Bush raised red flags in April 2001. Dems said NO

[untermensche]

That is an absurd right-wing talking point that has no connection to anything real.

What you fail to understand is this criminal scheme was two-fold.

First it was the abandonment of reasonable banking practices.

THEN it was disguising the bad loans by bundling them and passing them on to some unsuspecting sucker. That was the crime that made the whole thing possible.

Giving bad loans was only a piece of the picture.

Do you want to also claim the banks were forced to lie about known bad investments because of the CRA?

You're not rebutting me at all. You're just so obsessed with the bankers that you won't look at the big picture.

As usual there is nothing to rebut.

You are doing nothing but spewing right wing talking points and fantasies.

This disaster was the result of deregulation under Clinton and turning a blind eye when things were clearly heading for a crisis under Bush.

It was the result of right wing fantasies about the nature of American capitalism, a system constantly crashing and needing tax payer money to keep going a little longer until the next even worse crisis.

 

[Starman]

[untermensche] prefers the thriving system of North Korea.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

[untermensche] prefers the thriving system of North Korea.

Wow... you sure told him.

 

[Keith&Co.]

[untermensche] prefers the thriving system of North Korea.

From the man who only has time to

There isn't time enough in a day to reply to everyone, so I try to respond to the most reasoned things I see,and the most demonstrably outrageous.

THIS is what he chooses to spend his limited time on.

 

[laughing dog]

The CRA to market evangelists is the equivalent explanation for the financial meltdown as the "the Devil" is to Baptists for evil in the world: assumed. invisible and absolutely no empirical evidence to back up the claim.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

From the man who only has time to

There isn't time enough in a day to reply to everyone, so I try to respond to the most reasoned things I see,and the most demonstrably outrageous.

THIS is what he chooses to spend his limited time on.

Well, it is the only tact he has left as his claims in the OP were shown to be outrightly false. So name calling and insults is all that is left.

 

[Keith&Co.]

From the man who only has time to THIS is what he chooses to spend his limited time on.

Well, it is the only tact he has left as his claims in the OP were shown to be outrightly false. So name calling and insults is all that is left.

Left?
That was his mission statement.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The CRA to market evangelists is the equivalent explanation for the financial meltdown as the "the Devil" is to Baptists for evil in the world: assumed. invisible and absolutely no empirical evidence to back up the claim.

And the Glass Segall(sp?) is the same on the other side. It was a joint effort between banks, the government, and buyers who all wanted it. An analogy. The MBS were the kindling, the FHA and GSEs were the wood, and the easy money and low interest rates were the gasoline on the fire.

 

[untermensche]

The CRA to market evangelists is the equivalent explanation for the financial meltdown as the "the Devil" is to Baptists for evil in the world: assumed. invisible and absolutely no empirical evidence to back up the claim.

And the Glass Segall(sp?) is the same on the other side. It was a joint effort between banks, the government, and buyers who all wanted it. An analogy. The MBS were the kindling, the FHA and GSEs were the wood, and the easy money and low interest rates were the gasoline on the fire.

You casually call it "easy money".

It was the complete abandonment of known banking practices and sense. All because of blind greed.

The individual may or may not have sense.

Bankers are separated from just anybody because they allegedly do.

Part of their job is to protect the system by making prudent loans.

 

[ZiprHead]

Part of their job is to protect the system by making prudent loans.

The CRA had language requiring responsible loan practices.

This is on the bankers, not the consumers.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And the Glass Segall(sp?) is the same on the other side. It was a joint effort between banks, the government, and buyers who all wanted it. An analogy. The MBS were the kindling, the FHA and GSEs were the wood, and the easy money and low interest rates were the gasoline on the fire.

You casually call it "easy money".

It was the complete abandonment of known banking practices and sense. All because of blind greed.

The individual may or may not have sense.

Bankers are separated from just anybody because they allegedly do.

Part of their job is to protect the system by making prudent loans.

The reason that the CRA came around in the first place was that banks were only lending to people who could repay the loans, but this left too many minorities out so minority representation was thrown in. The GSEs were also put in because banks were being too conservative. It was the FHA that wrote the underwriting standards that banks started using.

- - - Updated - - -

Part of their job is to protect the system by making prudent loans.

The CRA had language requiring responsible loan practices.

This is on the bankers, not the consumers.

It was both. If a consumer knows they are gambling and forging documents on hoping to gamble, the fault is also on consumers.

 

[untermensche]

You casually call it "easy money".

It was the complete abandonment of known banking practices and sense. All because of blind greed.

The individual may or may not have sense.

Bankers are separated from just anybody because they allegedly do.

Part of their job is to protect the system by making prudent loans.

The reason that the CRA came around in the first place was that banks were only lending to people who could repay the loans, but this left too many minorities out so minority representation was thrown in. The GSEs were also put in because banks were being too conservative. It was the FHA that wrote the underwriting standards that banks started using.

The standards were never to not check information given on loan applications.

That is what caused the crisis. Along with the credit default swaps.

It was both. If a consumer knows they are gambling and forging documents on hoping to gamble, the fault is also on consumers.

Bankers make their money doing this. They are the professionals with professional and societal responsibilities.

They are supposed to protect the system from breaking down because there are a huge amount of bad loans.

The consumer is or isn't an idiot and has no power to secure loans without the approval of so-called banking professionals.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The reason that the CRA came around in the first place was that banks were only lending to people who could repay the loans, but this left too many minorities out so minority representation was thrown in. The GSEs were also put in because banks were being too conservative. It was the FHA that wrote the underwriting standards that banks started using.

The standards were never to not check information given on loan applications.

That is what caused the crisis. Along with the credit default swaps.

It was both. If a consumer knows they are gambling and forging documents on hoping to gamble, the fault is also on consumers.

Bankers make their money doing this. They are the professionals with professional and societal responsibilities.

They are supposed to protect the system from breaking down because there are a huge amount of bad loans.

The consumer is or isn't an idiot and has no power to secure loans without the approval of so-called banking professionals.

If both parties are going to into the deal knowing they are gambling, then it's hard to say. The consumer knew that he/she was gambling with money to try and make a quick buck so there is blame on the consumers too. And the banks were just passing off the loans to the GSEs who were buying the mortgages because it met their goals, both minority and regular goals. So everybody was happy, the economy was booming again, people were making money.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The standards were never to not check information given on loan applications.

That is what caused the crisis. Along with the credit default swaps.

It was both. If a consumer knows they are gambling and forging documents on hoping to gamble, the fault is also on consumers.

Bankers make their money doing this. They are the professionals with professional and societal responsibilities.

They are supposed to protect the system from breaking down because there are a huge amount of bad loans.

The consumer is or isn't an idiot and has no power to secure loans without the approval of so-called banking professionals.

If both parties are going to into the deal knowing they are gambling, then it's hard to say. The consumer knew that he/she was gambling with money to try and make a quick buck so there is blame on the consumers too.

Quick buck as in a few years.

And the banks were just passing off the loans to the GSEs who were buying the mortgages because it met their goals, both minority and regular goals.

And no one was looking at the mortgages or caring that they weren't being rated correctly.

So everybody was happy, the economy was booming again, people were making money.

The economy was never booming along. That was the mid-90s. During the W years, the economy was always pumping out contradictory indications. The only thing driving it was home and durable good sales being driven by the low interest rates.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The standards were never to not check information given on loan applications.

That is what caused the crisis. Along with the credit default swaps.

It was both. If a consumer knows they are gambling and forging documents on hoping to gamble, the fault is also on consumers.

Bankers make their money doing this. They are the professionals with professional and societal responsibilities.

They are supposed to protect the system from breaking down because there are a huge amount of bad loans.

The consumer is or isn't an idiot and has no power to secure loans without the approval of so-called banking professionals.

If both parties are going to into the deal knowing they are gambling, then it's hard to say. The consumer knew that he/she was gambling with money to try and make a quick buck so there is blame on the consumers too.

Quick buck as in a few years.

And the banks were just passing off the loans to the GSEs who were buying the mortgages because it met their goals, both minority and regular goals.

And no one was looking at the mortgages or caring that they weren't being rated correctly.

So everybody was happy, the economy was booming again, people were making money.

The economy was never booming along. That was the mid-90s. During the W years, the economy was always pumping out contradictory indications. The only thing driving it was home and durable good sales being driven by the low interest rates.

I think you meant 00s for your last part. But the economy was okay after 2003 to 2007 so people were happy, the government was getting what it wanted with its goals on home ownership rates and banks were making money. The point of the OP was that Bush somewhat said hey we were going to have issues with housing, but it was never a big issue. It had bi-partisan support for the banking/mortgage industry.

 

[arkirk]

It all depended on who you were at the time if it was good or bad. If at the start of the century you were poor, you were not headed toward home ownership. Realtors just said we have to face it..."Some people just don't deserve homes." They lived their philosophy and raked in the commissions on all these liar's loans. They were not about to lose anything. Salaries continued to decline in terms of real dollars. Everybody was happy till the banks raised their ARMs.

Bush played idiot throughout the entire period of his presidency. We never even found out if he was a good golfer.

 

[untermensche]

If both parties are going to into the deal knowing they are gambling, then it's hard to say. The consumer knew that he/she was gambling with money to try and make a quick buck so there is blame on the consumers too. And the banks were just passing off the loans to the GSEs who were buying the mortgages because it met their goals, both minority and regular goals. So everybody was happy, the economy was booming again, people were making money.

They are not equal parties.

On one side are so-called professionals.

On the other are people with perhaps nothing but a desire.

The only way for any of those desires to be met is if the so-called professionals allow it.

They (the bankers) have total control.

Nobody can force a bank to give them a mortgage.

Not even poor black people.

 

[KeepTalking]

The standards were never to not check information given on loan applications.

That is what caused the crisis. Along with the credit default swaps.

It was both. If a consumer knows they are gambling and forging documents on hoping to gamble, the fault is also on consumers.

Bankers make their money doing this. They are the professionals with professional and societal responsibilities.

They are supposed to protect the system from breaking down because there are a huge amount of bad loans.

The consumer is or isn't an idiot and has no power to secure loans without the approval of so-called banking professionals.

If both parties are going to into the deal knowing they are gambling, then it's hard to say.

How were both parties gambling? The consumers being targeted were first time home buyers who for the most part knew little to nothing about the mortgage process.

The consumer knew that he/she was gambling with money to try and make a quick buck so there is blame on the consumers too.

These consumers were trying to make a quick buck? That's total bullshit. They were predominantly first time home buyers who just wanted a stable roof over their heads instead of living at the whim of landlords. They had no idea that a gamble was involved.

And the banks were just passing off the loans to the GSEs who were buying the mortgages because it met their goals, both minority and regular goals. So everybody was happy, the economy was booming again, people were making money.

The banks were robbing both sides blind. They were selling mortgages to consumers who they knew were going to have a hard time making payments, and then passing them off as highly qualified investments. Then, when the shit hit the fan, we bailed out the fucking banks who were to blame all along, and left everyone else holding the bag.

 

[KeepTalking]

The point of the OP was that Bush somewhat said hey we were going to have issues with housing, but it was never a big issue.

The OP never got around to proving that point, and it has not been shown to be the case in this tread since then either. I've asked before to be shown the quotes in which Bush raised red flags about this, so if you want to agree with the OP that this the case, perhaps you should trot them out.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The standards were never to not check information given on loan applications.

That is what caused the crisis. Along with the credit default swaps.

It was both. If a consumer knows they are gambling and forging documents on hoping to gamble, the fault is also on consumers.

Bankers make their money doing this. They are the professionals with professional and societal responsibilities.

They are supposed to protect the system from breaking down because there are a huge amount of bad loans.

The consumer is or isn't an idiot and has no power to secure loans without the approval of so-called banking professionals.

If both parties are going to into the deal knowing they are gambling, then it's hard to say. The consumer knew that he/she was gambling with money to try and make a quick buck so there is blame on the consumers too.

Quick buck as in a few years.

And the banks were just passing off the loans to the GSEs who were buying the mortgages because it met their goals, both minority and regular goals.

And no one was looking at the mortgages or caring that they weren't being rated correctly.

So everybody was happy, the economy was booming again, people were making money.

The economy was never booming along. That was the mid-90s. During the W years, the economy was always pumping out contradictory indications. The only thing driving it was home and durable good sales being driven by the low interest rates.

I think you meant 00s for your last part.

The W years. Not his fault, not blaming him. And I've said as such.

But the economy was okay after 2003 to 2007 so people were happy...

People were happy because they were riding a wave of housing inflation and moving into bigger and bigger homes.

...the government was getting what it wanted with its goals on home ownership rates and banks were making money. The point of the OP was that Bush somewhat said hey we were going to have issues with housing, but it was never a big issue. It had bi-partisan support for the banking/mortgage industry.

He didn't really say that, and a good deal of evidence has been shown to contradict it.