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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Bush wasn't a legislative "de-regulator", he was one that gutted the agencies that oversaw regulation. Additionally he appointed people to head these agencies that either had no idea what they were doing, or looked the other way while some very serious calamities were in the works.
Keep believing bought off pubs and their anything for a buck pundits...
This was not 30 years in the making. Republicans, during Bush's first term, deregulated Wall Street. This led to more than 70% of the market being transferred to Wall Street where they sold mortgages they KNEW would fail, bundled them together and sold them as securities. Of course they failed and when they did, the insurance companies had to pay out. Hence the term, "Derivatives".
It's not like this is news. Anyone who spent 30 minutes watching one of the business channels had it explained.
This was not 30 years in the making. Republicans, during Bush's first term, deregulated Wall Street. This led to more than 70% of the market being transferred to Wall Street where they sold mortgages they KNEW would fail, bundled them together and sold them as securities. Of course they failed and when they did, the insurance companies had to pay out. Hence the term, "Derivatives".
It's not like this is news. Anyone who spent 30 minutes watching one of the business channels had it explained.
Can you point to an example of a successful dictated economy?
This was not 30 years in the making. Republicans, during Bush's first term, deregulated Wall Street. This led to more than 70% of the market being transferred to Wall Street where they sold mortgages they KNEW would fail, bundled them together and sold them as securities. Of course they failed and when they did, the insurance companies had to pay out. Hence the term, "Derivatives".
It's not like this is news. Anyone who spent 30 minutes watching one of the business channels had it explained.
Can you point to an example of a successful dictated economy?
"Free market" doesn't mean "unregulated".
Notice how the right never mentions the words "Supply and Demand" or "Investment" or "infrastructure" or "revenue"? Instead, they say, "Rich people make jobs". Odd that.
Really??
So you buy a 100k house, put 5k down and then use the house as collateral for a credit card in which you rack up 60k in debt but pay minimum payments but then you finally default on the house and the card and you believe that has no impact on our economy???
Really??
So you buy a 100k house, put 5k down and then use the house as collateral for a credit card in which you rack up 60k in debt but pay minimum payments but then you finally default on the house and the card and you believe that has no impact on our economy???
CRA was effective long before the subprime market existed. CRA was passed in 1977 to correct the longstanding problem of redlining – the lack of lending in low and moderate income communities and in communities of color. CRA has been on the books for three decades, while the lending practices that created this crisis didn’t exist until the past five years.
Most subprime lenders weren’t covered under CRA. The predominant players in the subprime market – mortgage brokers, mortgage companies and the Wall Street investment banks that provided the financing – aren’t covered under CRA. Finance company affiliates of major banks also participated heavily, but are only included in CRA to the extent their bank parents choose them to be. In fact, many banks shifted the most risky lending – the loans at the root cause of this current crisis -- to affiliates to escape CRA requirements and regulatory oversight.
Wall Street created the demand for riskier loans. The subprime market is the result of loans made without regard to the borrower’s ability to repay the loan and with little or no documentation of income. Lenders chose to engage in risky underwriting practices because Wall Street was eager for high-interest investments, not because of CRA.
Regulatory oversight and accountability was missing. The lack of regulation in the subprime market made it easy for subprime lenders to undercut responsible lending. Because lenders used artificially low initial payments and passed the loans onto investors while hiding the disastrous consequences coming down the line, many borrowers found themselves in loans that were ultimately unaffordable. In many communities, particularly communities of color, subprime lenders were often the only ones serving the community. Had regulators leveled the playing field through common sense underwriting requirements and more vigorously enforced CRA requirements instead of allowing a race to the bottom, this crisis would have been averted.
The majority of subprime loans went to white borrowers. It is true that African-American and Latino families disproportionately received ruinous subprime loans, but the majority of total loans were made to non-Latino white families. According to data from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) from 2005-2007, 58% of higher-cost loans went to white borrowers, with 18% to African-American borrowers and Latino borrowers each.
House Financial Services Committee
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | McClatchy
The community reinvestment act is to blame for the housing bubble...
Or not.
Really??
So you buy a 100k house, put 5k down and then use the house as collateral for a credit card in which you rack up 60k in debt but pay minimum payments but then you finally default on the house and the card and you believe that has no impact on our economy???
Who the fuck you think ate all that money??
How the fuck can you borrow 100k and pay back 10% of it, declare bankruptcy then settle out at 25k and claim victory? yeah there is still 65k in unpaid debt there.... You think that shit just goes bye-bye? think again. It gets passed on, and passed on again and again until it reaches the top.
Who the fuck wants your house that was paid for by the bank?? not to mention its not like the bullshit you bought on plastic can be repossessed..
Thats the fucking problem...
The problem is there are responsible people and irresponsible people.
BTW, I'm not stupid so I don't have a credit card. I live by my means...
Liberals what de regulation did bush do to cause the housing crises?
Only someone who is sure it was the CRA would write an op-ed article claiming it wasn't.
You see, you liberals are easy....
If I was full of shit you would pay no attention to me, yet I'm correct so you come running to defend the bullshit that destroyed us.
I bet you didn't even know what the fuck the CRA was up until a few hours ago when I started posting it...
This was not 30 years in the making. Republicans, during Bush's first term, deregulated Wall Street.
Really??
So you buy a 100k house, put 5k down and then use the house as collateral for a credit card in which you rack up 60k in debt but pay minimum payments but then you finally default on the house and the card and you believe that has no impact on our economy???
Who the fuck you think ate all that money??
How the fuck can you borrow 100k and pay back 10% of it, declare bankruptcy then settle out at 25k and claim victory? yeah there is still 65k in unpaid debt there.... You think that shit just goes bye-bye? think again. It gets passed on, and passed on again and again until it reaches the top.
Who the fuck wants your house that was paid for by the bank?? not to mention its not like the bullshit you bought on plastic can be repossessed..
Thats the fucking problem...
The problem is there are responsible people and irresponsible people.
BTW, I'm not stupid so I don't have a credit card. I live by my means...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/70006-cra-not-to-blame-for-housing-debacle.html
Only someone who is sure it was the CRA would write an op-ed article claiming it wasn't.
You see, you liberals are easy....
If I was full of shit you would pay no attention to me, yet I'm correct so you come running to defend the bullshit that destroyed us.
I bet you didn't even know what the fuck the CRA was up until a few hours ago when I started posting it...
If you would like specifics it was Clintons changes that destroyed us - the the act itself.
Every informed individual knows it....
Hell I had to work the debt back to find it.
Best question one can ask is "how did the banks inherit all this debt."
Who forced them to loan?
The community reinvestment act is to blame for the housing bubble...
No. Only in storybooks the children in Conservatopia read is that tale passed off as gospel.
Well thats nice.
When you're ready to come out of denial land and grow the fuck up, feel free to comment.
JRK.
I agree on Clinton. He didn't just deregulate financial markets, but he sold the American worker down river with NAFTA, and made larger cuts to welfare than any president in history. This is why I supported Ross Perot.
FDR created Glass-Stegall because he believed that government regulation was necessary to stabilize financial markets. He believed that markets, left to their own device, would swing wildly from boom to bust, and wreak havoc on the country. He thought that intelligently executed oversight would curb the rough edges of capitalism, which periodically chokes itself on risk, as people herd themselves hysterically into asset bubbles, seduced by the possibility of easy money. [Old time religious conservatives understood the power of money to blind people (which is why many of them accepted FDR's regulations), but Reagan, working on behalf of business, sold America on Homo Economicus, i.e., the belief that rational self interest can defeat the green demon within. Hubris!]
But the fact remains: when Reagan came to power, he convinced Americans that government should not play any role in markets. He believed that financial innovators should be able to regulate their own risk, and that self-interested financial firms didn't need a government bureaucrat to tell them how to protect share holders. Reagan thought self-interest could take the place not only of Glass-Stegall, but all regulations. Greenspan, a primary collaborator with Ayn Rand, felt the exact same way. This is why he called sub-primes a miraculous invention, and proceeded to convince America that these new financial instruments would safely expand home ownership without risk. Greenspan's faith in unregulated markets was made possible by Reagan, who moved the ideological pendulum away from the regulatory state envisioned by FDR. Like FDR, Reagan pulled both parties into his orbit. Just as Eisenhower and Nixon supported the New Deal, democratic presidents after Reagan would support deregulation.
Clinton represents the death of FDR and the liberal regulatory model. He represents the final victory of the Reagan Revolution.
Regarding Bush, you are urged to watch this entire video. He put kerosene on the fire at a time when the economy was not in a position to absorb the shock. The game is over. We swallowed poison in 1980 - Clinton and Bush merely represent the final stages of our financial death.
YouTube - ‪Home Ownership and President Bush‬‏
...still a man hears what he wants to hear and he disregards the rest.
The CRA nonsense is a Rightwing dream myth, because it manages to blame poor people, minorities, and liberal class warfare
all in one shot.
OF COURSE the Right is going to jump on a tale like that and make it part of the big book of Rightwing Mythology.
Like Lawrence O'Donnell said the other day...
...People will believe what they want to believe, until they can't.
Its almost like liberalism is a mental disorder...Oh wait, I think it is according to Michael Savage.
Good book btw..
