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

[Vern]

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

Hmm. Not really surprised. Not really trusting their opinion or analysis either.

And your concern about the Constitutional Accountability Center is laughable. Whining about the link doesnt change the facts. Bush’s policy of preempting all state laws against predatory lending was found unconstitutional. If you don’t like that link, find another. Oh yea, your manifesto prevents you from being factual.

Since you are hell bent in wanting to blame Bush for this, I'll bring this post back up, as it proves that F&F were deep into toxic mortgage before the Bush administration. Please note, the Bush

And I see you have resorted to the Fenton argument that “subprime = bad." It reminds me of the way you tried to equate "enforcing discrimination laws = forcing banks to give loans to minorities." A word of advice, when you have to resort to reposting fenton, you might as well stop posting. Especially since I’ve already shredded fenton’s silly argument. Here’s a brief summary. As you know the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004. If you want to cling to “subprime = bad” then be aware of the fact that subprime loans were 9 % in 2001 and ‘shot up’ to 10% in 2003. Default rates were not only stable but declining from 2002. But guess what, in 2004 they actually shot up to 20%, 32% in 2005 and 40 % in 2006.

Again notice how I can post actual facts. you can only post empty factless rhetoric, argue things I didn’t say and repost Fenton. good luck with that.

 

[eohrnberger]

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

And your concern about the Constitutional Accountability Center is laughable. Whining about the link doesnt change the facts. Bush’s policy of preempting all state laws against predatory lending was found unconstitutional. If you don’t like that link, find another. Oh yea, your manifesto prevents you from being factual.




And I see you have resorted to the Fenton argument that “subprime = bad." It reminds me of the way you tried to equate "enforcing discrimination laws = forcing banks to give loans to minorities." A word of advice, when you have to resort to reposting fenton, you might as well stop posting. Especially since I’ve already shredded fenton’s silly argument. Here’s a brief summary. As you know the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004. If you want to cling to “subprime = bad” then be aware of the fact that subprime loans were 9 % in 2001 and ‘shot up’ to 10% in 2003. Default rates were not only stable but declining from 2002. But guess what, in 2004 they actually shot up to 20%, 32% in 2005 and 40 % in 2006.

Again notice how I can post actual facts. you can only post empty factless rhetoric, argue things I didn’t say and repost Fenton. good luck with that.

|<==================================== The Complex Reality of it all ========================================>|
------------------------------------------------------>| Vern's Focus |<---------------------------------------------------------|

It sure seems easy to win debates when all you do is claim that anything anyone else posts is fact less rhetoric and not respond to the facts and points that were indeed raised in the posts. But that is little more than a delusion.

 

[Vern]

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

It sure seems easy to win debates when all you do is claim that anything anyone else posts is fact less rhetoric and not respond to the facts and points that were indeed raised in the posts. But that is little more than a delusion.

er uh eohrn, I realize now your replies have nothing to do with my posts. I do respond to the "facts and points" you raise. I prove they are either not facts or irrelevent. For instance, you foolishly tried to claim "subprime = bad" (thats a non fact) but once you learn subprime mortgages were 9 % in 2001, 10% in 2003, 20% in 2004, 32 % in 2005 and 40 % in 2006, with default rates actually declining until 2004 you then learn your non-fact isnt even relevent.

 

[Vern]

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

Seems to me that OCC wanted to place curbs on predatory lending and yet "ensure compliance with the fair lending and consumer protection laws and the continued safe and sound operation of our banks" and again be concerned about "fundamentally unsound banking practice to extend credit under circumstances where a bank had no reasonable expectation that a loan could be repaid by the borrower without recourse to liquidating the collateral".

So this is an example of the OCC being concerned about what ended up bringing down the financial system.

Yes eorhn, the OCC was concerned about predatory lending with specific references to the borrower's ability to repay the loan in 2000 (say it out loud, 2000). So based on your latest attempt to post something other than empty factless rhetoric, what does it say when Bush preempts all state laws against predatory lending in 2004 and reverses the Clinton rule that restricted the GSEs purchases of abusive subprime loans that dont account for the borrower's ability to repay the loan?

See eohrn, I can respond to your posts and I do. You cant. Once I shred your empty factless rhetoric or your irrelevent points, you pretend I didnt. What else can you do? oh yea, you can simply post more empty factless rhetoric.

So Cuomo, a Democrat and a Clinton administration hold over in the Bush administration, is against fair lending and consumer protection laws and against ensuring that toxic mortgages aren't originated?

Clearly, Cuomo was someone who should not have been allowed to continue from the Clinton administration in his oversight and influence over F&F.

Failure Bush, for not firing Cuomo any sooner than he did.

OMG!!!!! I cant believe I didnt read this the first time. I mean you post so many falsehoods and so much empty factless rhetoric its hard to keep up.

eohrn, thinking bush didnt fire cuomo sooner than he did just proves you have no idea what you are posting. And fyi, Cuomo as NY AG sued the OCC when they preempted all state laws against predatory lending. I've mentioned Bush preempting all state laws against predatory lending about a million times. Yet amazingly you are still clueless about it. I know the letter from Clinton's OCC made you feel all warm and fuzzy inside but Cuomo was suing Bush's OCC preemption policy. go back and read you wikipedia links real slow. I mean really really slow.

In case you still arent getting it ( a real possibility) Bush's preemption of all state laws against predatory lending and Bush reversing the Clinton rule that restricted the GSE's purchases of abusive subprime loans that did not account for the borrower's ability to repay the loan is proof that Bush "is against fair lending and consumer protection laws and against ensuring that toxic mortgages aren't originated" Are you getting that yet?

 

[eohrnberger]

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

Yes eorhn, the OCC was concerned about predatory lending with specific references to the borrower's ability to repay the loan in 2000 (say it out loud, 2000). So based on your latest attempt to post something other than empty factless rhetoric, what does it say when Bush preempts all state laws against predatory lending in 2004 and reverses the Clinton rule that restricted the GSEs purchases of abusive subprime loans that dont account for the borrower's ability to repay the loan?

See eohrn, I can respond to your posts and I do. You cant. Once I shred your empty factless rhetoric or your irrelevent points, you pretend I didnt. What else can you do? oh yea, you can simply post more empty factless rhetoric.



OMG!!!!! I cant believe I didnt read this the first time. I mean you post so many falsehoods and so much empty factless rhetoric its hard to keep up.

eohrn, thinking bush didnt fire cuomo sooner than he did just proves you have no idea what you are posting. And fyi, Cuomo as NY AG sued the OCC when they preempted all state laws against predatory lending. I've mentioned Bush preempting all state laws against predatory lending about a million times. Yet amazingly you are still clueless about it. I know the letter from Clinton's OCC made you feel all warm and fuzzy inside but Cuomo was suing Bush's OCC preemption policy. go back and read you wikipedia links real slow. I mean really really slow.

In case you still arent getting it ( a real possibility) Bush's preemption of all state laws against predatory lending and Bush reversing the Clinton rule that restricted the GSE's purchases of abusive subprime loans that did not account for the borrower's ability to repay the loan is proof that Bush "is against fair lending and consumer protection laws and against ensuring that toxic mortgages aren't originated" Are you getting that yet?

Based on my reading the related documents, to which I've provided links, it would seem reasonable that the disagreement was the reach of the OCC's authority, not to supersede state and local banking regulations rather than the policy you attribute it to.

All one has to do is to read the letter from the OCC which clearly states their position as being pro-fairness in lending as well as against toxic mortgages.

Perhaps you should read it before you attribute the exact opposite positions to the OCC.

 

[Vern]

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

Based on my reading the related documents, to which I've provided links, it would seem reasonable that the disagreement was the reach of the OCC's authority, not to supersede state and local banking regulations rather than the policy you attribute it to.

All one has to do is to read the letter from the OCC which clearly states their position as being pro-fairness in lending as well as against toxic mortgages.

Perhaps you should read it before you attribute the exact opposite positions to the OCC.

Yes eohrn, Clinton's OOC was "pro fairness" and "anti predatory". Nobody is arguing that. The problem is you post a letter from Clinton's OCC being "pro fairness" and "anti predatory" then cluelessly attribute Cuomo's court case against the OCC as "anti fairness" and "pro predatory". Let me clear it up for you because you don't seem inclined to clear it up for yourself

Clinton raises GSE housing goals 2000 (Cuomo works for Clinton)
Clinton restricts GSE purchases of abusive subprime loans that don't account for the borrower's ability to repay the loan 2000
Subprime Early Mortgage Defaults are stable from 2000 to 2004
Mortgage defaults average 1.7% from 1979 to 2004 (peaks at 2.4 % in 2002)
Bush reverses the Clinton rule that restricts GSE purchases of abusive subprime loans that don't account for the borrower's ability to repay the loan 2004
Bush preempts all state laws against predatory lending 2004
Bush raises GSE housing goals even more 2004
Subprime Early Mortgage Defaults almost doubles the previous 5 year average 2005
All mortgage defaults start to increase mid 2005
Subprime Early Payment Defaults double the previous year 2006.
AG Cuomo files suit against Bush's policy preempting all state laws against predatory lending 2006

See how your brain doesn't allow you to see the facts. Your brain "created" the false narrative that Cuomo was attacking the OCC for trying to crack down on predatory leinding. It even "imagined" that Bush didn't fire Cuomo soon enough. Now eohrn, notice how I don't have to post rhetoric to make my points. I post clear straight forward posts.

 

[eohrnberger]

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

Yes eohrn, Clinton's OOC was "pro fairness" and "anti predatory". Nobody is arguing that. The problem is you post a letter from Clinton's OCC being "pro fairness" and "anti predatory" then cluelessly attribute Cuomo's court case against the OCC as "anti fairness" and "pro predatory". Let me clear it up for you because you don't seem inclined to clear it up for yourself

Ahem, the date on the letter is May 5, 2000.
Letter from John D. Hawke, Jr., Comptroller of the Currency - May 5, 2000

Last I recall, Bush was in office as of Jan 2000.
In office January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009 George W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bzzzz. Try again.

Clinton raises GSE housing goals 2000 (Cuomo works for Clinton)
Clinton restricts GSE purchases of abusive subprime loans that don't account for the borrower's ability to repay the loan 2000

Where's the policy statement on this? Last that I recall, Clinton and his administration threatened banks with dozens of federal agency descending onto them in endless investigations should they not be lending more to minority borrowers.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Smoking-Gun-Edict-Shows-Gov-ibd-3846212214.html
Bloomberg to OWS: Congress caused the mortgage crisis, not the banks « Hot Air

At least according to Bloomberg.

Subprime Early Mortgage Defaults are stable from 2000 to 2004
Mortgage defaults average 1.7% from 1979 to 2004 (peaks at 2.4 % in 2002)
Bush reverses the Clinton rule that restricts GSE purchases of abusive subprime loans that don't account for the borrower's ability to repay the loan 2004
Bush preempts all state laws against predatory lending 2004
Bush raises GSE housing goals even more 2004
Subprime Early Mortgage Defaults almost doubles the previous 5 year average 2005
All mortgage defaults start to increase mid 2005
Subprime Early Payment Defaults double the previous year 2006.
AG Cuomo files suit against Bush's policy preempting all state laws against predatory lending 2006

See how your brain doesn't allow you to see the facts. Your brain "created" the false narrative that Cuomo was attacking the OCC for trying to crack down on predatory leinding. It even "imagined" that Bush didn't fire Cuomo soon enough. Now eohrn, notice how I don't have to post rhetoric to make my points. I post clear straight forward posts.

I would have to agree with the sentiments of Bloomberg, and others that have posted, to wit:

Let’s not dump this all on Bush. There is plenty of youtube video showing Maxine Waters, Barney Frank and many other democrats lauding the great accomplishments of Freddie and Fannie under Franklin Raines. Making comments like we should be making more of these types of loans and saying they see “no problem.”

STUDY: Federal Pre-emption of State Anti-Predatory Lending Laws Led to More Mortgage Defaults | The Big Picture

Yes, Bush deserves his fair SHARE of the blame for this mortgage bubble, but many were involved.

PS: Yeah, I read and noticed your snarky comment about posting facts, would behoove you to check yours before you post, as you have to admit that you blew it on the OCC letter's date. Firmly in the Bush administration. Sorry, not Clinton administration involved there. Wonder how many other supposed 'facts' for your are wrong.

 

[polgara]

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

Ahem, the date on the letter is May 5, 2000.
Letter from John D. Hawke, Jr., Comptroller of the Currency - May 5, 2000

Last I recall, Bush was in office as of Jan 2000.
In office January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009 George W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bzzzz. Try again.



Where's the policy statement on this? Last that I recall, Clinton and his administration threatened banks with dozens of federal agency descending onto them in endless investigations should they not be lending more to minority borrowers.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Smoking-Gun-Edict-Shows-Gov-ibd-3846212214.html
Bloomberg to OWS: Congress caused the mortgage crisis, not the banks « Hot Air

At least according to Bloomberg.



I would have to agree with the sentiments of Bloomberg, and others that have posted, to wit:
STUDY: Federal Pre-emption of State Anti-Predatory Lending Laws Led to More Mortgage Defaults | The Big Picture

Yes, Bush deserves his fair SHARE of the blame for this mortgage bubble, but many were involved.

PS: Yeah, I read and noticed your snarky comment about posting facts, would behoove you to check yours before you post, as you have to admit that you blew it on the OCC letter's date. Firmly in the Bush administration. Sorry, not Clinton administration involved there. Wonder how many other supposed 'facts' for your are wrong.

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

In your post, you indicated that Bush was in office in January 2000. He was not elected until November of 2000, and took the Oath of Office January 2001.

Since I am certain you knew all this, it must have been a typo! :lol:

 

[eohrnberger]

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

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

In your post, you indicated that Bush was in office in January 2000. He was not elected until November of 2000, and took the Oath of Office January 2001.

Since I am certain you knew all this, it must have been a typo! :lol:

(Oops. Yeah, a typo), but this also means that Cuomo hiked F&F mortgage targets during the Clinton administration.
New York Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie - Village Voice (August 05, 2008), and not during the Bush administration.

And, on top of that, it means that the legal action that ended up in the SCOTUS, was initiated under the Clinton administration, doesn't it?

 

[Lord of Planar]

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

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

LOL...

And what point would that be?

Another illegitimate way to bash Bush?

---add---

You, until this reply jumped to page 25, I didn't realize how old this thread was...

 

[Vern]

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

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

In your post, you indicated that Bush was in office in January 2000. He was not elected until November of 2000, and took the Oath of Office January 2001.

Since I am certain you knew all this, it must have been a typo! :lol:

sorry pol, it was no typo. He was convinced that Bush was president in 2000 because he posted a letter dated May 5, 2000 from the head of the OCC to prove that Bush was “pro fairness” and “anti predatory”. I really didn’t understand why he posted it at first. I informed him the letter was from Clinton’s OCC. So he was actually disputing that Clinton was president in 2000. He believed Bush was president in 2000 so much so that he criticized Bush for not firing Cuomo sooner. Yea, he posted that. And he believed it so much he couldn’t see the dates he actually posted from Wikipedia.

He literally thought Bush was president in 2000. His brain altered reality so his “narrative” about bush "fighting against evil Cuomo" could work. Its really not that uncommon but usually its not that obvious.

 

[eohrnberger]

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

On to new business:

On Wednesday, Philip Hampton, the chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland, didn’t disagree with concerns raised by shareholders over banker pay, saying that “the structure of pay and bonuses contributed to the financial crisis.”

R.B.S. Chairman Says High Banker Pay Contributed to Financial Crisis

I hadn't heard that before. From a respected banker about other bankers. I can see where bankers, wanting the big profits and commensurate rewards from investment banking, would leave the less glamorous and less profitable commercial banking (savings, checking, credit cards) begging, but this has been the conflict ever since Glass-Steagall's firewall between the two was dismantled.

If you ask me, that firewall needs to be rebuilt and put back in place. IMHO.

 

[eohrnberger]

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

sorry pol, it was no typo. He was convinced that Bush was president in 2000 because he posted a letter dated May 5, 2000 from the head of the OCC to prove that Bush was “pro fairness” and “anti predatory”. I really didn’t understand why he posted it at first. I informed him the letter was from Clinton’s OCC. So he was actually disputing that Clinton was president in 2000. He believed Bush was president in 2000 so much so that he criticized Bush for not firing Cuomo sooner. Yea, he posted that. And he believed it so much he couldn’t see the dates he actually posted from Wikipedia.

He literally thought Bush was president in 2000. His brain altered reality so his “narrative” about bush "fighting against evil Cuomo" could work. Its really not that uncommon but usually its not that obvious.

Late at night, dog ass tired, and I misread a 1 and saw a 0 instead. So sue me.

 

[Vern]

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

sorry eohrn, you had three posts about that letter from 2000. Its no typo when you are trying to prove me wrong when I tell you it was Clinton’s OCC. You wanted to believe it was Bush’s OCC so bad it had to be true and magic presto, you convinced yourself it was. Tell me this is a typo

PS: Yeah, I read and noticed your snarky comment about posting facts, would behoove you to check yours before you post, as you have to admit that you blew it on the OCC letter's date. Firmly in the Bush administration. Sorry, not Clinton administration involved there. Wonder how many other supposed 'facts' for your are wrong.

Just like when a lying “editorial” tells you Clinton issued a “chilling ultimatum”, magic presto, it’s a fact. And to further prove it was no typo, you posted “Bush didn’t fire Cuomo soon enough”. You literally created a “magic fact” out of thin so your delusional narrative could “work.” And the funny thing about your delusional narrative is even if Bush’s OCC sent a letter in 2000 it doesn’t disprove that Bush’s OCC preempted all state laws against predatory lending in 2004.

"Bush preempted all state laws against predatory lending
Again, what's your evidence?

You asked previously and I posted where Bush preempted all state laws against predatory lending in 2004 for the explicitly stated purpose of increasing subprime lending. Its in post 613 in addition to the numerous times I posted it. Of course you know the facts but see how your brain “deletes” things that don’t help whatever your current delusional narrative it. All conservatives do it.

 

[eohrnberger]

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

sorry eohrn, you had three posts about that letter from 2000. Its no typo when you are trying to prove me wrong when I tell you it was Clinton’s OCC. You wanted to believe it was Bush’s OCC so bad it had to be true and magic presto, you convinced yourself it was. Tell me this is a typo



Just like when a lying “editorial” tells you Clinton issued a “chilling ultimatum”, magic presto, it’s a fact. And to further prove it was no typo, you posted “Bush didn’t fire Cuomo soon enough”. You literally created a “magic fact” out of thin so your delusional narrative could “work.” And the funny thing about your delusional narrative is even if Bush’s OCC sent a letter in 2000 it doesn’t disprove that Bush’s OCC preempted all state laws against predatory lending in 2004.



You asked previously and I posted where Bush preempted all state laws against predatory lending in 2004 for the explicitly stated purpose of increasing subprime lending. Its in post 613 in addition to the numerous times I posted it. Of course you know the facts but see how your brain “deletes” things that don’t help whatever your current delusional narrative it. All conservatives do it.

Fine. Whatever. There's still no escaping the fact that there's more people involved in creating that mess than just Bush.

 

[Vern]

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

Fine. Whatever. There's still no escaping the fact that there's more people involved in creating that mess than just Bush.

but you haven't posted any facts to back that up. You've posted nothing but lying editorials and delusions. Tell us again about the "chilling ultimatum" from 1994 or "Bush not firing Cuomo soon enough". see my point. Wait I know, tell us what Bloomberg thinks. That proves, well that proves what Bloomberg thinks. See, you want to believe things are facts because you want them to be fact.

 

[eohrnberger]

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

but you haven't posted any facts to back that up. You've posted nothing but lying editorials and delusions. Tell us again about the "chilling ultimatum" from 1994 or "Bush not firing Cuomo soon enough". see my point. Wait I know, tell us what Bloomberg thinks. That proves, well that proves what Bloomberg thinks. See, you want to believe things are facts because you want them to be fact.

Sure, sure. I see your point. In fact I see several.

When faced with the assertion that many people had a hand in causing the mess, something that is blatantly obvious, documented by a variety list, such as Time Magazine's, among others, lists of people that actually had a hand in creating the mess, your assertion is 'you've provided no proof'. And you continue assert that your proof is irrefutable and 100% inclusive of all information that needs to be considered.

Since when are you the determinist of which information is relevant and which is not in a multi-person discussion?

I've posted the value chain from toxic mortgage origination to MBS sales across the planet by investment banks, and this is equally dismissed. Claimed as 'empty fact less rhetoric'.

When I've related the value chain to a larger scope that needs to be considered, this is equally dismissed. Claimed as 'empty fact less rhetoric'.

I see no point in continuing with discussion with you, as you conduct yourself in a most dishonest, dismissive and partisan manner, just as long as you can continue to blame Bush, you're in your little happy place. Well fine. Continue in your little happy place.

 

[ModerationNow!]

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

The report does not mean that Bush was the cause of lenders lowering their lending standards, its just a report acknowledging that there was a problem, but when the Bush admin tried to take action, they were fought very hard to prevent it. I will point out that in the 90's, Clinton and other liberals set out to get banks to provide mortgages to low income Americans and to lower their standards in order to accept more people who were less likely to conform to the contemporary standards. Also, about a year ago I remember listening to speakers mentioning that when Barack Obama was a community organizer in the 90's, his group sued to force backs and lenders to give loans to those people who didnt really qualify for them. In order to make this happen, the "no-doc" mortgages were created which allowed people to essentially claim their income and financial situations verbally without having to prove it with documents!

Actually the Bush admin warned of potential housing, mortgage issues and problems within Fannie and Freddie, from 2001-2003 onward, but ranking member and then head of House financial services committee member/chairman Barnie Franks DENIED any such problems and fought to prevent reforms and even encouraged Americans to buy more houses!: This is a Fox source, but it includes dates and video to back it all up, so there can be no "but its Fox":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo

Also, during 2007, the democrats controlled BOTH the senate and the house of rep's. In that same time period, some republicans began warning of a real estate bubble, but Barnie Franks famously came out and publicly denied it and even encouraged Americans to continue investing in real estate!

Then there were warnings about problems at Fannie and Freddie, in reference to these institutions buying up these bad mortgages from banks, among other problems, and yet once again Barnie Franks very publicly came out and denied it!! In fact, as I recall even after the crash there was nothing meaningful done to fix the problems at Fannie and Freddie because dems like Franks blocked it.

Bush's fault you say? Heres the proof against it:


Proof? You should watch this from 2005:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE

And Franks denying his own support for increased mortgage and home ownership, and a previous video of him saying the opposite:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRVIeCYAJFk


And especially:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC88oox9TBo

 

[Vern]

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

The report does not mean that Bush was the cause of lenders lowering their lending standards, its just a report acknowledging that there was a problem, but when the Bush admin tried to take action, they were fought very hard to prevent it.

sorry guy, if you read the thread you will find out that Bush in no way tried to stop it and acutally pushed it. And the fact that the Bush Mortgage bubble started late 2004 shows Clinton, Carter and FDR had nothing to do with it. And had you bothered to read more than one post, you would have seen all your "points" have been addressed.

 

[Vern]

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

Sure, sure. I see your point. In fact I see several.

When faced with the assertion that many people had a hand in causing the mess, something that is blatantly obvious, documented by a variety list, such as Time Magazine's, among others, lists of people that actually had a hand in creating the mess, your assertion is 'you've provided no proof'. And you continue assert that your proof is irrefutable and 100% inclusive of all information that needs to be considered.

poor little eohrn, back to whining I see. You've posted nothing but empty factless rhetoric or even lies. Some were your own lies, some were others. And my proof must be irrefutable because you refuse to discuss anything I post. You keep posting your silly " oh yea, what about this" and then I respond and then you dont want to discuss it anymore.

Since when are you the determinist of which information is relevant and which is not in a multi-person discussion?.

er uh eohrn, you made me the determinist when you refused to have an honest and intelligent discussion. Lets review some of your "assertions"

Empty Factless Rhetoric: many actors, planted the seed,
Lying rhetoric: chilling ultimatum, loans to qualified minorities leads to toxic mortgages
Delusions: Bush didnt try hard enough to stop it, Bush was president in 2000, Bush didnt fire Cuomo soon enough
Lies: It was a typo.

when you grow up and want to have an honest and intelligent discussion, come on back.

 

[eohrnberger]

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

poor little eohrn, back to whining I see. You've posted nothing but empty factless rhetoric or even lies. Some were your own lies, some were others. And my proof must be irrefutable because you refuse to discuss anything I post. You keep posting your silly " oh yea, what about this" and then I respond and then you dont want to discuss it anymore.



er uh eohrn, you made me the determinist when you refused to have an honest and intelligent discussion. Lets review some of your "assertions"

Empty Factless Rhetoric: many actors, planted the seed,
Lying rhetoric: chilling ultimatum, loans to qualified minorities leads to toxic mortgages
Delusions: Bush didnt try hard enough to stop it, Bush was president in 2000, Bush didnt fire Cuomo soon enough
Lies: It was a typo.

when you grow up and want to have an honest and intelligent discussion, come on back.

Many actors posted - factual information - dismissed as Empty Factless Rhetoric
Called attention to your summary dismissal - accused of whining
Produced factual information steps prior to Bush were taken to set the stage for the mortgage bubble, dismissed Empty Factless Rhetoric

In response, how have I treated you? I have accepted the premise that Bush deserves his part of the blame of the mortgage bubble, which is part of your assertions.

And now you have the gall, the temerity, to call me dishonest? Pot meet kettle, if at all.

 

[Vern]

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

Many actors posted - factual information - dismissed as Empty Factless Rhetoric
Called attention to your summary dismissal - accused of whining
Produced factual information steps prior to Bush were taken to set the stage for the mortgage bubble, dismissed Empty Factless Rhetoric

oh eohrn, you are hysterical, you simply cant stop posting empty factless rhetoric (EFR). I even like how you tried to “repackage” your EFR. “many actors are to blame” became “many actors posted facts” and “planted the seed” became “set the stage”. eorhn, let me “set the stage” for you and see if you can respond like a grown up

Mortgage standards fell of a cliff in late 2004 as evidenced by the increase in mortgage defaults starting the summer of 2005. Overall mortgage defaults averaged 1.7 % from 1979 to 2004 and were actually decreasing from their peak in 2002. Early Payment Defaults for subprime mortgages were stable from 2000 to 2004. In 2005, early payment defaults almost doubled the previous 5 year average. In 2006, early payment defaults doubled the 2005 rate. And the significance of the early payment defaults was that subprime mortgages were only 10 % of mortgages in 2003. they were 32 % in 2005. They were 40% in 2006.

what set the stage for 2005 and 2006 mortgages to start defaulting at alarming rates? a “chilling ultimatum” from 1994 or Bush preempting all state laws against predatory lending in 2004? or Bush reversing the Clinton rule that restricted Freddie and Fannie’s purchases of abusive subprime loans in 2004? or Bush’s regulators not only not doing their jobs but fighting state regulators who were?

In response, how have I treated you? I have accepted the premise that Bush deserves his part of the blame of the mortgage bubble, which is part of your assertions.

congratulations, you accepted your own premise. hey remember when you "accepted " the premise that Bush was president in 2000? Remember when you "accpeted" the premise that "bush tried to stop the bubble"? remember when you "accepted" the premise "bush didnt try hard enough to stop it"? remember when you "accepted" the premise that " loans to qualified minorities leads to toxic loans"?

When you are ready to "accept" the facts, let me know.

 

[eohrnberger]

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

The report does not mean that Bush was the cause of lenders lowering their lending standards, its just a report acknowledging that there was a problem, but when the Bush admin tried to take action, they were fought very hard to prevent it.

sorry guy, if you read the thread you will find out that Bush in no way tried to stop it and acutally pushed it. And the fact that the Bush Mortgage bubble started late 2004 shows Clinton, Carter and FDR had nothing to do with it. And had you bothered to read more than one post, you would have seen all your "points" have been addressed.

Interesting response. 'Don't believe your eyes, don't believe the news reporting, believe my posts!' :lamo

 

[Fenton]

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

The report does not mean that Bush was the cause of lenders lowering their lending standards, its just a report acknowledging that there was a problem, but when the Bush admin tried to take action, they were fought very hard to prevent it. I will point out that in the 90's, Clinton and other liberals set out to get banks to provide mortgages to low income Americans and to lower their standards in order to accept more people who were less likely to conform to the contemporary standards. Also, about a year ago I remember listening to speakers mentioning that when Barack Obama was a community organizer in the 90's, his group sued to force backs and lenders to give loans to those people who didnt really qualify for them. In order to make this happen, the "no-doc" mortgages were created which allowed people to essentially claim their income and financial situations verbally without having to prove it with documents!

Actually the Bush admin warned of potential housing, mortgage issues and problems within Fannie and Freddie, from 2001-2003 onward, but ranking member and then head of House financial services committee member/chairman Barnie Franks DENIED any such problems and fought to prevent reforms and even encouraged Americans to buy more houses!: This is a Fox source, but it includes dates and video to back it all up, so there can be no "but its Fox":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo

Also, during 2007, the democrats controlled BOTH the senate and the house of rep's. In that same time period, some republicans began warning of a real estate bubble, but Barnie Franks famously came out and publicly denied it and even encouraged Americans to continue investing in real estate!

Then there were warnings about problems at Fannie and Freddie, in reference to these institutions buying up these bad mortgages from banks, among other problems, and yet once again Barnie Franks very publicly came out and denied it!! In fact, as I recall even after the crash there was nothing meaningful done to fix the problems at Fannie and Freddie because dems like Franks blocked it.

Bush's fault you say? Heres the proof against it:


Proof? You should watch this from 2005:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE

And Franks denying his own support for increased mortgage and home ownership, and a previous video of him saying the opposite:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRVIeCYAJFk


And especially:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC88oox9TBo

You'll have to excuse VERN.

He's one of the 4 people left in this Nation who actually blame Bush exclusively for the Subprime mortgage crisis.

Of-course he doesn't know what he's talking about.

When I asked VERN to explain how only a 1 percent increase in Homeowner ship rates under Bush could have possibly caused a systematic financial crisis he literally just made up some nonsense about the rate of Subprime increases post 2004.

When I asked him to expand on this ridiculous statement all he could do was repeat himself.

His twisted Bush obsession means woefully ignorant when it comes to the Subprime crisis.

He can't educate himself further because that would mean he would have to put truth over his Bush obsession.

He'll never fo that

I promise, he'll post that paragraph from the Presidents Working Group again and again and again.

Because thats ALL he has.

 

[Vern]

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

Interesting response. 'Don't believe your eyes, don't believe the news reporting, believe my posts!' :lamo

oh eohrn, I said when you grow up feel free to respond. I didn’t say “feel free to cowardly scurry away from the facts yet again and try to deflect about me”. He made the claim that “bush tried to stop it”. I’ve proven beyond all doubt that Bush in no way tried to stop it. And the funny thing you don’t even make that claim anymore. How childish is it that you just want to get back at me and pretend he’s right. Please eohrn, tell us how bush tried to stop it. try to do it without EFR and use actual facts.