Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That is a complete lie, but you knew that already. The MAJORITY Republicans blocked EVERY reform bill, the Dems were POWERLESS. Reform was only passed when the Dems took over Congress, but by then the GOP obstruction had already taken its toll.Bush did call attention to the dangers of what Freddie and Fannie were doing with home loans, and Congressional Republicans tried to impose tougher regulations on them, but Democrats blocked all of their efforts.
The reform bills were blocked in COMMITTEE completely controlled by the GOP. The GOP had the chairmanship of every committee and two more voted then the Dems on the committee, the Dems were POWERLESS to block anything.
Not the same kind of subprime loans as Bush. You already posted this lie before and I explained the difference between Clinton's FIXED RATE subprime loans and Bush's ARM subprime loans, so you can't pretend you are lying here out of STUPIDITY, you KNOW you are lying.There was no "then-existing policy" of lowering lending standards, Bush owns that himself, but you knew that already. Under Obama, borrowers had to be qualified, and had to have a downpayment. Bush made no downpayment loans for more than the house was worth to borrowers with bad credit who earned 20% less than the average income of the neighborhood they were buying into with his ADDI.To be to totally accurate, the Bush administration did not stop the then-existing policy of pressuring/enticing lenders into lowering credit standards.
There was no "then-existing policy" of lowering lending standards,
Except for Clinton forcing the GSEs to make 50% of their mortgage purchases subprime.
I can believe you never even read my pull quotes before you posted your lie!!!Not enough MINORITIES with QUALIFYING credit could not get mortgages after a HUD sting operation exposed the discrimination.Obama never sued for crappy mortgage loans, racists call them "crappy" because to racists no minority is EVER qualified for a loan, or anything else for that matter.Obama suing Chicago banks for not writing enough crappy mortgage loans, back when he was a community organizer.
Obama never sued for crappy mortgage loans
Right, he sued because not enough people with great credit could get mortgages.
Hud `Sting` To Root Out Lending Bias
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development plans to begin using undercover ``sting`` operations to investigate banks for racial discrimination in mortgage lending.
The department will use its authority under fair-housing legislation to send ``matched pairs`` of minority and white testers posing as mortgage applicants into banks to uncover loan discrimination. The testers will have closely matched characteristics, such as income, credit history and bank balances.
The undercover operation follows the release last fall of a Federal Reserve study of all U.S. mortgage applications in 1990 showing blacks and Hispanics were far more likely to have their applications turned down than whites, even when their incomes were similar. Affluent blacks were rejected at essentially the same rate as poor whites, the study found.
I can't believe you actually posted this nonsense. Banks don't give loans on income alone, and your article highlights it as if income was all that mattered. Credit history is more important to a bank along with where a home is located.
All banks care about is getting their money back with interest. WTF would they care what color somebody was? Sorry, but yes, minorities do have worse credit histories than whites. And your article only said what they were going to do, not what they found. Now can you name me a major banking or lending institution that was prosecuted for racial discrimination in loan practices?
From the pull quote I posted;
The testers will have closely matched characteristics, such as income, credit history and bank balances.
That is a complete lie, but you knew that already. The MAJORITY Republicans blocked EVERY reform bill, the Dems were POWERLESS. Reform was only passed when the Dems took over Congress, but by then the GOP obstruction had already taken its toll.Bush did call attention to the dangers of what Freddie and Fannie were doing with home loans, and Congressional Republicans tried to impose tougher regulations on them, but Democrats blocked all of their efforts.
The reform bills were blocked in COMMITTEE completely controlled by the GOP. The GOP had the chairmanship of every committee and two more voted then the Dems on the committee, the Dems were POWERLESS to block anything.
But they did. As the video shows, they fought tooth and nail to make sure there was no oversight committee for F and F. The Democrats in the video claimed there was no problem in the lending practices, and Republicans were hell bent on showing a problem emerging.
Closely matched means CLOSELY MATCHED, meaning it closely matched yours.I can believe you never even read my pull quotes before you posted your lie!!!Not enough MINORITIES with QUALIFYING credit could not get mortgages after a HUD sting operation exposed the discrimination.Obama never sued for crappy mortgage loans, racists call them "crappy" because to racists no minority is EVER qualified for a loan, or anything else for that matter.
Obama never sued for crappy mortgage loans
Right, he sued because not enough people with great credit could get mortgages.
Hud `Sting` To Root Out Lending Bias
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development plans to begin using undercover ``sting`` operations to investigate banks for racial discrimination in mortgage lending.
The department will use its authority under fair-housing legislation to send ``matched pairs`` of minority and white testers posing as mortgage applicants into banks to uncover loan discrimination. The testers will have closely matched characteristics, such as income, credit history and bank balances.
The undercover operation follows the release last fall of a Federal Reserve study of all U.S. mortgage applications in 1990 showing blacks and Hispanics were far more likely to have their applications turned down than whites, even when their incomes were similar. Affluent blacks were rejected at essentially the same rate as poor whites, the study found.
I can't believe you actually posted this nonsense. Banks don't give loans on income alone, and your article highlights it as if income was all that mattered. Credit history is more important to a bank along with where a home is located.
All banks care about is getting their money back with interest. WTF would they care what color somebody was? Sorry, but yes, minorities do have worse credit histories than whites. And your article only said what they were going to do, not what they found. Now can you name me a major banking or lending institution that was prosecuted for racial discrimination in loan practices?
From the pull quote I posted;
The testers will have closely matched characteristics, such as income, credit history and bank balances.
Actually I read the whole article. So what does "closely matched" mean? It doesn't mean exactly. And again I ask, what did they find and who did they sue over their findings?
When I bought my houses, I was asked a series of questions. For instance, how long I was employed at the same company? Where did the money in my savings account come from? And then there is the appraisal value of the home which I can't believe this investigation went that far. If the bank appraises a property less than the amount for the loan, they refuse it.
This hit piece seems to leave out a lot of information. All it really said is they planned on conducting an investigation.
Not the same kind of subprime loans as Bush. You already posted this lie before and I explained the difference between Clinton's FIXED RATE subprime loans and Bush's ARM subprime loans, so you can't pretend you are lying here out of STUPIDITY, you KNOW you are lying.There was no "then-existing policy" of lowering lending standards, Bush owns that himself, but you knew that already. Under Obama, borrowers had to be qualified, and had to have a downpayment. Bush made no downpayment loans for more than the house was worth to borrowers with bad credit who earned 20% less than the average income of the neighborhood they were buying into with his ADDI.To be to totally accurate, the Bush administration did not stop the then-existing policy of pressuring/enticing lenders into lowering credit standards.
There was no "then-existing policy" of lowering lending standards,
Except for Clinton forcing the GSEs to make 50% of their mortgage purchases subprime.
From one of your fellow Right-wing racist poster's own link in this very thread:
"Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped."
Closely matched means CLOSELY MATCHED, meaning it closely matched yours.I can believe you never even read my pull quotes before you posted your lie!!!Not enough MINORITIES with QUALIFYING credit could not get mortgages after a HUD sting operation exposed the discrimination.Obama never sued for crappy mortgage loans
Right, he sued because not enough people with great credit could get mortgages.
Hud `Sting` To Root Out Lending Bias
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development plans to begin using undercover ``sting`` operations to investigate banks for racial discrimination in mortgage lending.
The department will use its authority under fair-housing legislation to send ``matched pairs`` of minority and white testers posing as mortgage applicants into banks to uncover loan discrimination. The testers will have closely matched characteristics, such as income, credit history and bank balances.
The undercover operation follows the release last fall of a Federal Reserve study of all U.S. mortgage applications in 1990 showing blacks and Hispanics were far more likely to have their applications turned down than whites, even when their incomes were similar. Affluent blacks were rejected at essentially the same rate as poor whites, the study found.
I can't believe you actually posted this nonsense. Banks don't give loans on income alone, and your article highlights it as if income was all that mattered. Credit history is more important to a bank along with where a home is located.
All banks care about is getting their money back with interest. WTF would they care what color somebody was? Sorry, but yes, minorities do have worse credit histories than whites. And your article only said what they were going to do, not what they found. Now can you name me a major banking or lending institution that was prosecuted for racial discrimination in loan practices?
From the pull quote I posted;
The testers will have closely matched characteristics, such as income, credit history and bank balances.
Actually I read the whole article. So what does "closely matched" mean? It doesn't mean exactly. And again I ask, what did they find and who did they sue over their findings?
When I bought my houses, I was asked a series of questions. For instance, how long I was employed at the same company? Where did the money in my savings account come from? And then there is the appraisal value of the home which I can't believe this investigation went that far. If the bank appraises a property less than the amount for the loan, they refuse it.
This hit piece seems to leave out a lot of information. All it really said is they planned on conducting an investigation.
That is a complete lie, but you knew that already. The MAJORITY Republicans blocked EVERY reform bill, the Dems were POWERLESS. Reform was only passed when the Dems took over Congress, but by then the GOP obstruction had already taken its toll.Bush did call attention to the dangers of what Freddie and Fannie were doing with home loans, and Congressional Republicans tried to impose tougher regulations on them, but Democrats blocked all of their efforts.
The reform bills were blocked in COMMITTEE completely controlled by the GOP. The GOP had the chairmanship of every committee and two more voted then the Dems on the committee, the Dems were POWERLESS to block anything.
But they did. As the video shows, they fought tooth and nail to make sure there was no oversight committee for F and F. The Democrats in the video claimed there was no problem in the lending practices, and Republicans were hell bent on showing a problem emerging.
Agaiin, the GOP blocked everything IN COMMITTEE, which the GOP CONTROLLED and the Dems were POWERLESS. All the Dems could do was talk.
Repeating your lie does not make it any less of a lie, it only makes you a SERIAL LIAR.
No, a subprime loan is any loan with a rate ABOVE prime conventional loans. They can be fixed rate or variable rate (ARM) loans. The Clinton loans were 1% above prime conventional loans and fixed rate. Bush's subprime loans were ARMs.Not the same kind of subprime loans as Bush. You already posted this lie before and I explained the difference between Clinton's FIXED RATE subprime loans and Bush's ARM subprime loans, so you can't pretend you are lying here out of STUPIDITY, you KNOW you are lying.There was no "then-existing policy" of lowering lending standards, Bush owns that himself, but you knew that already. Under Obama, borrowers had to be qualified, and had to have a downpayment. Bush made no downpayment loans for more than the house was worth to borrowers with bad credit who earned 20% less than the average income of the neighborhood they were buying into with his ADDI.To be to totally accurate, the Bush administration did not stop the then-existing policy of pressuring/enticing lenders into lowering credit standards.
There was no "then-existing policy" of lowering lending standards,
Except for Clinton forcing the GSEs to make 50% of their mortgage purchases subprime.
From one of your fellow Right-wing racist poster's own link in this very thread:
"Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped."
To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a fixed rate subprime loan. Subprime means exactly that--under prime.
The housing crash happened when interest rates went up for subprime loans. People who could barely make the mortgage found themselves helpless when the mortgage increased 25% or more.
Not enough MINORITIES with QUALIFYING credit could not get mortgages after a HUD sting operation exposed the discrimination.Obama never sued for crappy mortgage loans, racists call them "crappy" because to racists no minority is EVER qualified for a loan, or anything else for that matter.Obama suing Chicago banks for not writing enough crappy mortgage loans, back when he was a community organizer.
Obama never sued for crappy mortgage loans
Right, he sued because not enough people with great credit could get mortgages.
Hud `Sting` To Root Out Lending Bias
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development plans to begin using undercover ``sting`` operations to investigate banks for racial discrimination in mortgage lending.
The department will use its authority under fair-housing legislation to send ``matched pairs`` of minority and white testers posing as mortgage applicants into banks to uncover loan discrimination. The testers will have closely matched characteristics, such as income, credit history and bank balances.
The undercover operation follows the release last fall of a Federal Reserve study of all U.S. mortgage applications in 1990 showing blacks and Hispanics were far more likely to have their applications turned down than whites, even when their incomes were similar. Affluent blacks were rejected at essentially the same rate as poor whites, the study found.
No, a subprime loan is any loan with a rate ABOVE prime conventional loans. They can be fixed rate or variable rate (ARM) loans. The Clinton loans were 1% above prime conventional loans and fixed rate. Bush's subprime loans were ARMs.Not the same kind of subprime loans as Bush. You already posted this lie before and I explained the difference between Clinton's FIXED RATE subprime loans and Bush's ARM subprime loans, so you can't pretend you are lying here out of STUPIDITY, you KNOW you are lying.There was no "then-existing policy" of lowering lending standards, Bush owns that himself, but you knew that already. Under Obama, borrowers had to be qualified, and had to have a downpayment. Bush made no downpayment loans for more than the house was worth to borrowers with bad credit who earned 20% less than the average income of the neighborhood they were buying into with his ADDI.To be to totally accurate, the Bush administration did not stop the then-existing policy of pressuring/enticing lenders into lowering credit standards.
There was no "then-existing policy" of lowering lending standards,
Except for Clinton forcing the GSEs to make 50% of their mortgage purchases subprime.
From one of your fellow Right-wing racist poster's own link in this very thread:
"Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped."
To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a fixed rate subprime loan. Subprime means exactly that--under prime.
The housing crash happened when interest rates went up for subprime loans. People who could barely make the mortgage found themselves helpless when the mortgage increased 25% or more.
Not the same kind of subprime loans as Bush. You already posted this lie before and I explained the difference between Clinton's FIXED RATE subprime loans and Bush's ARM subprime loans, so you can't pretend you are lying here out of STUPIDITY, you KNOW you are lying.There was no "then-existing policy" of lowering lending standards, Bush owns that himself, but you knew that already. Under Obama, borrowers had to be qualified, and had to have a downpayment. Bush made no downpayment loans for more than the house was worth to borrowers with bad credit who earned 20% less than the average income of the neighborhood they were buying into with his ADDI.To be to totally accurate, the Bush administration did not stop the then-existing policy of pressuring/enticing lenders into lowering credit standards.
There was no "then-existing policy" of lowering lending standards,
Except for Clinton forcing the GSEs to make 50% of their mortgage purchases subprime.
From one of your fellow Right-wing racist poster's own link in this very thread:
"Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped."
That is a complete lie, but you knew that already. The MAJORITY Republicans blocked EVERY reform bill, the Dems were POWERLESS. Reform was only passed when the Dems took over Congress, but by then the GOP obstruction had already taken its toll.
The reform bills were blocked in COMMITTEE completely controlled by the GOP. The GOP had the chairmanship of every committee and two more voted then the Dems on the committee, the Dems were POWERLESS to block anything.
But they did. As the video shows, they fought tooth and nail to make sure there was no oversight committee for F and F. The Democrats in the video claimed there was no problem in the lending practices, and Republicans were hell bent on showing a problem emerging.
Agaiin, the GOP blocked everything IN COMMITTEE, which the GOP CONTROLLED and the Dems were POWERLESS. All the Dems could do was talk.
Repeating your lie does not make it any less of a lie, it only makes you a SERIAL LIAR.
Very well, show me this evidence that the Republicans blocked F and F oversight, or that they blocked any legislation to prevent the housing crash.
No one on this forum has the economic credentials necessary to make such an assessment. To Trump’s red neck nation, Obama can’t do anything right. They have swallowed the Trump vendetta against Obama as based on genuine differences when in reality it’s just petty settling of personal grievances and race baiting. More red meat for red necks. I’m just content to wait for the chickens to come home to roost. Right now Trump has mobilized a coalition of sycophants, racists, and the just plain stupid to his irrational agenda, the Emperor Trump and his world. I think we all know where this narrative is headed and it’s inevitable failure. The only question is how much damage is done before he is removed from his position.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Few presidents performed worse than Bush. What, you think you deserve a cookie for for admitting it?Much of that, if not most, was due to Bush's Great Recession, which killed federal revenue along with some 8 million jobs.Yeah, he only left a crater where our economy once stood.From your end of the spectrum, that's what I would expect.
Bush left behind the worst and most complex financial/business disaster of our lifetimes, but he was better.
Okay, sure.
.
There were a lot of hands in that cookie jar. Bush didn't force banks into much weaker lending practices, but he didn't do much to stop it either.
Bush didn't attack businesses like DumBama did. There is a difference between businesses not doing well because of the economy and businesses not doing well because they are targeted by a power hungry President.
Thank goodness Obama arrived to fill that crater with $9.3 trillion worth of hundreds, eh?
But I'm proud of you. You're doing your job of being a conservative. Ignore that the right once again dropped a nuclear bomb on our economy and then did nothing but bitch and moan at the left for taking too long to clean up their mess.
At least most Republicans are willing to admit Bush Fd up, but share the blame. You on the left are just BUT BUSH! BUT BUSH! failing to acknowledge the bubble and eventual bust was in the works for years before Bush even thought of running.
Bush was swayed by the positive numbers coming out about minority home ownership, and wanted to jump on the bandwagon. It was a huge mistake on his part. But again, it wasn't any of his programs that started it.
WTF?? That’s anything but totally accurate. For one, you fail to mention how it was a Republican-led Congress to whom Bush called attention — and they did nothing. You also fail to mention Bush’s American Dream Downpayment Act. A huge contributor to the crash. You fail to mention Bush took credit for the housing boom before it went bust. You fail to mention Bush’s homeownership plan...Actually, he induced banks into much weaker lending practice.Bush didn't force banks into much weaker lending practices
To be to totally accurate, the Bush administration did not stop the then-existing policy of pressuring/enticing lenders into lowering credit standards. But Bush did call attention to the dangers of what Freddie and Fannie were doing with home loans, and Congressional Republicans tried to impose tougher regulations on them, but Democrats blocked all of their efforts.
Bullshit. While subprime loans were around for years, they weren’t a problem until about 2003...There was no "then-existing policy" of lowering lending standards, Bush owns that himself, but you knew that already. Under Obama, borrowers had to be qualified, and had to have a downpayment. Bush made no downpayment loans for more than the house was worth to borrowers with bad credit who earned 20% less than the average income of the neighborhood they were buying into with his ADDI.To be to totally accurate, the Bush administration did not stop the then-existing policy of pressuring/enticing lenders into lowering credit standards.
There was no "then-existing policy" of lowering lending standards,
Except for Clinton forcing the GSEs to make 50% of their mortgage purchases subprime.
That is a complete lie, but you knew that already. The MAJORITY Republicans blocked EVERY reform bill, the Dems were POWERLESS. Reform was only passed when the Dems took over Congress, but by then the GOP obstruction had already taken its toll.Bush did call attention to the dangers of what Freddie and Fannie were doing with home loans, and Congressional Republicans tried to impose tougher regulations on them, but Democrats blocked all of their efforts.
The reform bills were blocked in COMMITTEE completely controlled by the GOP. The GOP had the chairmanship of every committee and two more voted then the Dems on the committee, the Dems were POWERLESS to block anything.
But they did. As the video shows, they fought tooth and nail to make sure there was no oversight committee for F and F. The Democrats in the video claimed there was no problem in the lending practices, and Republicans were hell bent on showing a problem emerging.
That is a complete lie, but you knew that already. The MAJORITY Republicans blocked EVERY reform bill, the Dems were POWERLESS. Reform was only passed when the Dems took over Congress, but by then the GOP obstruction had already taken its toll.
The reform bills were blocked in COMMITTEE completely controlled by the GOP. The GOP had the chairmanship of every committee and two more voted then the Dems on the committee, the Dems were POWERLESS to block anything.
But they did. As the video shows, they fought tooth and nail to make sure there was no oversight committee for F and F. The Democrats in the video claimed there was no problem in the lending practices, and Republicans were hell bent on showing a problem emerging.
Agaiin, the GOP blocked everything IN COMMITTEE, which the GOP CONTROLLED and the Dems were POWERLESS. All the Dems could do was talk.
Repeating your lie does not make it any less of a lie, it only makes you a SERIAL LIAR.
Very well, show me this evidence that the Republicans blocked F and F oversight, or that they blocked any legislation to prevent the housing crash.
