career...

You also want to be so dismissive as if this happened solely as a result of his time as a lawyer in Chicago... Bush was president since 2001... the economic slowdown and crisis was from 2007-2009... its onset coinciding with the Democratic takeover of Congress in Bush's last term... Among them was Barack Obama... who has had an official national elected role since 2007... and the economy has been attrocious the overwhelming majority of that time (except the year he was hiring census workers and spent $1.2T trying to jumpstart the economy)...

I've never been attached to a single political party... but clearly, the Romney/Ryan ticket has been more active in saying what you just said... that both sides have caused the problem, but we need to stop pointing the finger, and come together to solve it...

Unfortunately, this isn't the case with the Obama campaign... and isn't evidence in Clinton's speech last night, as he tried to bash Republicans for causing problems, when I remember him entering office without any major crisis to handle (Republicans had already passed 3 balanced budget bills to handle the growing debt)... and leaving office with the dotcom bust and the early 2000s recession...

Um I'm not sure where you read I was blaming Bush...? I said it WASN'T Bush's fault... In other threads I actually delved deeper into the information I have gotten and who I actually believe is responsible for this, which is a bipartisan support of laxed financial regulations which was signed by Bill Clinton, again with bipartisan support. Both of the main parties involved were to blame, and both sides are blaming each other right now.

Again, I not once blamed Bush, I honestly have no idea where you got that.

You talk about Bush's term starting in 2001 and the economy starting 2007-2009, it starting with the Democratic party taking the majority in congress. At this time we knew that the recession was coming, we didn't know how big it was yet, and we didn't quite know why as of yet.

Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth

You forgot, I already addressed your AS article, the best it had was this gem:




I am still waiting for you to present the "smoking gun", the admission from LENDERS, like Counrtywide, that the CRA, with HIGH lending requirements (ie "conforming loans) was the reason they LOWERED their own lending requirements (non-conforming loans). So far, NO source material presented by you does that.

If you are going to cling to a myth, you need to produce real fact, not opinion, about the LENDERS being influenced to support your myth.

You also still haven't answered how this myth applies to world-wide real property price increases or defaults.....or how it is that it is not causing price increases or defaults now.


PS...Oh, and just to note, lowered lending requirements does not cause more money to become available, it is just the opposite.....the increase in supply of dollars creates an easing of lending.

As usual, cons have economic understanding all backward.

Okay. Here are a few links that name names...but, understand that you are going to have to actually read them.

RealClearMarkets - Acorn's a Creature of the CRA
ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities by Sol Stern, City Journal Spring 2003
PJ Media » Why Did Bank of America Pay ACORN?

And then we have Obama's own work for ACORN: UPDATED: Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans*|*Media Circus

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Okay. Here are a few links that name names...but, understand that you are going to have to actually read them.

RealClearMarkets - Acorn's a Creature of the CRA
ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities by Sol Stern, City Journal Spring 2003
PJ Media » Why Did Bank of America Pay ACORN?

And then we have Obama's own work for ACORN: UPDATED: Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans*|*Media Circus

Ah, you are going to throw a bunch of links at me.....and expect me to sort through to find your defense?

Sorry, homey don't play that.


If you can't back up your myth, to defend it yourself with references to fact, to show THE smoking gun proving your assertion(s), then why would you expect me to do it for you?