Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton[W:336]

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

We have a lot of friends in our neighborhood who moved here in 2005 and 2006, and their home values plummeted after they moved in. Even with more than 20% down, they are still underwater. But they are not moving and still paying. God help them if they have to move. The problem was no fault of theirs.

My husband & I had our house built in 1998. When the value more than doubled to what we paid, we were smart and resisted the temptation of using our home as an ATM, which is why we aren't in trouble today. The people who were irresponsible are in trouble. But Warren will never tell them it was their fault (and apparently, the Warren champions who post here don't see it that way either, which explains why they support her). It's always someone else's fault....

Click to expand...

Other than shaming stupid and irresponsible people, do you actually stand for any solution to any problem we're talking about?

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

Nobody forced anyone to take a mortgage. A lender can't file a lien on your home without your approval. Smart people read what they commit to. Contracts are specific for a reason.

Click to expand...

Weird how those that DEMAND personal respectability NEVER demand it of Coprps and Banksters. Just weird

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime


FBI saw threat of loan crisis

"It has the potential to be an epidemic,"

A top official warned of widening mortgage fraud in 2004, but the agency focused its resources elsewhere

"We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis,"

They ended up with fewer resources, rather than more.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times


The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence

William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis


NOW WHICH PARTY OF THE TRANSACTION HAD A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO THEIR SHAREHOLDERS AGAIN?

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

dad2three2001 said:

The commenter is referring to your post #192.,Where you posited (your copy and links) that somehow CRA done in the 1990's, where enforcement (and compliance) was weakened in the Bush admin, had ANYTHING to do with the Bankster bubble Bush was cheerleader for in the 2000's

Click to expand...

The CRA was a component of it yes, greatly altered and weakened by the CLINTON administration, not the Bush administration. I also made the point in the second post that it really didn't present much problem throughout the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations. But it was a factor and was used to make unintended mischief that turned out to be serious mischief later on. Bush was running for office in 2000. He was not President then. But if you can find a campaign point he was presenting that contributed to the housing bubble, go for it.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Unitedwestand13 said:

if anyone is shirking personal accountability it is the banks that gave loans to people who could not afford it.

Click to expand...

The big banks and mortgage brokers who gave out loans share in the responsibility. Which is why I'm concerned that they will be the only ones standing in a few years after the CFPB & Dodd-Frank regulate the community banks & credit unions right out of the market. I'm not sure why anyone wants to see them thrive, which they will.

The mortgage brokers are still largely underregulated.

The community banks weren't the ones who made the risky loans. Generally speaking, they kept their same standards as they've maintained for years.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

None of my links were from the AEI, Heritage or CATO. Thanks for confirming you never read them.

Click to expand...

They were ALL talking points from those right wing 'think tanks' Sorry, 7 years following Bush subprime crisis

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

dad2three2001 said:

Weird how those that DEMAND personal respectability NEVER demand it of Coprps and Banksters. Just weird

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime


FBI saw threat of loan crisis

"It has the potential to be an epidemic,"

A top official warned of widening mortgage fraud in 2004, but the agency focused its resources elsewhere

"We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis,"

They ended up with fewer resources, rather than more.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times


The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence

William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis


NOW WHICH PARTY OF THE TRANSACTION HAD A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO THEIR SHAREHOLDERS AGAIN?

Click to expand...

Fabulous. Thanks for sharing. Did you want to talk about community banks, or the FBI and the subprime crisis, which didn't involve the community banks?

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

dad2three2001 said:

They were ALL talking points from those right wing 'think tanks' Sorry, 7 years following Bush subprime crisis

Click to expand...

No, American Banker isn't a think tank, and it isn't right wing. Nor is CBS. Nor is Bloomberg. Try again maybe?

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

AlbqOwl said:

The CRA was a component of it yes, greatly altered and weakened by the CLINTON administration, not the Bush administration. I also made the point in the second post that it really didn't present much problem throughout the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations. But it was a factor and was used to make unintended mischief that turned out to be serious mischief later on. Bush was running for office in 2000. He was not President then. But if you can find a campaign point he was presenting that contributed to the housing bubble, go for it.

Click to expand...

The CRA had an impact on the housing market no question. So did the lowering of the lending standards at the GSEs, which happened during the Clinton era. So did the policies Henry Cisneros put in while he was HUD Secretary for Clinton. Bush made mistakes. Barney Frank made mistakes. The Democrats made mistakes, the Republicans made mistakes, the big banks made mistakes, the irresponsible homeowners made mistakes. The only ones who didn't make mistakes were the community banks. They have to pay for everyone else's mistakes.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

AlbqOwl said:

The CRA was a component of it yes, greatly altered and weakened by the CLINTON administration, not the Bush administration. I also made the point in the second post that it really didn't present much problem throughout the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations. But it was a factor and was used to make unintended mischief that turned out to be serious mischief later on. Bush was running for office in 2000. He was not President then. But if you can find a campaign point he was presenting that contributed to the housing bubble, go for it.

Click to expand...

It's Still Not CRA

Janet Yellin, President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco recently made this point, saying "Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."


It's Still Not CRA | New America Blogs


Given CEOs' proclivity for government bashing, any lenders being driven to write bad loans by the CRA would have been on CNBC screaming at the top of their lungs.

But that dog that didn't bark.


Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.

The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along. The big investment banks simply connected the investors to the originators, helped by the AAA ratings.


CRA? CLINTON? LOL

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

I can't believe anyone with any kind of critical thinking skills thinks that the homeowners who took interest only loans from brokers, or no-doc loans with an interest-only period that changed to a balloon at 18%, aren't responsible for their own failures. Those were the people who hurt the ones who made good decisions before their houses became worth less than a litterbox.

It's Progressivism at its finest. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Click to expand...

:agree: I think in too many cases it was a dream that they could live in a house they never would have qualified for under normal banking rules. When you didn't have to prove you even had a job, for pete's sake, word got around and everyone wanted to brag about buying a big house with zero money down. Many of them had no idea what owning any house even entailed. Remember seeing pictures of those that just lived there, and nothing else? They were trashed! I think a lot of them still had some vague idea that someone else was responsible for repairs, like their landlords were before. They were the ones that moved out when it became apparent they couldn't afford a house, while the responsible ones suffered in the ensuing bust. We see the lack of personal responsibility in more and more areas today, and it is affecting all of us.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

dad2three2001 said:

It's Still Not CRA

Janet Yellin, President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco recently made this point, saying "Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."


It's Still Not CRA | New America Blogs


Given CEOs' proclivity for government bashing, any lenders being driven to write bad loans by the CRA would have been on CNBC screaming at the top of their lungs.

But that dog that didn't bark.


Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.

The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along. The big investment banks simply connected the investors to the originators, helped by the AAA ratings.


CRA? CLINTON? LOL

Click to expand...

The CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco isn't going to bash the government. She works for the government.The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is a regional bank, part of the Federal Reserve. She didn't make loans.

Janet Yellen (not Yellin) is also now Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

There are just no words.....

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

The CRA had an impact on the housing market no question. So did the lowering of the lending standards at the GSEs, which happened during the Clinton era. So did the policies Henry Cisneros put in while he was HUD Secretary for Clinton. Bush made mistakes. Barney Frank made mistakes. The Democrats made mistakes, the Republicans made mistakes, the big banks made mistakes, the irresponsible homeowners made mistakes. The only ones who didn't make mistakes were the community banks. They have to pay for everyone else's mistakes.

Click to expand...

WHJAT A BUNCH OF RIGHT WING CRAP

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


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

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC



Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law

Community Reinvestment Act, blamed for home market crash, didn't apply to the banks that did the most lending.

BANKSTER:
Bob Davis, executive vice president of the American Bankers Association, which lobbies Congress to streamline community reinvestment rules, said "it just isn't credible" to blame the law CRA for the crisis.

"Institutions that are subject to CRA - that is, banks and savings asociations - were largely not involved in subprime lending," Davis said. "The bulk of the loans came through a channel that was not subject to CRA."

Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register

Banks used cheap capital to create a bubble. Their lending strategies fueled and fed off the housing bubble, and they did so using mortgage products whose performance was premised on continued growth of that bubble.


After 2004, the financial industry coalesced around high -risk mortgage lending as their primary cash crop.

According to a study by the consulting firm Mercer Oliver Wyman, nonconventional lending accounted for approximately half of originations in 2005, but over 85% of profits

Once lenders figured this out they would often try to sell subprime loans even to persons who qualified for a cheaper prime loan. The repackaging of nonconventional mortgages into bonds also became the largest fee generation business for many investment banks


Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


DEMS? BARNEY FRANK? CLINTON? LOL, WHAT POWER DID THEY HAVE 2001-2007 AGAIN?

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

polgara said:

:agree: I think in too many cases it was a dream that they could live in a house they never would have qualified for under normal banking rules. When you didn't have to prove you even had a job, for pete's sake, word got around and everyone wanted to brag about buying a big house with zero money down. Many of them had no idea what owning any house even entailed. Remember seeing pictures of those that just lived there, and nothing else? They were trashed! I think a lot of them still had some vague idea that someone else was responsible for repairs, like their landlords were before. They were the ones that moved out when it became apparent they couldn't afford a house, while the responsible ones suffered in the ensuing bust. We see the lack of personal responsibility in more and more areas today, and it is affecting all of us.

Click to expand...

But remember, Pol...it wasn't their fault. It was the bankers' faults!

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

The CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco isn't going to bash the government. She works for the government.The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is a regional bank, part of the Federal Reserve.

Janet Yellen (not Yellin) is also now Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

There are just no words.....

Click to expand...

Yes, 6% of ALL loans 2004-2008 were done by CRA covered banks, NOT that CRA was the goal on anywhere near the 6%, but it's CRA that is the problem *shaking head*

Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."


Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.


NOW ABOUT THOSE BANKSTERS APPEARING ON TV AND BLAMING CRA? Yes, I know, AEI and right wingers created garbage to TRY to pin on CRA, lol

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

dad2three2001 said:

It's Still Not CRA

Janet Yellin, President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco recently made this point, saying "Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."


It's Still Not CRA | New America Blogs


Given CEOs' proclivity for government bashing, any lenders being driven to write bad loans by the CRA would have been on CNBC screaming at the top of their lungs.

But that dog that didn't bark.


Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.

The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along. The big investment banks simply connected the investors to the originators, helped by the AAA ratings.


CRA? CLINTON? LOL

Click to expand...

I've already posted support for my opinion that Clinton rewrote the CRA in a way never intended. But regardless, you completely missed the point I was making. I won't waste time making it again because I re-read what wrote and I am pretty sure it is self explanatory.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

But remember, Pol...it wasn't their fault. It was the bankers' faults!

Click to expand...

Who is responsible for underwriting standards again?

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

dad2three2001 said:

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

Click to expand...

while this is correct, banks who made these loans were assured by the federal government that if the loans, "went bad"....the federal government would make good on them.

so banks made and created, many types of loans to people, who could not afford them,....because of government assurance........government intervention.


Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis and did NOTHING - YouTube

Barney Frank in 2005: What Housing Bubble? - YouTube

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

AlbqOwl said:

I've already posted support for my opinion that Clinton rewrote the CRA in a way never intended. But regardless, you completely missed the point I was making. I won't waste time making it again because I re-read what wrote and I am pretty sure it is self explanatory.

Click to expand...

CRA WAS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE UNDER Clinton. Weird right? We elect GOPers who 'don't believe in' Gov't regulations or regulators and we get Reagan's S&L crisis AFTER he ignored regulator Gray's warnings that started in 1984 then Bush 20 years later, starts ignoring FBI warnings. Just a coincidence...

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

dad2three2001 said:

Yes, 6% of ALL loans 2004-2008 were done by CRA covered banks, NOT that CRA was the goal on anywhere near the 6%, but it's CRA that is the problem *shaking head*

Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."


Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.


NOW ABOUT THOSE BANKSTERS APPEARING ON TV AND BLAMING CRA? Yes, I know, AEI and right wingers created garbage to TRY to pin on CRA, lol

Click to expand...

That's nice. Did you read my post that you quoted? You don't even know what the Federal Reserve Bank does. It's not a lender. It doesn't make mortgages. You don't even know who Janet Yellen is today.

Can you get on the topic of this thread, which is Elizabeth Warren & Hillary Clinton, and not the CRA or the mortgage meltdown?

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

ernst barkmann said:

while this is correct, banks who made these loans were assured by the federal government that if the loans, "went bad"....the federal government would make good on them.

so banks made and created, many types of loans to people, who could not afford them,....because of government assurance........government intervention.


Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis and did NOTHING - YouTube

Barney Frank in 2005: What Housing Bubble? - YouTube

Click to expand...

2003-2004 F/F ACCOUNTING SCANDAL. And?

PLEASE tell me the super powers Barney had in the GOP majority House 1995-2007? PRETTY PLEASE?



Lower lending standards started in late 2004 which caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble.

Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.


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

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."

June 17, 2004

(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


JUNE 17TH 2004

Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up

The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.



Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture


GOV'T CREATED A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE HUH? LOL

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

That's nice. Did you read my post that you quoted? You don't even know what the Federal Reserve Bank does. It's not a lender. It doesn't make mortgages. You don't even know who Janet Yellen is today.

Can you get on the topic of this thread, which is Elizabeth Warren & Hillary Clinton, and not the CRA or the mortgage meltdown?

Click to expand...

Got it, you aren't honest and can't critically think

Keep trying

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

dad2three2001 said:

Who is responsible for underwriting standards again?

Click to expand...

The banks. Is that a rhetorical question?

What's your opinion on Warren & Clinton, which is the topic of this thread?

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

No, American Banker isn't a think tank, and it isn't right wing. Nor is CBS. Nor is Bloomberg. Try again maybe?

Click to expand...

Yes, they DO get their talking points from AEI, Pinto, Wallison, Mercatus, etc... Try again

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

dad2three2001 said:

2003-2004 F/F ACCOUNTING SCANDAL. And?

PLEASE tell me the super powers Barney had in the GOP majority House 1995-2007? PRETTY PLEASE?



Lower lending standards started in late 2004 which caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble.

Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.


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

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."

June 17, 2004

(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


JUNE 17TH 2004

Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up

The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.



Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture


GOV'T CREATED A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE HUH? LOL

Click to expand...

yes the government caused a lot of problems.....

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

The banks. Is that a rhetorical question?

What's your opinion on Warren & Clinton, which is the topic of this thread?

Click to expand...

So after being destroyed on your false premises, distortions and lies about REGULATIONS which, in context with Warren's positions AND those posits you took, WERE relevant.