• 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!

Dow over 17,000. thank you again President Obama. [W:1017, 2344]

I will not allow myself to again get into this question of whether or not decisions made by the Bush43 administration caused the housing crisis, but we might want to remember that our friends at the Wall Street banks played an important role.

The implications for Goldman Sachs and, indeed, many of the major banks that engaged in unethical and possibly illegal practices within the context of Abacus-like deals could be massive. According to the recently released United States Senate Subcommittee Financial Crisis Report, Goldman Sachs "securitized high risk mortgages" from 2004-2007 for "lucrative fees," "magnified the impact of toxic mortgages on financial markets," "took a short position on the mortgage market." "created a conflict between the firm's proprietary interests and the interests of its clients," did not disclose "taking a short position" in the Abacus deal, and "used Credit Default Swaps … to bet against the mortgage market." — "Corporate Codes of Conduct and Business Principles in Light of the Goldman Sachs Lawsuit Settlement," Review of Business & Finance Case Studies, 2011, p.64​

OK, I take what I said back. Here's some material that's been posted in this forum repeatedly. Looks like some useful stuff to me, and appears to answer this call:



The "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." — The President's Working Group on Financial Markets, Oct 2008

View attachment 67196612

Just more "opinions of others" and "charts that tell nothing," I suppose.

As I have stated over and over again but partisans who simply have been indoctrinated to blame Bush for everything ignore it. There are a lot of players that caused the housing bubble to burst INCLUDING Bush but NOT Bush alone. The bubble wasn't created in 2004-2007 but the term trigger means the bullets left the gun. The bullets were put into the gun long before 2004-2007. As I just posted here is a good article on the subject. Those who still want to blame Bush solely are going to do so and pick out of this article what they want. Those of us who see the bigger picture however understand that Bush alone didn't cause the problem and the problem was going to eventually burst in spite of Bush.

https://business.cch.com/images/banner/subprime.pdf
 
So Bush created the sub prime program?
nope, the point remains Wallison, who you keep referring to, argues subprime did bring it down.
My point all along has bee that Bush ALONE did not cause the financial crisis but it seems that some here disagree and believe he alone caused the crisis.
You say all sorts of things to defend Texas idiots, but the point right here is your referencing Wallison and subprime.
If you aren't in that group then you would be right. There were more factors than the sub prime loans that caused the problem and many to blame. Vern and others here ignore that and blame Bush solely.
Try this, see if it is possible for you to not confuse me with someone else (fenton, vern) ...and then realize what Wallison/Pinto argue, that is if you are going to keep referring to Wallisons' books/articles....mkay? Think you can do that? Is that possible?
 
nope, the point remains Wallison, who you keep referring to, argues subprime did bring it down. You say all sorts of things to defend Texas idiots, but the point right here is your referencing Wallison and subprime.Try this, see if it is possible for you to not confuse me with someone else (fenton, vern) ...and then realize what Wallison/Pinto argue, that is if you are going to keep referring to Wallisons' books/articles....mkay? Think you can do that? Is that possible?

Texas idiots? LOL, what state are you in? It was not the sub prime loans alone that caused the problem, what part of that do you not understand?? It contributed but wasn't the sole reason and you ought to know that. By the way what did "your" President do before he became a Senator and did he have any responsibility for putting people who couldn't afford homes into their homes?

Who benefited from the sub prime loans, Republicans or Democrats?

Who capitalized politically on the financial crisis, Republicans or Democrats?

Who was in charge of Congress when the bubble burst, Republicans or Democrats?

Now let's stick to the facts, sub prime loans were created by what Administration? Were there other factors that led to the financial crisis? Were those factors created by Bush?

Do you believe Bush alone created the crisis?
 
I await your proof that it was the sub prime loans between 2004-2007 that caused the crisis

The ripple effect illustrates the wide-ranging impact the subprime mortgage crisis has
had not only on the U.S. economy but on society in general.
Conclusion
Economists and analysts have come to understand the causes of the subprime crisis. The
resulting fallout of the mortgage crisis has been well-documented. Legislators, regulators,
industry insiders and others have witnessed its devastating effect on U.S. and global
economies.
 
The ripple effect illustrates the wide-ranging impact the subprime mortgage crisis has
had not only on the U.S. economy but on society in general.
Conclusion
Economists and analysts have come to understand the causes of the subprime crisis. The
resulting fallout of the mortgage crisis has been well-documented. Legislators, regulators,
industry insiders and others have witnessed its devastating effect on U.S. and global
economies.

And I have posted economists' views that add additional issues as a cause as well but again when were the sub prime loans created? Are your mature enough to admit that it wasn't Bush alone that created the financial crisis?

Noticed that you didn't answer any of the questions posted. Could it be because you don't want to admit that there are other people responsible for that crisis other than Bush including Obama??
 
It was not the sub prime loans alone that caused the problem, what part of that do you not understand?? Were there other factors that led to the financial crisis?
The ripple effect illustrates the wide-ranging impact the subprime mortgage crisis has
had not only on the U.S. economy but on society in general.
Conclusion
Economists and analysts have come to understand the causes of the subprime crisis. The
resulting fallout of the mortgage crisis has been well-documented. Legislators, regulators,
industry insiders and others have witnessed its devastating effect on U.S. and global
economies.
 
The ripple effect illustrates the wide-ranging impact the subprime mortgage crisis has
had not only on the U.S. economy but on society in general.
Conclusion
Economists and analysts have come to understand the causes of the subprime crisis. The
resulting fallout of the mortgage crisis has been well-documented. Legislators, regulators,
industry insiders and others have witnessed its devastating effect on U.S. and global
economies.

The subprime crisis was part of the financial crisis which you cannot seem to grasp. It was a significant part of the crisis but there are other issues as well and the point remains there were a lot of players other than Bush involved.
 
The subprimes that defaulted badly, at high levels were originated between 2002-07:

View attachment 67196621

Don't see an answer to the question? Simply cannot do it, can you?

Yes, defaults were high but those defaults of loans between 04-07 didn't create the bubble nor did they cause the financial crisis.
 
Yes, defaults were high but those defaults of loans between 04-07 didn't create the bubble
Defaults don't create bubbles, the defaults were the result of the housing bubble popping. I think all of this is much too complex for you to debate.
 
Defaults don't create bubbles, the defaults were the result of the housing bubble popping. I think all of this is much too complex for you to debate.

Not complex at all, your problem is you cannot admit that Bush alone wasn't the problem. The bubble was created over time
 
it is for you because you write so many incorrect posts I never said he was, this is again incorrectyup, 2001 to 2006.

No, sorry, from 1994 when the program was created until 2007. As for you never saying he was solely responsible, good for you as you

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

Notice the growth in private debt from 1994 to the present and you will see that the bubble was growing significantly after the creation of the sub prime program in 1994
 
No, sorry, from 1994
This is a prime example of your inability to stay focused, the HOUSING PRICE BUBBLE that popped in 2006 did not start in "1994".

when the program was created until 2007.
subprime was not a "program". You are utterly confused.
As for you never saying he was solely responsible, good for you as you
as you....what? You were always confused on this point....and your confusion gets worse...

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

Notice the growth in private debt from 1994 to the present and you will see that the bubble was growing significantly
Housing price index... the bubble...did not exceed the the previous 1989 peak until after 2000, the subprime loans that did the damage, that defaulted, were originated after 2000.

after the creation of the sub prime program in 1994
subprime was not a "program". You are utterly confused.
 
This is a prime example of your inability to stay focused, the HOUSING PRICE BUBBLE that popped in 2006 did not start in "1994".

subprime was not a "program". You are utterly confused.
as you....what? You were always confused on this point....and your confusion gets worse...

Housing price index... the bubble...did not exceed the the previous 1989 peak until after 2000, the subprime loans that did the damage, that defaulted, were originated after 2000.

subprime was not a "program". You are utterly confused.

Yes, we know when it burst but you are unwilling to admit when it started. It was Clinton that created the sub prime loans, why? You already said you understood that it wasn't Bush alone, so why can't you accept the fact that the increase in public debt starting with the sub prime program started the bubble?
 
I have NO RESPECT for people who come on and insult/spread bile about others all while hiding behind their computer screens under an assumed name.

And of course I LIVE for yer respect, as I'm sure many here do. I know I'll do everything I can to try to reform myself in an effort to earn it.

what did "your" President do before he became a Senator and did he have any responsibility for putting people who couldn't afford homes into their homes?

Ya mean Negroes?

>>Who benefited from the sub prime loans, Republicans or Democrats?

Please educate us on that one.

>>Who capitalized politically on the financial crisis, Republicans or Democrats?

Ya mean who says "Don't put those guys back in power or else they'll likely do something like that again"? Or who has earned support by cleaning up the mess?

>>Who was in charge of Congress when the bubble burst, Republicans or Democrats?

Who created the bubble?

>>Were there other factors that led to the financial crisis?

Yes. I'll draw on this analysis from FactCheck.

A) Fed policy, e.g., slashing the funds rate from 6.5% to less than two percent during 2001, and finally to one percent in the summer of 2003. Greenspan himself has said that "the housing bubble was fundamentally engendered by the decline in real long-term interest rates," although he points to the effects of globalization, which I figure has some merit.

fed_funds_rate_1998_2010.jpg

He also "encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages."

American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage. — "Understanding household debt obligations," Remarks by Chairman Alan Greenspan at the Credit Union National Association 2004 Governmental Affairs Conference, Washington, D.C., February 23, 2004​

B) crooked or at least "overly enthusiastic" mortgage brokers

C) greedy, irresponsible, and even criminal Wall Street bankers

D) weak regulatory oversight by the Bush43 administration

E) US homeowners and homebuyers, who foolishly thought housing prices would just keep rising

F) and yes, Clinton and the Demecrats, who wanted to help working- and middle-class families buy homes, and therefore worked to lower credit and downpayment requirements

>>Were those factors created by Bush?

Some of them. And he didn't do much of anything useful about the others, did he?

>>Do you believe Bush alone created the crisis?

Obviously not. No one is saying he did.
 
That's a keeper.

Wow...really? "public debt"? LOL.

Apparently research isn't a strength of yours as well so I hope this is a keeper

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

Policies of the Clinton Administration[edit]

As noted, the National Homeownership Strategy, which advocated a general loosening of lending standards, at least with regard to affordable housing, was devised in 1995 by HUD under the Clinton Administration. During the rest of the Clinton Administration HUD set increasingly rigorous affordable housing loan requirements for Fannie and Freddie.

In 1995 the Clinton Administration made changes to the CRA. The changes were extensive and, in the opinion of critics, very destructive. Under the new rules, banks and thrifts were to be evaluated "based on the number and amount of loans issued within their assessment areas, the geographical distribution of those loans, the distribution of loans based on borrower characteristics, the number and amount of community development loans, and the amount of innovation and flexibility they used when approving loans."[153] Some analysts maintain that these new rules pressured banks to make weak loans.[154]


as for pubic debt and the chart I posted that is personal debt owned by individuals unlike the public debt owned by the govt. and paid for by the taxpayers. Do liberals ever admit when they are wrong?
 
Apparently research isn't a strength of yours as well so I hope this is a keeper
I knew you were going to conflate "subprime" and CRA, which is exactly what Wallison/Pinto do, which is why their argument fails, they screwed up the data they used to try to argue subprime CAUSED THE BUBBLE AND CRASH....but wait, your argument was that subprime did not cause the crash.....even while you rely on Wallison who does.

Subprime lending existed before any of this, it is simply a loan given to a lendee who has a greater risk (low credit rating, few assets) and carries a higher interest rate, it can go back to pawn loans, it can apply to auto loans, all sorts. In mortgages, it applies to non-conforming/not up to FHA standards......and ALL cra loans were conforming loans. Don't tell me I don't know this, I have lived it and have had plenty of practice defeating Fenton's et al arguments on the topic.




as for pubic debt and the chart I posted that is personal debt owned by individuals unlike the public debt owned by the govt. and paid for by the taxpayers. Do liberals ever admit when they are wrong?
People taking out mortgages....is private debt.....not "public debt".
 
I knew you were going to conflate "subprime" and CRA, which is exactly what Wallison/Pinto do, which is why their argument fails, they screwed up the data they used to try to argue subprime CAUSED THE BUBBLE AND CRASH....but wait, your argument was that subprime did not cause the crash.....even while you rely on Wallison who does.

Subprime lending existed before any of this, it is simply a loan given to a lendee who has a greater risk (low credit rating, few assets) and carries a higher interest rate, it can go back to pawn loans, it can apply to auto loans, all sorts. In mortgages, it applies to non-conforming/not up to FHA standards......and ALL cra loans were conforming loans. Don't tell me I don't know this, I have lived it and have had plenty of practice defeating Fenton's et al arguments on the topic.




People taking out mortgages....is private debt.....not "public debt".



Wrong, I have posted economist views that stated it wasn't the sub prime loans that caused the bubble to burst but it was the sub prime loans that contributed to the bubble

The public debt issue from the chart posted is different than the public debt generated from the budget. I would have thought you would know that.
 
it was the sub prime loans that contributed to the bubble
Hurr durr.....so are you still going to argue that "major sub prime loan failures did not happen"
The public debt issue from the chart posted is different than the public debt generated from the budget. I would have thought you would know that.
They are different, because the one that consists of debt from mortgages in OUR discussion (not who you posted a "graph" for)....is called "private debt". You tried to call private mortgage debt a "public debt", it isn't. Get your terms correct.
 
Hurr durr.....so are you still going to argue that "major sub prime loan failures did not happen"
They are different, because the one that consists of debt from mortgages in OUR discussion (not who you posted a "graph" for)....is called "private debt". You tried to call private mortgage debt a "public debt", it isn't. Get your terms correct.

Look, I am tired of wordsmithing liberals, there is nothing I say that is ever going to change your mind as you are indoctrinated into an ideology. I get it, I was too at one time but I out grew it. Hopefully one of these days you will too. I have made my point that the financial crisis was not created by Bush alone and you have agreed, enough said. I am done here.
 
Look, I am tired of wordsmithing liberals
...have to correct you, constantly, so that any sort of a coherent debate can take place.

I have made my point that the financial crisis was not created by Bush
A meaningless argument, the point you made that you keep avoiding is:

"major sub prime loan failures did not happen"

They did, you know they did, and they were a major part of how and why the credit system collapsed.
 
...have to correct you, constantly, so that any sort of a coherent debate can take place.

A meaningless argument, the point you made that you keep avoiding is:

"major sub prime loan failures did not happen"

They did, you know they did, and they were a major part of how and why the credit system collapsed.

Please post the quote from me where I said that major sub prime loan defaults didn't happen??????
 
Please post the quote from me where I said that major sub prime loan defaults didn't happen??????
right here:
What you posted shows that the relaxed regulations which obviously would have led to major sub prime loan failures didn't happen thus Bush played a minor role in creating the problem.
We went over this yesterday.....which for you was a long time ago, erased from your memory.

I am done here.
Uh-huh
 
Back
Top Bottom