The Mortgage Bubble Was The Democrat's Fault

Vern said:

OS, I think you hit reply by mistake because you're not replying to my post. in my post I was correcting your "misparaphrasing" of Bush not only allowing predatory lending but also encouraging it. You "misparaphrased" it as "bush didn't stop predatory lending". and since I've never posted you hold Bush blameless you clearly hit reply by mistake. But since you're here, maybe you could explain how any of your "prerequisites” led to dramatically lower lending standards in late 2004. you don't have to repeat them again. Just explain how they allowed unqualified buyers to bid on and buy homes they could not afford. Bush preempting all state laws against predatory lending and his regulators not only allowing it but encouraging it does explain how unqualified buyers could bid on and buy homes they could not afford.

Click to expand...

I have no reason to try to change your perceptions, you are stuck wanting to blame the financial meltdown on one person.

That is completely devoid of economic sense.

OrphanSlug said:

I have no reason to try to change your perceptions, you are stuck wanting to blame the financial meltdown on one person.

That is completely devoid of economic sense.

Click to expand...

OS, you did it again. You hit the reply button and did not respond to anything I posted. I'm beginning to think you're doing it on purpose. Anyhoo, I'm not asking you to change my perceptions (which are based on actual facts as opposed to repeating vague and empty rhetoric over and over). I'm asking you to explain your narrative. Repeating "it just cant be all Bush's fault" over and over is not really a convincing argument. I'm also asking you to acknowledge you "misparaphrased" what I posted. I've clearly stated Bush allowed and encouraged predatory loans. Watch me post facts. In 2004, 4.3% of loans were No Doc loans. In 2006, about 50% were.

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf

yea, you just cant preempt all state laws against predatory lending and encourage the banks and then wonder why a bunch of bad loans destroyed the economy starting late 2004.

Vern said:

OS, you did it again. You hit the reply button and did not respond to anything I posted. I'm beginning to think you're doing it on purpose. Anyhoo, I'm not asking you to change my perceptions (which are based on actual facts as opposed to repeating vague and empty rhetoric over and over). I'm asking you to explain your narrative. Repeating "it just cant be all Bush's fault" over and over is not really a convincing argument. I'm also asking you to acknowledge you "misparaphrased" what I posted. I've clearly stated Bush allowed and encouraged predatory loans. Watch me post facts. In 2004, 4.3% of loans were No Doc loans. In 2006, about 50% were.

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf

yea, you just cant preempt all state laws against predatory lending and encourage the banks and then wonder why a bunch of bad loans destroyed the economy starting late 2004.

Click to expand...

Again, it is not my fault that you convinced yourself that economics boils down to one action while ignoring all others.

You continually ignore that for there to be predatory lending in the first place there must be the business model conditions made possible by deregulation. Without deregulation there would not be the merger of lending with betting on the return on investment. More importantly there would be less reason to get people into loans they could not afford without the business model mechanism of placing that risk into debt vehicles for wealth to bet on in private markets. Those markets were made possible by the acts I named.

Now if you cannot or will not realize that there is no helping a hyper-partisan such as yourself.

The fact is the only reason various groups appealed to Bush 43 for his part in the mix is the business model of investing in the risk made possible by deregulation, which included the efforts to remove whom should have been monitoring all this. You add in the Fed going with unorthodox low interest rates for too long and you have that storm I was talking about you consistently ignore with a single stat that you clearly do not understand.

VanceMack said:

We should be sure to not leave out frankly, the largest culprits...the individual that jumped into high risk loans that they couldnt afford in the first damn place.

Click to expand...

Oh no..can't blame those poor people that were doing things like putting down that they had self employment income (when they had none) to qualify for a loan they could not afford. :roll:

OrphanSlug said:

Again, it is not my fault that you convinced yourself that economics boils down to one action while ignoring all others.

Click to expand...

Mmmm, you claim I ignore what you post. You “misparaphrase” my clear statements. You ignore the actual facts I’ve posted that show exactly what I’ve stated. You claim I’m “cherry picking” by proving exactly what I’m stating. You continue to “list” things you think are “prerequisites” and back up nothing. and you refuse to respond to what I post ie, you ignore them. How does that make me the hyper-partisan? The answer is “it doesn’t”.

But the good news is you’ve finally attempted to be specific. Sadly you simply made up the “specifics”.

You continually ignore that for there to be predatory lending in the first place there must be the business model conditions made possible by deregulation. Without deregulation there would not be the merger of lending with betting on the return on investment. More importantly there would be less reason to get people into loans they could not afford without the business model mechanism of placing that risk into debt vehicles for wealth to bet on in private markets. Those markets were made possible by the acts I named.

Click to expand...

This is false. Predatory lending did not require a secondary market to sell the loans (I’m guessing that’s what you’re trying to say). Predatory lending only required Bush’s policy to preempt all state laws against predatory lending and have his regulators not only not enforce predatory lending laws but fight state regulators who tried to. Your “narrative” also requires the assumption that everybody knew the loans were bad.

But here’s the best part, these markets existed for decades. Yea, in addition to the GSE market, the private label market has existed for decades. So your “Those markets were made possible by the acts I named” is not only not true but you made it up. You wanted it to be true so you posted it. Don’t feel bad, all hyper-partisans make stuff up because they want things to be true. The reason you so desperately want to blame GLB and CFMA is they have a time proximity to the Bush Mortgage Bubble (4-5 years but its the closest thing you got) and of course because Clinton is a democrat. Anyhoo, here’s Reagan allowing the GSEs and banks to buy MBSs in a market you didn’t think existed until 1999.

Secondary Mortgage Market Enhancement Act 1984

Allowed federally-chartered and federally-regulated financial institutions to invest in mortgage-related or mortgage-backed securities.

What are the benefits and drawbacks of the Secondary Mortgage Market Enhancement Act of 1984?

Just in case you missed it, I shredded your “narrative”. It wasn’t hard, it just required you to try to explain your narrative. Now you know why hyper-partisans try to avoid being specific. Lets sum up, secondary mortgage market existed for decades just like the CRA and GSEs. Mmmmm, what didn’t exist for decades? Bush’s preemption of all state laws against predatory lending and lax regulation. It allowed a flood of unqualified buyers to bid and buy homes they couldn’t afford. Its why its called the Bush Mortgage Bubble. if you want I can explain why derivatives is another false narrative hyper partisans believe.

jaeger19 said:

Oh no..can't blame those poor people that were doing things like putting down that they had self employment income (when they had none) to qualify for a loan they could not afford. :roll:

Click to expand...

It wasn't the borrowers doing that, it was the lenders. Explosive growth of no-doc loans was something dreamed up during the mortgage bubble. They went from 4.3% of all mortgages to 50%. That was purely so Wall Street banks could make $$ on the secondary housing market. They needed loans in order to do that. Even Trump got into the game.

Incisor said:

It wasn't the borrowers doing that, it was the lenders. Explosive growth of no-doc loans was something dreamed up during the mortgage bubble. They went from 4.3% of all mortgages to 50%. That was purely so Wall Street banks could make $$ on the secondary housing market. They needed loans in order to do that. Even Trump got into the game.

Click to expand...

Yeah.. another post devoid of economic reality.

People bought houses they could not afford. No doc.. doc. whatever. Doesn't matter. You either have the money to buy the house or you do not. Its the responsibility of a borrower to borrow responsibly.

When people bought houses that they could not afford.. it was their own fault. No one forced them to buy these houses.... NOT EVEN GEORGE BUSH...:mrgreen:

jaeger19 said:

Yeah.. another post devoid of economic reality

Click to expand...

What world are you living in? The whole reason the subprime mortgage market spiked starting in 2004 was because that was how banks could make more money. The borrower didn't matter...what mattered was getting the loan in order to put it into securities and derivatives which is where the market was. Banks couldn't make money legitimate ways, so they did things like robo-sign docs, require no documentation, all to increase the volume of loans in order to get to the secondary mortgage market, which is where all the action was happening.

People bought houses they could not afford.

Click to expand...

Because they were preyed upon by predatory lenders enabled by the Bush Administration.

I think it's easy for Conservatives to sit back and judge the people who lost their homes, while ignoring the fact that those people were victims, and the real scumbags in all this were the lenders who were bolstering a shady secondary mortgage market, and the Bush Administration and Conservative movement who were desperate to make it look like trickle-down was growing the economy when it wasn't.

That's why Bush tied his tax cut policy to the housing market in 2004.

OrphanSlug said:

Again, it is not my fault that you convinced yourself that economics boils down to one action while ignoring all others.

You continually ignore that for there to be predatory lending in the first place there must be the business model conditions made possible by deregulation. Without deregulation there would not be the merger of lending with betting on the return on investment. More importantly there would be less reason to get people into loans they could not afford without the business model mechanism of placing that risk into debt vehicles for wealth to bet on in private markets. Those markets were made possible by the acts I named.

Now if you cannot or will not realize that there is no helping a hyper-partisan such as yourself.

The fact is the only reason various groups appealed to Bush 43 for his part in the mix is the business model of investing in the risk made possible by deregulation, which included the efforts to remove whom should have been monitoring all this. You add in the Fed going with unorthodox low interest rates for too long and you have that storm I was talking about you consistently ignore with a single stat that you clearly do not understand.

Click to expand...

You are right about deregulation it was an essential piece of the puzzle. Phil Gramm (who wrote those bills) was shilling for the banks who then had only to wait for a willing partner in Washington to complete their plan and they found one in GW Bush. He was desperate to get some economic growth in his term and was told that a housing boom would do just that. That's when he started the "Minority Housing Initiative" a program where Fannie Mae would guarantee 100's of billions in subprime loans for low income buyers. The rest is history.

And so, therefore, I've called -- yesterday, I called upon the private sector to help us and help the home buyers. We need more capital in the private markets for first-time, low-income buyers. And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and, as I understand, it's about $440 billion over a period of time. They've used their influence to create that much capital available for the type of home buyer we're talking about here. It's in their charter; it now needs to be implemented. Freddie Mac is interested in helping.

Click to expand...

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020618-1.html

You should read the entire speech. It's an eye opener.

Incisor said:

What world are you living in? The whole reason the subprime mortgage market spiked starting in 2004 was because that was how banks could make more money. The borrower didn't matter...what mattered was getting the loan in order to put it into securities and derivatives which is where the market was. Banks couldn't make money legitimate ways, so they did things like robo-sign docs, require no documentation, all to increase the volume of loans in order to get to the secondary mortgage market, which is where all the action was happening.




Because they were preyed upon by predatory lenders enabled by the Bush Administration.

I think it's easy for Conservatives to sit back and judge the people who lost their homes, while ignoring the fact that those people were victims, and the real scumbags in all this were the lenders who were bolstering a shady secondary mortgage market, and the Bush Administration and Conservative movement who were desperate to make it look like trickle-down was growing the economy when it wasn't.

That's why Bush tied his tax cut policy to the housing market in 2004.

Click to expand...

Yawn... I live in the world of economic reality. The subprime market got started WELL before 2004. And its surge or boom and eventual bust had its underpinnings in a whole host of things prior to 2004. From Fannie Mae and Freddie.. to The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA) played a part. this was already well stated by OrphanSlug in multiple posts. I suggest you read those posts.

Ultimately however.. banks could only "make money",... without willing borrowers willing to enter into these risky loans in order to buy more house than they could really afford.

that's simply a fundamental economic fact here.

Because they were preyed upon by predatory lenders enabled by the Bush Administration.

Click to expand...

right.. the old "we were preyed on".. when they were fully complicit in these schemes. And agreed to the terms.

I think it's easy for Conservatives to sit back and judge the people who lost their homes, while ignoring the fact that those people were victims, and the real scumbags in all this were the lenders who were bolstering a shady secondary mortgage market, and the Bush Administration and Conservative movement who were desperate to make it look like trickle-down was growing the economy when it wasn't.

Click to expand...

Yes.. its easy for Conservatives to sit back and judge people that bought more home than they could afford and went into default because they bought 2 x the house they could afford. Then doubled down by taking out home equity loans on supposed "equity" they had in their house so that they could buy big trucks, four wheelers, jet skis and jet boats. And then patted themselves on the back for being so smart because now they could "take off the loan on their taxes".

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. The banks really are not responsible for giving these people loans. What makes the banks responsible was the banks taking these loans and portraying them as secure investments and selling them off like hot potatoes.. flooding the markets with these mortgaged back securities and derivatives .
but the real reason these loans failed... IS NOT because of the banks. Its because people DID NOT MAKE THE PAYMENTS. If they had made the payments.. then there would have been no failures. But they failed to make the payments because they bought more house than they could afford.

iguanaman said:

You are right about deregulation it was an essential piece of the puzzle. Phil Gramm (who wrote those bills) was shilling for the banks who then had only to wait for a willing partner in Washington to complete their plan and they found one in GW Bush. He was desperate to get some economic growth in his term and was told that a housing boom would do just that. That's when he started the "Minority Housing Initiative" a program where Fannie Mae would guarantee 100's of billions in subprime loans for low income buyers. The rest is history.



https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020618-1.html

You should read the entire speech. It's an eye opener.

Click to expand...

Just to point out.. that Bill Clinton expanded Fannie and Freddie into the subprime market.

And Bill Clinton signed the GBLA bill.

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

Click to expand...

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - The New York Times

Bill Clinton signing statement.

Today I am pleased to sign into law S. 900, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This historic legislation will modernize our financial services laws, stimulating greater innovation and competition in the financial services industry. America's consumers, our communities, and the economy will reap the benefits of this Act.
Beginning with the introduction of an Administration-sponsored bill in 1997, my Administration has worked vigorously to produce financial services legislation that would not only spur greater competition, but also protect the rights of consumers and guarantee that expanded financial services firms would meet the needs of America's underserved communities. Passage of this legislation by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of the Congress suggests that we have met that goal.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act makes the most important legislative changes to the structure of the U.S. financial system since the 1930s. Financial services firms will be authorized to conduct a wide range of financial activities, allowing them freedom to innovate in the new economy. The Act repeals provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act that, since the Great Depression, have restricted affiliations between banks and securities firms. It also amends the Bank Holding Company Act to remove restrictions on affiliations between banks and insurance companies. It grants banks significant new authority to conduct most newly authorized activities through financial subsidiaries


The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is a major achievement that will benefit American consumers, communities, and businesses of all sizes. I thank all of those individuals who played a role in the development and passage of this historic legislation.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

The White House, November 12, 1999.

Click to expand...

You should read the entire speech.. its an eye opener.

William J. Clinton: Statement on Signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

jaeger19 said:

The subprime market got started WELL before 2004.

Click to expand...

No duh...the secondary mortgage market has been around for decades. The bubble didn't start until 2004. That's when the number of subprimes jumped from an average of 100,000 a year with a default rate of 5-7%, to an average of 266,000 a year with a default rate between 21-23%.

From Fannie Mae and Freddie.. to The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA) played a part. this was already well stated by OrphanSlug in multiple posts. I suggest you read those posts.

Click to expand...

"Played a part" is a lot different from actual cause. A tree "plays a part" in a forest fire, in that it gets burned and provides fuel for the fire to grow. But the analogy is better served by comparing Conservatives to a slow child playing with matches around a pile of oily rags. That's the metaphor for Conservatives during Bush. So maybe you're right in that everyone should have known better than to hand Conservatives the keys to the economy when they don't even have a learner's permit. Chalk it up to lesson learned, along with the lesson of not giving a Conservative the power to wage war, since he's going to just be irresponsible with that power anyway, as Bush was. In fact, I can't help but keep coming back to the argument of "we should have all known better". Yes, we should have. That's precisely why I don't take Conservatives very seriously today, and why I never will.

Ultimately however.. banks could only "make money",... without willing borrowers willing to enter into these risky loans in order to buy more house than they could really afford.

Click to expand...

Because they were preyed upon by liars. People who hid in the fine print that the ARM is subject to instant rate increases. People who pushed "house flipping" as a legitimate job. People who paid great sums of money to Conservatives to do things like wipe out state protections against predatory lending.

The case you are making inadvertently is that we shouldn't be trusting of Conservatives to run the country because they can't be expected to act responsibly.

right.. the old "we were preyed on".. when they were fully complicit in these schemes. And agreed to the terms.

Click to expand...

So you don't think that realtors and lenders were leading people on? When you say "fully complicit", what are you saying? That they conspired with the lenders to get loans they knew they'd never pay back? How'd they do that? Was there a secret meeting of all the poor people in America and the lenders to create this conspiracy? Secondly, yes, they agreed to the terms. Much like how you agree to the terms of your Apple user agreement. If you don't think banks were acting fraudulently all on their own, then how do you explain what was just uncovered about Wells Fargo? Banks are inherently corrupt. That's why they have to be tightly regulated, and overseen by people who understand the responsibility. Conservatives do not understand that responsibility and never will. Because they are responsible just to their party and ideology, not the country.

they bought 2 x the house they could afford.

Click to expand...

Yes, because the predatory lender, enabled by your guy Bush when he wiped out state protections against predatory lenders, lied and said they could. Or that their interest rate wouldn't go up. Fact is without the predatory lenders, there wouldn't have been a mortgage bubble. Also, let's not forget it was your guy Bush who guaranteed 40,000 free downpayments for low-income, first-time homebuyers with his "American Dream and Downpayment Act".

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility.

Click to expand...

No, Conservatives believe in saying they believe in personal responsibility, but they don't. They never have and they never will. Because Conservatism in and of itself lacks responsibility for anything. That's why you are always blaming the government, or the poors, or the muslims, or the immigrants, or the (insert group here) for the problems created by Conservatism. In 35 years of Conservatism in the mainstream, it has not produced one single policy achievement of which they can speak. Not one. The only thing of consequence that you did pass was the Welfare Reform in 1996...but if you listen to Conservatives screech about welfare today, you'd think their grubby little paws aren't all over it.

jaeger19 said:

The banks really are not responsible for giving these people loans.

Click to expand...

Yes, they are since they're the ones who gave the loans and approved the loans. Do you know how banks work?

jaeger19 said:

but the real reason these loans failed... IS NOT because of the banks. Its because people DID NOT MAKE THE PAYMENTS. If they had made the payments.. then there would have been no failures. But they failed to make the payments because they bought more house than they could afford.

Click to expand...

Did it ever occur to you that maybe that was the intention on behalf of the banks? Because remember, while these guys were buying and selling securities, they were also betting on them through AIG and others.

jaeger19 said:

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. The banks really are not responsible for giving these people loans. What makes the banks responsible was the banks taking these loans and portraying them as secure investments and selling them off like hot potatoes.. flooding the markets with these mortgaged back securities and derivatives .
but the real reason these loans failed... IS NOT because of the banks. Its because people DID NOT MAKE THE PAYMENTS. If they had made the payments.. then there would have been no failures. But they failed to make the payments because they bought more house than they could afford.

Click to expand...

So banks aren't lenders? Since when?

jaeger19 said:

Just to point out.. that Bill Clinton expanded Fannie and Freddie into the subprime market.

And Bill Clinton signed the GBLA bill.



Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - The New York Times

Bill Clinton signing statement.



You should read the entire speech.. its an eye opener.

William J. Clinton: Statement on Signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

Click to expand...

LOL Who's name is on that bill? I don't see Clinton anywhere on it. Bill Clinton was just taking Greenspan's word on it. He's not a financial wizard like Gramm or Greenspan. They are the ones responsible for it's passage and signing. If you want to pass blame just look at Phil Gramm who is now laughing all the way to UBS bank, where his sits on the Board.

iguanaman said:

LOL Who's name is on that bill? I don't see Clinton anywhere on it. Bill Clinton was just taking Greenspan's word on it. He's not a financial wizard like Gramm or Greenspan. They are the ones responsible for it's passage and signing. If you want to pass blame just look at Phil Gramm who is now laughing all the way to UBS bank, where his sits on the Board.

Click to expand...

Isn't his name just above the 'Sign Here' line?

Incisor said:

No duh...the secondary mortgage market has been around for decades. The bubble didn't start until 2004. That's when the number of subprimes jumped from an average of 100,000 a year with a default rate of 5-7%, to an average of 266,000 a year with a default rate between 21-23%.
.

Click to expand...

OrphanSlug already went over this..

Played a part" is a lot different from actual cause. A tree "plays a part" in a forest fire, in that it gets burned and provides fuel for the fire to grow. But the analogy is better served by comparing Conservatives to a slow child playing with matches around a pile of oily rags.

Click to expand...

Your partisan rant has nothing to do with real world economics.

The case you are making inadvertently is that we shouldn't be trusting of Conservatives to run the country because they can't be expected to act responsibly.

Click to expand...

See above.

So you don't think that realtors and lenders were leading people on? When you say "fully complicit", what are you saying? That they conspired with the lenders to get loans they knew they'd never pay back?

Click to expand...

In many cases they conspired to get loans that they could not qualify for legitimately. In other cases.. they simply bought too much house. And at the end of the day.. its the borrowers responsibility to know what they can afford.. the lender.

Its always a funny thing you liberals. You scream against the banks not loaning money to people with poor credit and low incomes who are high risk... then you scream at the banks for making those very loans.

Yes, because the predatory lender, enabled by your guy Bush when he wiped out state protections against predatory lenders, lied and said they could

Click to expand...

Wrong.

No, Conservatives believe in saying they believe in personal responsibility, but they don't. They never have and they never will. Because Conservatism in and of itself lacks responsibility for anything.

Click to expand...

Your little rant is just that.. a little rant that has no basis in economics.

Incisor said:

Yes, they are since they're the ones who gave the loans and approved the loans. Do you know how banks work?

Click to expand...

I think the question is "do you know how banks work"..

Banks do not force people to take out loans. Banks do not force people to buy more house than a person can afford.

People who take out loans make those decisions.

jaeger19 said:

Yawn... I live in the world of economic reality. The subprime market got started WELL before 2004. And its surge or boom and eventual bust had its underpinnings in a whole host of things prior to 2004. From Fannie Mae and Freddie.. to The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA) played a part. this was already well stated by OrphanSlug in multiple posts. I suggest you read those posts.

Ultimately however.. banks could only "make money",... without willing borrowers willing to enter into these risky loans in order to buy more house than they could really afford.

that's simply a fundamental economic fact here.



right.. the old "we were preyed on".. when they were fully complicit in these schemes. And agreed to the terms.



Yes.. its easy for Conservatives to sit back and judge people that bought more home than they could afford and went into default because they bought 2 x the house they could afford. Then doubled down by taking out home equity loans on supposed "equity" they had in their house so that they could buy big trucks, four wheelers, jet skis and jet boats. And then patted themselves on the back for being so smart because now they could "take off the loan on their taxes".

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. The banks really are not responsible for giving these people loans. What makes the banks responsible was the banks taking these loans and portraying them as secure investments and selling them off like hot potatoes.. flooding the markets with these mortgaged back securities and derivatives .
but the real reason these loans failed... IS NOT because of the banks. Its because people DID NOT MAKE THE PAYMENTS. If they had made the payments.. then there would have been no failures. But they failed to make the payments because they bought more house than they could afford.

Click to expand...

This has been to death here, so I really don't care that you are yet another conservative who wants to put all the blame for the bubble and the crash on the Dems and the borrowers. But here's 2 things you can do:

1) look and see who the names were on that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. (especially the Gramm on that bill) and 2) read up on what many Countrywide Mortgage employees said they were doing and MADE to do during the bubble. 1 goodie was they would cut a signature off of 1 document, paste it on another document, then photocopy the document to make it look like the original signature. This was done often. Also they had had templates for forging documents, and many boxes White-Out for changing names and incomes on document. The also had templates of bank statements from almost every bank in the country. So they then could plug in different people's names and income amounts to prove that the borrower could make the payments on the loan.

Rampant fraud and forgery. And Countrywide wasn't the only one doing this kind of stuff.

Were the borrowers part of the problem? Of yes, but they were in no way the only problem. The commercial banks and mortgage banks were lying, cheating, and committing fraud and forgery. And so were the rating agencies who knowingly stamped the garbage packages with AAA ratings.

There were lot of players in causing the bubble and crash. There was plenty of blame to go around.

Have a nice day.

Incisor said:

So banks aren't lenders? Since when?

Click to expand...

Who said that? Certainly not me.

eohrnberger said:

Isn't his name just above the 'Sign Here' line?

Click to expand...

He was not the author or even a supporter of the bill until Greenspan told him that it was the best thing since sliced bread. Clinton's speech sounded just like him. Wasn't Greenspan's job to inform the President on financial matters? Greenspan sold out to the banks just like Phil Gramm.

SenorXm/Sirius said:

This has been to death here, so I really don't care that you are yet another conservative who wants to put all the blame for the bubble and the crash on the Dems and the borrowers. But here's 2 things you can do:

Click to expand...

And I don't care that you are yet another person on this board that can't read a frigging post.

I defy you ANYWHERE ANYWHERE.. to find ANY of my posts that " wants to put all the blame for the bubble and the crash on the Dems and the borrowers"

But here is a few things you can do... look and see the names on the that Gramm Leach Bill Act. Especially the signing statement by the democrat president Bill Clinton. You know what you will see.. BOTH democrats and republicans are on that bill.

2. Read up on Country Wide Mortgage.. and ask yourself.. "if people weren't willing to take out these loans because they were more than they could afford.. would they have defaulted on these loans"...

And you know what you will find out? They could not.

So the fault of Country Wide Mortgage was not in somehow forcing people to take out loans they could not afford. It was knowingly LETTING these folks take out loans and then portraying these loans as "good" to investors.

Were the borrowers part of the problem? Of yes, but they were in no way the only problem. The commercial banks and mortgage banks were lying, cheating, and committing fraud and forgery. And so were the rating agencies who knowingly stamped the garbage packages with AAA ratings.

Click to expand...

Bingo... that what my premise has been.

So improve your reading comprehension skills.

Have a nice day.

iguanaman said:

LOL Who's name is on that bill? I don't see Clinton anywhere on it. Bill Clinton was just taking Greenspan's word on it. He's not a financial wizard like Gramm or Greenspan. They are the ones responsible for it's passage and signing. If you want to pass blame just look at Phil Gramm who is now laughing all the way to UBS bank, where his sits on the Board.

Click to expand...

Lets get this straight...

I provide Bill Clintons SIGNING STATEMENT...

but he is not responsible for SIGNING IT?

yeah.... okayyyyyyyyy... :roll:

iguanaman said:

He was not the author or even a supporter of the bill until Greenspan told him that it was the best thing since sliced bread. Clinton's speech sounded just like him. Wasn't Greenspan's job to inform the President on financial matters? Greenspan sold out to the banks just like Phil Gramm.

Click to expand...

Doesn't change the fact that his signature is on it, regardless of whom told him what, and whether he sold out to the banks or not.
His is the signature on the dotted line.