The empty hat GOP.....another trickle down bs tax policy!!

[The Derp]

Absolutely. As the bubble expands, borrowers have lower and lower credit scores.
2003 borrowers with the same credit scores as 2005 borrowers have 2 years of equity gains as well as 2 years worth of payments. The 2003 borrower is less likely to default.
If both borrowers lost their job on Jan 2, 2006 and stopped paying their mortgage, the earlier buyer is less likely to lose the house. The 2003 buyer is more likely to be able to sell the home and pay back the bank.
The 2005 buyer paid more and has little or no gain to cushion the bank's risk.
If you think you've discovered something new about this bubble, or bubbles in general, this is me chuckling at you.

So a few things here:

1. The mortgages that backed the securities had different standards between 2003 and 2005. We know this because the Bush Administration's Working Group said so.

2. The mortgages from pre-2004 that backed securities had higher standards and lower default rates, and took longer to enter delinquency than the mortgages from 2004-7 that backed other securities but had "dramatically weakened" standards and higher default rates.

3. The mortgages that entered delinquency first were those from 2004-7, which were also the mortgages used to back all those securities created during 2004-7, and would end up going toxic (because the mortgages that backed them entered delinquency). They were also the mortgages that Bush's Working Group said had "dramatically weakened underwriting standards beginning in 2004 and extending to 2007. So the question is why did Bush's regulators dramatically weaken underwriting standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004? The answer is obvious; they wanted to inflate a mortgage bubble to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of tax cuts when it was really only growing because of debt.

4. So a security backed by a loan from 2003 wouldn't and didn't go toxic before a security backed by a loan from 2005 that did. So what you're trying to do is conflate all securities into one pot and that they're all the same; maybe you do that because you can only think of it in such broad terms due to your limited brain power, or maybe because you recognize the distinction between securities, recognize it supports my argument that the MBS that went toxic were those backed by loans from 2004-7 that you guys were issuing like crazy, you just simply don't want to admit that I'm right, because of your shitty ego.

So once again, you've managed to make something all about you and how you need to be coddled. Pathetic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Absolutely. As the bubble expands, borrowers have lower and lower credit scores.
2003 borrowers with the same credit scores as 2005 borrowers have 2 years of equity gains as well as 2 years worth of payments. The 2003 borrower is less likely to default.
If both borrowers lost their job on Jan 2, 2006 and stopped paying their mortgage, the earlier buyer is less likely to lose the house. The 2003 buyer is more likely to be able to sell the home and pay back the bank.
The 2005 buyer paid more and has little or no gain to cushion the bank's risk.
If you think you've discovered something new about this bubble, or bubbles in general, this is me chuckling at you.

So a few things here:

1. The mortgages that backed the securities had different standards between 2003 and 2005. We know this because the Bush Administration's Working Group said so.

2. The mortgages from pre-2004 that backed securities had higher standards and lower default rates, and took longer to enter delinquency than the mortgages from 2004-7 that backed other securities but had "dramatically weakened" standards and higher default rates.

3. The mortgages that entered delinquency first were those from 2004-7, which were also the mortgages used to back all those securities created during 2004-7, and would end up going toxic (because the mortgages that backed them entered delinquency). They were also the mortgages that Bush's Working Group said had "dramatically weakened underwriting standards beginning in 2004 and extending to 2007. So the question is why did Bush's regulators dramatically weaken underwriting standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004? The answer is obvious; they wanted to inflate a mortgage bubble to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of tax cuts when it was really only growing because of debt.

4. So a security backed by a loan from 2003 wouldn't and didn't go toxic before a security backed by a loan from 2005 that did. So what you're trying to do is conflate all securities into one pot and that they're all the same; maybe you do that because you can only think of it in such broad terms due to your limited brain power, or maybe because you recognize the distinction between securities, recognize it supports my argument that the MBS that went toxic were those backed by loans from 2004-7 that you guys were issuing like crazy, you just simply don't want to admit that I'm right, because of your shitty ego.

So once again, you've managed to make something all about you and how you need to be coddled. Pathetic.

The mortgages that backed the securities had different standards between 2003 and 2005.

Bush took Clinton's bad idea and made it worse.

So the question is why did Bush's regulators dramatically weaken underwriting standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004?

You can't keep pushing weaker and weaker borrowers into houses without weakening standards.
You can't keep pumping subprime crap into the market without ready buyers of subprime crap.
2 of the biggest buyers of crap were Fannie and Freddie. Pushed first by Clinton and later by Bush, to buy larger and larger chunks of subprime crap.

So a security backed by a loan from 2003 wouldn't and didn't go toxic before a security backed by a loan from 2005 that did.

Of course not.
2 years of price gains and 2 years of payments make the earlier security much less likely to default. DURR!

Keep imagining you've discovered some hidden fact. I'll keep laughing.

 

[The Derp]

Bush took Clinton's bad idea and made it worse.

Clinton's idea wasn't a bad idea. His mortgages performed just fine, as they did the decade prior to you guys changing those standards by dramatically weakening them in order to create a housing bubble to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of tax cuts, when it was really growing as a result of debt.

Conservatives are the debt people. Everything they do, everything they propose, everything they intend results in debt. Debt, debt, debt. Conservatives cannot manage an economy without going into massive amounts of debt.

You can't keep pushing weaker and weaker borrowers into houses without weakening standards. You can't keep pumping subprime crap into the market without ready buyers of subprime crap.

You didn't answer why, though.

• Why was Bush dramatically lowering the standards for subprimes?
• Why did Bush reverse Clinton's 2000 HUD restrictions?
• Why did he more than double the number of subprime loans issued a year?
• Why was it so important for Bush to pump the subprime market with no-doc, non-GSE-backed garbage subprime loans?

I think you want people to think he did that out of benevolence or some housing initiative or compassionate Conservatism. But none of those are the real reason why. The reason Bush pumped the subprime market was because the housing bubble was the only thing sustaining his economy. If he hadn't done the things he did in 2003-4, there would not have been a housing bubble and the economic malaise that stunk throughout the first three years of his term (losing close to 800K net private sector jobs from 2001-4) would have continued into election day in 2004, where Bush and the Conservatives would have paid the price for mismanaging the thriving economy Clinton handed them.

The Bush Housing Bubble was to cover for the failure of the Bush Tax Cuts to deliver on any of the promises made of them.

Of course not. 2 years of price gains and 2 years of payments make the earlier security much less likely to default. DURR!Keep imagining you've discovered some hidden fact. I'll keep laughing.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. What makes the loan more likely to default are the standards by which that loan was underwritten. That's what Bush's Working Group on Financial Markets says when they say turmoil was caused by "the dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004 and extending into 2007".

So you're just not informed enough on this topic to discuss it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bush took Clinton's bad idea and made it worse.

Clinton's idea wasn't a bad idea. His mortgages performed just fine, as they did the decade prior to you guys changing those standards by dramatically weakening them in order to create a housing bubble to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of tax cuts, when it was really growing as a result of debt.

Conservatives are the debt people. Everything they do, everything they propose, everything they intend results in debt. Debt, debt, debt. Conservatives cannot manage an economy without going into massive amounts of debt.

You can't keep pushing weaker and weaker borrowers into houses without weakening standards. You can't keep pumping subprime crap into the market without ready buyers of subprime crap.

You didn't answer why, though.

• Why was Bush dramatically lowering the standards for subprimes?
• Why did Bush reverse Clinton's 2000 HUD restrictions?
• Why did he more than double the number of subprime loans issued a year?
• Why was it so important for Bush to pump the subprime market with no-doc, non-GSE-backed garbage subprime loans?

I think you want people to think he did that out of benevolence or some housing initiative or compassionate Conservatism. But none of those are the real reason why. The reason Bush pumped the subprime market was because the housing bubble was the only thing sustaining his economy. If he hadn't done the things he did in 2003-4, there would not have been a housing bubble and the economic malaise that stunk throughout the first three years of his term (losing close to 800K net private sector jobs from 2001-4) would have continued into election day in 2004, where Bush and the Conservatives would have paid the price for mismanaging the thriving economy Clinton handed them.

The Bush Housing Bubble was to cover for the failure of the Bush Tax Cuts to deliver on any of the promises made of them.

Of course not. 2 years of price gains and 2 years of payments make the earlier security much less likely to default. DURR!Keep imagining you've discovered some hidden fact. I'll keep laughing.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. What makes the loan more likely to default are the standards by which that loan was underwritten. That's what Bush's Working Group on Financial Markets says when they say turmoil was caused by "the dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004 and extending into 2007".

So you're just not informed enough on this topic to discuss it.

Clinton's idea wasn't a bad idea.

And that's how I know you're an idiot.

 

[The Derp]

And that's how I know you're an idiot.

No housing bubble prior to 2004. No housing bubble from 1993-2001. The subprimes issued during Clinton, and even up through 2003, had default rates between 5-7%. It wasn't until the garbage mortgages you people flooded the market with, to sustain a housing bubble in order to pretend like the economic growth was from tax cuts, that the delinquency rates sharply increased.

So that leaves 4 questions:

• Why was Bush dramatically lowering the standards for subprimes beginning in 2004?
• Why did Bush reverse Clinton's 2000 HUD restrictions?
• Why did he more than double the number of subprime loans issued a year?
• Why was it so important for Bush to pump the subprime market with no-doc, non-GSE-backed garbage subprime loans?

 

[GHook93]

Unfuckinbelievable.....the GOP is again betting on the trickle down pipe dream to now raise wages in this country....this with stock market profits in the trillions for the very corporations that need a break. One would think, with profits being soooooo high, your employer would have given out mega raises or a bonus by now, ya think? I know I'm still waiting.

Lets face it, the GOP is a party of what? I have yet to see these people come up with one new idea that is for the benefit for the idiots that keep supporting this do nothing useless party. I just don't get the love....Both Reagan and Bush have had the highest deficits in US history, with Trump to top them both in the near future, yet its always democrats that take the fall for it. This budget plan is gonna kick seniors off of medicare, gut medicaid, enhance the rich, and for the middle class the working poor, an increase in personal exemptions, whoopdi do

My God, these southern white bastards are just tooo motherfuckin stupid to be voting

You are pretty much a loser so it will be hard for you to understand these things. One thing the Trump tax plan seeks to do is lower the tax burden on corps and small business owners, in the form of lowering the corp tax and capping the income tax on small business owners. This frees up capital. When businesses have more capital to spend then they invest. Many times in people aka Jobs.

Trump’s tax plan is an amazing economic stimulus and needs to pass


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[The Derp]

You are pretty much a loser so it will be hard for you to understand these things. One thing the Trump tax plan seeks to do is lower the tax burden on corps and small business owners, in the form of lowering the corp tax and capping the income tax on small business owners. This frees up capital. When businesses have more capital to spend then they invest. Many times in people aka Jobs.

Trump's tax plan is similar to the one that failed in Kansas. It was such a spectacular failure that Republicans voted to repeal those tax cuts this past spring.

In no world ever has a business hired someone because of the tax rates. Never, ever. And if you find a "business owner" who claims it to be the case, then that person is lying to you.

Corporations are already sitting on trillions of wealth. They don't need any more tax breaks. They need to take those trillions they're sitting on and raise wages for workers, who will then spend those gains in the economy, which will result in higher revenues and higher profits for the corporations.

Low tax rates do not spur investment. Not even a little bit.

Drumpf’s tax plan is an amazing economic stimulus and needs to pass

Wait a second - Trump was just saying how stupendous the last two quarters of growth were. So why do we need a stimulus? Was he not telling the truth?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are pretty much a loser so it will be hard for you to understand these things. One thing the Trump tax plan seeks to do is lower the tax burden on corps and small business owners, in the form of lowering the corp tax and capping the income tax on small business owners. This frees up capital. When businesses have more capital to spend then they invest. Many times in people aka Jobs.

Trump's tax plan is similar to the one that failed in Kansas. It was such a spectacular failure that Republicans voted to repeal those tax cuts this past spring.

In no world ever has a business hired someone because of the tax rates. Never, ever. And if you find a "business owner" who claims it to be the case, then that person is lying to you.

Corporations are already sitting on trillions of wealth. They don't need any more tax breaks. They need to take those trillions they're sitting on and raise wages for workers, who will then spend those gains in the economy, which will result in higher revenues and higher profits for the corporations.

Low tax rates do not spur investment. Not even a little bit.

Drumpf’s tax plan is an amazing economic stimulus and needs to pass

Wait a second - Trump was just saying how stupendous the last two quarters of growth were. So why do we need a stimulus? Was he not telling the truth?

Corporations are already sitting on trillions of wealth.

Sitting on it? Now why in the world would a corporation do that?

Low tax rates do not spur investment. Not even a little bit.

DURR!

 

[The Derp]

Sitting on it? Now why in the world would a corporation do that?

No consumer demand.

 

[The Derp]

DURR!

Why was Bush dramatically lowering the standards for subprimes beginning in 2004?
Why did Bush reverse Clinton's 2000 HUD restrictions?
Why did he more than double the number of subprime loans issued a year?
Why was it so important for Bush to pump the subprime market with no-doc, non-GSE-backed garbage subprime loans?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

DURR!

Why was Bush dramatically lowering the standards for subprimes beginning in 2004?
Why did Bush reverse Clinton's 2000 HUD restrictions?
Why did he more than double the number of subprime loans issued a year?
Why was it so important for Bush to pump the subprime market with no-doc, non-GSE-backed garbage subprime loans?

Bush took Clinton's bad idea and made it worse.

 

[The Derp]

Bush took Clinton's bad idea and made it worse.

No, no...that doesn't explain why Bush did it.

It's that why you seem reluctant to address. It's pretty obvious why you are not addressing it; because there's no good answer that you can then try to socialize the blame for policies you supported and continue to support.

At this point, it's really just about your ego and nothing more.

Well, your ego doesn't mean anything to me. So there's no need for you to protect it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bush took Clinton's bad idea and made it worse.

No, no...that doesn't explain why Bush did it.

It's that why you seem reluctant to address. It's pretty obvious why you are not addressing it; because there's no good answer that you can then try to socialize the blame for policies you supported and continue to support.

At this point, it's really just about your ego and nothing more.

Well, your ego doesn't mean anything to me. So there's no need for you to protect it.

No, no...that doesn't explain why Bush did it.

He believed we needed to get more Americans into homes.

It's that why you seem reluctant to address.

Why do you feel that?
I'm not defending Clinton's bad idea.
Or Bush's expansion of it.
Obama loved it too.

there's no good answer that you can then try to socialize the blame for policies you supported and continue to support.

Sorry Charlie, I thought the housing policies were stupid from way back in the early 90s.

 

[sakinago]

Unfuckinbelievable.....the GOP is again betting on the trickle down pipe dream to now raise wages in this country....this with stock market profits in the trillions for the very corporations that need a break. One would think, with profits being soooooo high, your employer would have given out mega raises or a bonus by now, ya think? I know I'm still waiting.

Lets face it, the GOP is a party of what? I have yet to see these people come up with one new idea that is for the benefit for the idiots that keep supporting this do nothing useless party. I just don't get the love....Both Reagan and Bush have had the highest deficits in US history, with Trump to top them both in the near future, yet its always democrats that take the fall for it. This budget plan is gonna kick seniors off of medicare, gut medicaid, enhance the rich, and for the middle class the working poor, an increase in personal exemptions, whoopdi do

My God, these southern white bastards are just tooo motherfuckin stupid to be voting

Outside of the terrible racist generalizations you are making...do you even know what the tax plan says?

 

[The Derp]

He believed we needed to get more Americans into homes.

Noooooooooo....that's not the reason. You're almost there. So close. Home ownership was already at a high by the time Bush the Dumber became President. So it wasn't about putting people into homes, as many of them already were...it was about something else...something that a growing housing market does...what could that be...what is that thing that housing growth always results in ...hmmmm...? I know you can get there...take your time. No need to sloppily rush through it.

Why do you feel that?

That you're reluctant to address why Bush did what he did? Simple; because you'd have to admit that Bush deliberately created a housing bubble in order to juice the economy ahead of the 2004 election that he could then credit to his tax cuts. And that's exactly what he did:

Fox News, March 26th, 2004:

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership
Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.

​

I'm not defending Clinton's bad idea.

No, you're not even correct that what Clinton did was a bad idea. It wasn't. He grew housing safely and securely...no mortgage bubble pops...delinquency rates stay constant...borrowers make their scheduled payments...property values increased...everybody wins. Then Conservatives got power and suddenly everything went to shit. Coincidence? I don't believe in them.

Or Bush's expansion of it.Obama loved it too.

So in all this you're trying (not so cleverly) to avoid answering why Bush did what he did when he did it. You don't want to admit that the Bush TAx Cuts, and the supply-side theory they're based on, didn't deliver on the promises made of them. You don't want to admit that Bush had to juice the housing market in order to make the economy look like it was growing because of his tax cuts, when it was really because of debt. And you don't admit to any of that for no other reason than your fucking ego. Integrity, principles...none of that shit means anything to you...all you care about is making sure you don't have to feel bad. What a fucking baby. Very disappointed.

Sorry Charlie, I thought the housing policies were stupid from way back in the early 90s.

First of all: BULLSHIT.

Second of all:

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He believed we needed to get more Americans into homes.

Noooooooooo....that's not the reason. You're almost there. So close. Home ownership was already at a high by the time Bush the Dumber became President. So it wasn't about putting people into homes, as many of them already were...it was about something else...something that a growing housing market does...what could that be...what is that thing that housing growth always results in ...hmmmm...? I know you can get there...take your time. No need to sloppily rush through it.

Why do you feel that?

That you're reluctant to address why Bush did what he did? Simple; because you'd have to admit that Bush deliberately created a housing bubble in order to juice the economy ahead of the 2004 election that he could then credit to his tax cuts. And that's exactly what he did:

Fox News, March 26th, 2004:

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership
Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.

​

I'm not defending Clinton's bad idea.

No, you're not even correct that what Clinton did was a bad idea. It wasn't. He grew housing safely and securely...no mortgage bubble pops...delinquency rates stay constant...borrowers make their scheduled payments...property values increased...everybody wins. Then Conservatives got power and suddenly everything went to shit. Coincidence? I don't believe in them.

Or Bush's expansion of it.Obama loved it too.

So in all this you're trying (not so cleverly) to avoid answering why Bush did what he did when he did it. You don't want to admit that the Bush TAx Cuts, and the supply-side theory they're based on, didn't deliver on the promises made of them. You don't want to admit that Bush had to juice the housing market in order to make the economy look like it was growing because of his tax cuts, when it was really because of debt. And you don't admit to any of that for no other reason than your fucking ego. Integrity, principles...none of that shit means anything to you...all you care about is making sure you don't have to feel bad. What a fucking baby. Very disappointed.

Sorry Charlie, I thought the housing policies were stupid from way back in the early 90s.

First of all: BULLSHIT.

Second of all:

Noooooooooo....that's not the reason.

DERP!

That you're reluctant to address why Bush did what he did?

Like his dad, like Clinton, he thought the government should push poor people, push minorities into homes.
It was a stupid idea with predictable results.

Bush deliberately created a housing bubble in order to juice the economy ahead of the 2004 election

Created a bubble so quickly? LOL!
How'd he do it?

No, you're not even correct that what Clinton did was a bad idea.

Terrible ideas. Pushing banks to lower their standards?
Pushing Fannie and Freddie to buy 50% of their mortgages from subprime borrowers?
Awful ideas.