• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

W:1083,1531:2983:3137]******Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vern

back from Vegas
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
13,893
Reaction score
5,030
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I still see alot of misconceptions about the Bush Mortgage Bubble and the Bush policies that encouraged, funde and protected it so I thought I would start an FAQ section. Since the resulting destruction of the housing and financial sector are still a drag on the economy today, it seems relevent

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/Documents/q4progress update.pdf

"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. "
The Fed - Page not found
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

Q Why is it commonly called the “subprime bubble” ?

A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006. In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending. (and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)

“Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages. Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006.[1]”
http://www.dallasfed.org/research/eclett/2007/el0711.html

Q. Er uh, didn’t you notice your link said the explosive growth of subprime mortgages started in 2001?

A. It did kinda say that didn’t it? However, the link below clearly states subprime was 10 % in 2003. 9% in 2001 to 10% in 2003 is only a 1% increase. A 1 % increase over 3 years is flat not explosive. 10 % in 2003 to 40% in 2006 is explosive. So the explosive growth started in 2004 which lines up pretty good but not exactly with the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble.


“In dollar terms, nonprime mortgages represented 32 percent of all mortgage originations in 2005, more than triple their 10 percent share only two years earlier
"
FRB: Finance and Economics Discussion Series: Screen Reader Version - 200899
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

Q Well there was a 300 % increase in subprime loans. Why not call it a “Subprime Bubble”?

A Subprime loans refers to the credit score of the borrower. It doesn’t make it a bad loan if proper underwriting standards are used. Bush’s working group said it was “triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages,”. He leaves out the part where it “quickly spread to all mortgages”. In 2004, 4.3 % of all mortgages were No Doc loans. In 2006 over 50% of all loans were No Doc loans. That’s over a 1000 % increase in loans where the borrowers income was not fully documented or documented at all. “Another form of easing” is a nice way of saying “lower lending standards”. And notice it lines up with the dates already posted. In addition to No Docs, banks allowed piggyback loans, teaser rates, I/0 and even negative amortization loans.

(from Dallas Fed link above)

"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."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN’T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.

Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. And then they sold the loan and risk to investors and GSEs clamoring for the loans. Actually banks, pension funds, investment banks and other investors clamored for them. Bush forced Freddie and fannie to buy an additional 440 billion in mortgages in the secondary market.
 
Last edited:
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

I still see alot of misconceptions about the Bush Mortgage Bubble and the Bush policies that encouraged, funde and protected it so I thought I would start an FAQ section. Since the resulting destruction of the housing and financial sector are still a drag on the economy today, it seems relevent

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/Documents/q4progress update.pdf

"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. "
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

Those of us on the ground (selling real estate) see the bubble quite differently. It quite easily began in 2000, if not a year or so before then. Most Realtors would put the cause squarely on the backs of lenders for developing smoke- and-mirror mortgage products specifically for low-income bums who couldn't buy lunch, much less pay a mortgage...on the backs of FNMA and FHA for issuing and guaranteeing these products...on the backs of the rating agencies like Standard & Poors, Moody's and Fitch for rating junk as Triple A.
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

Those of us on the ground (selling real estate) see the bubble quite differently. It quite easily began in 2000, if not a year or so before then. Most Realtors would put the cause squarely on the backs of lenders for developing smoke- and-mirror mortgage products specifically for low-income bums who couldn't buy lunch, much less pay a mortgage...on the backs of FNMA and FHA for issuing and guaranteeing these products...on the backs of the rating agencies like Standard & Poors, Moody's and Fitch for rating junk as Triple A.

Don't interrupt him with reality while he's trying to make a point.
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

Q Why would Bush’s regulators let banks lower their lending standards?

A. Federal regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision work for Bush and he was pushing his “Ownership Society” programs that was a major and successful part of his re election campaign in 2004. And Bush’s regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bush’s documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional 440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING
But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

Apparently he doesn't realize that the laws that allowed the housing bubble to happen was enacted under Clinton...which he later regretted. He also apparently does not know that Bush tried to stop the practice but was blocked twice by democrats.
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

The bubbles, not just housing but other things as well, began in the late 80s and early 90s. By the late 90s, those of us who were watching were already seeing the first signs that the bubbles were going to burst. There was a dramatic downturn in many markets in 99 and 2000... before Bush even took office.

The fact is there is a LOT of blame to spread around for the economic disasters we've experienced over the past decade-plus... including at least three presidents, innumerable Senators and Reps, and a lot of Wall Street types.


Laying it all at Dubya's feet is just hyper-partisanship.
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

Q My conservative friends blame policies from 1864, 1977, 1992, 1995, 1999 and 2000. Why aren’t those policies responsible for the Bush Mortgage Bubble?

A Those policies had nothing to do with banks lowering their lending standards in late 2004 and they had nothing to do with Bush’s regulators not their jobs and had nothing to do with Bush’s regulators blocking state regulators from doing their jobs.

Q I have a friend who's a realtor and she insists the Bubble started in 2000, if not a year or so before then. What about that?

A Well I cant answer for anecdotal statements that are simply not supported by any data. I can only post clear straightforward points and back them up with solid factual links. Bush's working group told you it started late 2004. The fed told you it started in the same timeframe. Subprime loans increased 300 % a little before that timeframe and No Doc loans ROCKETED UP 1000% in that exact timeframe laid out by Bush's Working Group.

How can anybody argue with that?

A no, I ask the questions.

Q sorry
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

Q Seriously, my conservative friends are really really adamant that the Bush Mortgage Bubble started in 1864, 1977, 1992, 1995, 1999 or 2000 or any year other than when Bush was president. How could those policies not affect the Bush Mortgage Bubble?

A The thousands of housing policies implemented before Bush was president didnt cause Banks to lower their lending standards and the thousands of housing policies implemented before Bush had nothing to do with Bush's regulators doing nothing to stop banks from lowering their lending standards.

Q Can you prove Bush’s regulators didn’t enforce lending standards.
A Yes.

From Bush's President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/Documents/q4progress update.pdf
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

Q My conservative friends blame policies from 1864, 1977, 1992, 1995, 1999 and 2000. Why aren’t those policies responsible for the Bush Mortgage Bubble?

A Those policies had nothing to do with banks lowering their lending standards in late 2004 and they had nothing to do with Bush’s regulators not their jobs and had nothing to do with Bush’s regulators blocking state regulators from doing their jobs.

Q I have a friend who's a realtor and she insists the Bubble started in 2000, if not a year or so before then. What about that?

A Well I cant answer for anecdotal statements that are simply not supported by any data. I can only post clear straightforward points and back them up with solid factual links. Bush's working group told you it started late 2004. The fed told you it started in the same timeframe. Subprime loans increased 300 % a little before that timeframe and No Doc loans ROCKETED UP 1000% in that exact timeframe laid out by Bush's Working Group.

How can anybody argue with that?

A no, I ask the questions.

Q sorry

Question: Why would anyone bother to read your pontifications?

Answer: Most of them wouldn't.
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

Q Some people think you saying it started in late 2004 just to lay it all at Dubya's feet is just hyper-partisanship. Is that true?

A No. First, I'm not saying it. Bush's Working Group on Financial Markets is saying it. The Federal Reserve is saying it. The actual data on No Doc Loans and subprime loans are saying it.

Q I couldn’t help but notice all caps when posting the Bush Preemption policy. Can you tell me more about this ‘preemption’ rule from the OCC?

A Yes, states noticed an increase in predatory and abusive loans in the early 2000s. more than 30 states passed laws of varying degrees restricting certain types of loans. Banks complained to the OCC and the OCC enacted its Preemption policy

“Rapid growth in subprime lending over the past decade has led to rising concerns about abusive practices by subprime lenders. By early 2004, those concerns prompted Georgia and more than 30 other states to pass laws designed to eliminate abusive or predatory lending practices by the financial services firms, including those with federal charters, operating within their boundaries. In 2003, the OCC concluded that federal law preempts the provisions of the Georgia Fair Lending Act (GFLA) that would otherwise affect national banks’ real estate lending. In early 2004, the OCC adopted a final rule providing that state laws that regulate the terms of credit are preempted. “

http://www.occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/economics-working-papers/2008-2000/wp2004-4.pdf

Q Why would they do that?

A To increase subprime lending

(same link above)

“ In addition, clarification of the applicability of state laws to national banks should remove disincentives to subprime lending and increase the supply of credit to subprime borrowers. “
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

Q Wow, Bush preempted all state laws against predatory lending.

A thats not a question.

Q Sorry, er uh what did all 50 State Attorney Generals and all 50 State Banking Supervisors think of Bush's preemption?

A They didnt like it.

"The Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) along with a number of prominent organizations, including the National Governors Association (NGA), the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), and the North America Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), have voiced their opposition to the OCC's proposed rule that would effectively preempt all state laws that apply to the activities of national banks and their state-licensed subsidiaries. The groups are asking OCC to withdraw the controversial proposal."

States Unite to Fight Sweeping OCC Preemption

Q What did all 50 State Attorney Generals and all 50 State Banking Supervisors say would happen?

A Bad things

"
Concentrating regulatory control at the OCC ensures that regulatory and consumer protection problems that emerge will be solved with a one-size fits all approach," CSBS President and CEO Neil Milner wrote in his comment letter, adding that the proposed rule would concentrate regulatory power in the hands of a single individual, the Comptroller, with virtually no direct congressional oversight until problems or scandals emerge.
"

Q Did they predict in 2003 exactly what happened?
A Yes
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

actually the bubble started in 1997,which is backed by almost every mainstream economist supported by empirical data.

second the presidents workgroup is not the authority on the economy,hell clintons presidentialworkgroup stated that heavily deregulation was good for the economy through all evidence and supported enacting the cfma.

but of course your only claim to your answer is bushs workgroup and lowering lending standards.further the lowered lending standards at shaky levels started under clinton as well,who tried to push home ownership to those who couldnt afford it.

the bubble itself started to skyrocket in 01,after the .com bubble had fully collapsed,causing investors to jump shipand hop aboard an already growing bubble.even further the bubble didnt start in 04,the bubble peaked in 04-05,so that in itself is ignorance in belief,since a bubble doesnt start the second it collapses,it grows until it collapses.the bubble itself in 05-07 started to shrink and in mid 07 saw full collapse.

the mortgage bubble itself started when house prices started to skyrocket in the mid 90's,followed by clinton who pushed to lower standards,and bush who continued those standards.
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

Q I'm serious, my conservative friends are really really really adamant that policies from 1864, 1977, 1992, 1995, 1997 1999 and 2000 are to blame. What do I say to them?

A just explain the facts to them and show them the actual data that proves it didnt start until late 2004.

Q Yea, that didnt work. try again.

A Just point out to them that what they believe cannot be supported by any data whatsoever and that their empty factless rhetoric in no way changes any facts. For example, say they claim that the Bush Mortgage Bubble started in 1997 and they claim this is backed by almost every mainstream economist supported by empirical data. First ask them to back up their claims. And then ask them "how do you ignore the empirical data already posted in this thread?". Then ask them how anything from 1997 prevented Bush's regulators from enforcing proper lending standards. (of course they will do nothing but repeat their 'claims')

Q They really dont want to 'let go' of their beliefs. Why do they cling to such specious beliefs?
A Sorry, I cant explain it. Mental health issues are not my field of study

Q Where to they get such factless baseless beliefs?
A the 'conservative entertainment complex' has literally put out 1000's of lying editorials about this. What proves they are lying is not one of them has ever mentioned anything I posted in this Q&A. You cant explain Bush's working group telling you it started late 2004. So dont mention it. You cant explain away "bush protecting predatory lenders" so you absolutely can never ever mention it in an editorial. You cant explain away Bush lifting restrictions Clinton placed on GSE purchases of subprime mortgages when you are crafting a narrative that "bush tried to stop the bubble"

"(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."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004, the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."

http://www.prmia.org/pdf/Case_Studies/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

Those of us on the ground (selling real estate) see the bubble quite differently. It quite easily began in 2000, if not a year or so before then. Most Realtors would put the cause squarely on the backs of lenders for developing smoke- and-mirror mortgage products specifically for low-income bums who couldn't buy lunch, much less pay a mortgage...on the backs of FNMA and FHA for issuing and guaranteeing these products...on the backs of the rating agencies like Standard & Poors, Moody's and Fitch for rating junk as Triple A.

Well before the crash, the FBI said fraud was rampant.

85% on the part of lenders.
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

The bubbles, not just housing but other things as well, began in the late 80s and early 90s. By the late 90s, those of us who were watching were already seeing the first signs that the bubbles were going to burst. There was a dramatic downturn in many markets in 99 and 2000... before Bush even took office.

The fact is there is a LOT of blame to spread around for the economic disasters we've experienced over the past decade-plus... including at least three presidents, innumerable Senators and Reps, and a lot of Wall Street types.


Laying it all at Dubya's feet is just hyper-partisanship.

Have you seen Inside Job?

Pretty good doc on the subject. Best explanation of the mechanics of CDs, etc I've seen

And yes, BOTH sides have been serving Wall St. at everybody elses expense for decades.

People.come from the finance sector to "advise" administrations, get changes made, go back to their "real" jobs and make fortunes on the changes they got made.

Its not good.
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

Q What about the conservative 'narrative' that Bush tried to stop the bubble?

A Its simply another false narrative created by the 'conservative entertainment complex'. That narrative is 'crafted' around the statements of Bush saying fannie and freddie needed to be regulated. Lets look at the structure of this narrative

Bush said GSEs needed to be regulated (actually true)
Barney Frank and other dems said GSEs were fine (actually true)
Democrats blocked reform (false)
GSEs caused the crisis (false)

Just another mish mosh of lies spin and half truths the 'conservative entertainment complex' relies on to push their agenda. Lets deconstruct the narrative. Yes, Bush repeatedly talked about GSE reform. The problem is reform in 2003 had nothing to do with subprime mortgages. As I've already documented, Bush lifted the restrictions Clinton placed on the GSEs to limit their purchase of abusive subprime loans. Later in 2004, Bush would increase the GSE housing goals forcing them to buy more low income home loans and get them to buy 440 billion more minority home loans in the secondary market.

"•Substantially increase by at least $440 billion, the financial commitment made by the government sponsored enterprises involved in the secondary mortgage market, specifically targeted toward the minority market;"

Homeownership Policy Book - Executive Summary

"In April, HUD proposed new federal regulations that would raise the GSEs targeted lending requirements. HUD estimates that over the next four years an additional one million low- and moderate-income families would be served as a result of the new goals."

HUD Archives: HUD DATA SHOWS FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC HAVE TRAILED THE INDUSTRY IN PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN 44 STATES

there goes the narrative that Bush tried to stop anything
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

blah blah blah....Reagonomics is where it all started...

Canada would not allow for these banking practices, the world ate them and now Trillions of fake money later.....the usa and the world is still nowhere near the great economic power it once was...

a slight rise in the housing market in the USA and everyone goes gaga....


The economy is being held together with ruinous deficit spending ......

Taking a page out of Nazi Germany you print money like it's no tomorrow....

have fun...
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

Q What about the second part of the "bush tried to stop the bubble" narrative when "Barney Frank and other dems said GSEs were fine "? GSE's did go bankrupt

A Yes Barney Frank and other dems said there was nothing wrong with the GSEs. And they were fine in 2003. The Bush Mortgage Bubble hadn't started yet (remember we learned that it didnt start until late 2004). Once the Bush Mortgage Bubble started, any entity that bought mortgages or invested in mortgage backed securities got hammered. Of the big five investment banks, only one survived and remained independent (it did change its charter to commercial bank to qualify for TARP funds). Numerous hedge funds went under. And yes, Freddie and Fannie went bankrupt. The difference is nobody was forcing hedge funds, investment banks, pension funds, insurance companies etc. to buy mortgages and mortgage backed securities (see above).


Oh and here's the key part of about democrats saying there was nothing wrong with GSEs: They were just repeating what Bush told them. (yea, this doesnt get mentioned in any 'conservative entertainment complex' editorials does it?).

Testimony from W’s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation’ of the GSE’s


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.


- THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

Q are you serious? I've heard "Barney Frank said Freddie and Fannie were fine" a million times as if it proved something and now I find out that Bush said it too. I give up. Whats my next question?

A uh you want to ask me about "dems blocking reform"

Q fine, did dems block reform?

A Well since everything else the 'conservative entertainment complex' said was a lie, why wouldnt this be a lie? Now remembering that Bush forced GSEs to buy more low income home loans, got freddie and fannie to buy an additional 440 billion in mortgage backed securities and reversed the restrictions Clinton placed on the GSEs purchases of subprime home loans this will not be much of a shock

"Strong opposition by the Bush administration forced a top Republican congressman to delay a vote on a bill that would create a new regulator for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

Oxley pulls Fannie, Freddie bill under heat from Bush - MarketWatch

Despite what appeared to be a broad consensus on GSE regulatory reform, efforts quickly stalled. A legislative markup scheduled for October 8, 2003, in the House of Representatives was halted because the Bush administration withdrew its support for the bill,

http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/er04_framewhite.pdf

(fyi, broad consensus means it would have probably passed. what happened to it again? oh yea bush stopped it)
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

Rome burns and the masses get to argue over their hatred towards each other's political bent....
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

Question: Why would anyone bother to read your pontifications?

Answer: Most of them wouldn't.

i would garner, no one is reading them.
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

Don't interrupt him with reality while he's trying to make a point.

Maggie did not contradict anything Vern said. Bankers caused the housing bubble out of greed while the Bush administration and Congress did nothing to stop them. In fact they did things to protect the banks from anyone who tried to stop them.
Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
 
re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531]

Question: Why would anyone bother to read your pontifications?

Answer: Most of them wouldn't.

Your post was agreeing with him. You said banks were responsible and so does he. You are both right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom