commonsense
Active member
Only dumber...
And then there were five.
- Thread starter Eeset
- Start date
Only dumber...
commonsense
Active member
I'm thinking that Trump is the only Republican who can beat the Democrats. If he wins then the Republicans will have to change....radically.
remember
clinton talked to trump
just before trump got in the race
do you know how to connect the dots?
It's going to be interesting to see if his campaign begins to self-destruct now. :think:
A lot of mismanagement, fraud, and deregulation.
there has never been a time
when
that was not present
the financial collapse was directly due to making it easy for poor people to get a mortgage
as stated by barney frank
let's roll the dice
It's as close as we came to a depression since the last one. And it was only via massive government intervention that another one was avoided.
There's some truth to that. But that wasn't the whole problem, and the correction in the housing market wouldn't have nearly tanked the entire economy if not for deregulation. A largely unregulated derivatives market meant that the big banks were able to hide risks and amplify them because it was profitable. They made the process of making bad loans profitable via what amounted to a massive Ponzi scheme, and then the government bailed out their bad bets to avoid an unprecedented economic collapse.
The poor people who got duped into taking mortgages with adjustable rates were told that they could just refinance when the interest rates on their loans went up. They were told that housing prices always went up. And that was a lie. But the people making the loans didn't care. They didn't hold the loans. And there were actually a bunch of people, perversely, who stood to make a lot of money off of the loans defaulting. The originators made their money on the closing fees, not the interest payments. The poor were necessary to the scheme, but they were mostly the dupes.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
:up:
the problem was they were forced to give mortgages to those who should not get one
No one forced them to do any such thing. They found a way to make it profitable to make bad loans and hide the risk. No one needs to force you to do that, if you can get away with it.
Perhaps "chrysostom" should have revisited GWB's 2004 acceptance speech where he states "Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society"
and
"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high."
He also goes on to set a new goal of "7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years!"
That doesn't sound like the President intending to take a more cautious approach to providing homeownership for Americans or expressing any willingness to share the success/blame of GOP housing policies with Barney Frank!
It should also be noted that in addition to controlling the White House, the Republicans also had majorities in both Houses in Congress until 2006, so to place the blame the subprime loan fiasco on the doorstep of one single Democrat is just another example of conservatives "rewriting history!"
Last edited:
his mistake was to trust
barney frank
alan greenspan
and
his desire to increase home ownership
That article is by an arc-libertarian who heads an organization called the Ayn Rand Institute. I think there's a good chance he's seeing what he wants to see in the market. http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...-repeal-dodd-frank-abolish-fed-154010575.html
Now, you could make the same accusation toward me, and I couldn't disprove it, but I'd ask you to consider this: the late 1990s and early 2000s were a period of deregulation. The Glass-Steagall repeal, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2009/07/21/how-deregulating-derivatives-led-to-disaster/), the amendment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act that allowed banks insured by FDIC to offer other often more risky products. Is it a coincidence that a single-digit number of years after these major changes to the way government oversees the economy were followed by an unprecedented crash? The CRA was passed in 1977. Did it really take 30 years for it to blow up the economy?
"Chrysostom" would now have us believe that in 2004, even after 4 years in office, those poor, inept neo-cons" in the Bush Administration and HUD were still so out of touch with reality that they had to depend on Greenspan and a liberal like Frank for their policies on housing!
In fact Alphonso Jackson, Bush's longest serving Secretary for HUD (2003–2008) was forced to resign amid the scandal that he and other government officials, themselves, had received subprime loans from Countrywide Financial - an obvious conflict of interests!
Perhaps "Chrysostom's" next revelation that will be Barney Frank actually wrote Bush's 2004 Acceptance Speech and forced Jackson to take the loan!
Bush Appointed Secretaries of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
**********************************************************************
1. Mel Martinez (2001–2003)- served as co-chairman of then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush's 2000 presidential election campaign in Florida
2. Alphonso Jackson (2003–2008) - in June 2008, it was reported that Jackson, along with several other politicians and government officials ..... all received below-rate loans from Countrywide Financial as part of the company's "V.I.P." program
3. Steve Preston (2008–2009) - after Jackson resigned in the wake of the Countrywide Financial Scandal, Preston, who lacked housing policy experience, was appointed to head HUD for the last 9 months of the Bush Administration
Last edited:
To those who warned of the risks in the new policies, Congressman Frank replied in 2003 that critics "exaggerate a threat of safety" and "conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see." Far from being reluctant to promote risky practices, Barney Frank said, "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation."
http://www.creators.com/conservative/thomas-sowell/is-barney-frank.html
http://www.creators.com/conservative/thomas-sowell/is-barney-frank.html
Yet you ignore the financial speculation
of those same lenders that led to the
collapse in other areas, very naive of you.
The Republicans controlled the White House and had majorities in the House, Senate and the Supreme Court - but "chrysostom" would have us believe that the "buck stops with Barney!"
In addition, one of Bush's cronies from Texas was the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), where he, along with other appointed government officials, were receiving subprime loans from Countrywide Financial.
They had placed themselves in a conflict of interests - how could those in positions of authority put a halt to subprime loans when they were receiving one themselves?
Last edited:
"Chrysostom" is still desperately clinging to a few quotes made by a Democrat in 2003 - whose party was out of power in the White House, the Senate, the House and the Supreme Court.
He would have us believe that even over the next 5 years, with 3 different appointed Secretaries at HUD, the Bush Administration was oblivious to the warning signs associated with subprime loans - because Barney Frank didn't tell them.
As previous mentioned, President Bush in his 2004 Acceptance Speech clearly states -
"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."
"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.""
When you stand before the nation willingly accepting all the credit (with no mention of Barney Frank), only in the "Fantasyland" that conservatives have created for themselves, would you not also be expected to shoulder the blame?