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.
Now that's rich! Only a DittoTard would be stupid enough to swallow their MessiahRushie Dimbulb's crap that a roaring Bush economy can be "talked down," while the GOP have been obstructing and Hate Radio have been talking down the "weak" Obama economy for 6 years and yet it still keeps growing!!!!The Dems started talking down the economy
I did not know that of Oregon. That is a state issue and should be addressed.In a nutshell, people signed without knowing what they are signing. I have attended thousands of closings.....whereas it is rare that an attorney is present at a refinance closing, I don't EVER recall an attorney not being involved in a purchase.....an attorney drafts the contract, goes back and forth with the opposing attorney as it pertains to minor particulars; reviews the settlement statement (HUD) prior to the closing, and then explains the documents to the client as they sign.No it doesn't. Sales (and that is what the banks engaged in) is to get someone to buy to benefit the seller, rarely the buyer. Telling someone who is not familiar with the process the broker/banker tandem convinced the unsophisticated buyer that the home they want is really affordable. Simply sign here, and here and here and here (as anyone who has ever secured a loan understands, even when they don't really understand what they are signing) and come back in five years and we'll refinance the loan, or you can sell the home and make a huge profit.
Hell, the banker had nice suit and a great smile, and the broker drove a new and shiny SUV when they looked at the home that could be theirs. They were assured the price of the home they looked at would continue to more expensive if they didn't act now, and in the future they could use the rising value to fund their retirement or even buy that vacation home in the mountains.
You are making it something it never was...it was not a broker/banker versus an uneducated victim.
The uneducated "victim" had the advantage of legal counsel.
That is true in for example NY State where attorney's are in charge of the purchase/closing process but there are states where an attorney is rarely ever involved in a purchase. Oregon for example, realtors are relied upon to handle the legal stuff (scary) neither are attorneys, both are paid by the seller, talk about a conflict of interest and lack of competence.
Here in NY, attorneys oversee purchases, but usually just a signing agent (notary) is required for re-fi's. Then there is the other end of the spectrum such as Massachusetts...where an attorney is required for refis as well as purchases.
I bought and sold 2 houses in NY, I thought requiring attorney's to manage the transaction was a great idea and the attorney fee was quite modest. I felt bad they didn't get paid more compared to the realtors. Nothing against a truly professional realtor but its been my experience there are a bunch of licensed realtors who are dumb as a brick I don't want them doing the legal work on my purchase.
Real Estate lawyers do the closings. Quite lucrative. I'm sure they made money.
the typical fee in the NYC area for representing a buyer is about 2500. The attorney does not draft the loan documents. That is done by the bank attorney (known as the settlement attorney)...and contrary to popular belief, the settlement attorney does not work for the bank; he or she represents the bank.I did not know that of Oregon. That is a state issue and should be addressed.In a nutshell, people signed without knowing what they are signing. I have attended thousands of closings.....whereas it is rare that an attorney is present at a refinance closing, I don't EVER recall an attorney not being involved in a purchase.....an attorney drafts the contract, goes back and forth with the opposing attorney as it pertains to minor particulars; reviews the settlement statement (HUD) prior to the closing, and then explains the documents to the client as they sign.Can you name a single politician that has accepted responsibility for any of the problems our nation experiences?
The real victims of the housing bubble? The banks. Yes, the banks. They were threatened by the government if they did not show "equality" in lending and were forced to write loans to those that would likely default....
And then, of course, there were the ARM loans...people loved the idea of refinancing, taking a mess of cash out, and having their payments LOWERED for 5 years....and they all believed they would be able to refinance when the ARM expired....so they spent the cash out, had a field day....and then their LTV's changed for the worse, and they couldn't refinance...their rates shot up to prime plus whatever, and they couldn't afford it.
But they lived the high life for 5 years.....and now they are...dare I say.....VICTIMS of their own greed.
It does not take rocket science to understand what really took place.
No it doesn't. Sales (and that is what the banks engaged in) is to get someone to buy to benefit the seller, rarely the buyer. Telling someone who is not familiar with the process the broker/banker tandem convinced the unsophisticated buyer that the home they want is really affordable. Simply sign here, and here and here and here (as anyone who has ever secured a loan understands, even when they don't really understand what they are signing) and come back in five years and we'll refinance the loan, or you can sell the home and make a huge profit.
Hell, the banker had nice suit and a great smile, and the broker drove a new and shiny SUV when they looked at the home that could be theirs. They were assured the price of the home they looked at would continue to more expensive if they didn't act now, and in the future they could use the rising value to fund their retirement or even buy that vacation home in the mountains.
You are making it something it never was...it was not a broker/banker versus an uneducated victim.
The uneducated "victim" had the advantage of legal counsel.
That is true in for example NY State where attorney's are in charge of the purchase/closing process but there are states where an attorney is rarely ever involved in a purchase. Oregon for example, realtors are relied upon to handle the legal stuff (scary) neither are attorneys, both are paid by the seller, talk about a conflict of interest and lack of competence.
Here in NY, attorneys oversee purchases, but usually just a signing agent (notary) is required for re-fi's. Then there is the other end of the spectrum such as Massachusetts...where an attorney is required for refis as well as purchases.
I bought and sold 2 houses in NY, I thought requiring attorney's to manage the transaction was a great idea and the attorney fee was quite modest. I felt bad they didn't get paid more compared to the realtors. Nothing against a truly professional realtor but its been my experience there are a bunch of licensed realtors who are dumb as a brick I don't want them doing the legal work on my purchase.
what I love about all you party members is that you still actually believe that if you vote someone into power they will actually vote fore the benefit of you or "your kind of people" unless your people are one of the super rich paying the ads and pay off bills for them to get into office. Then if he's your guy and things go from bad to worse it was the legislators fault but if one thing appears to improve, and appearances are important and not always what they seem, (see low gas prices) then your vote is vindicated and your hero is hailed chief for his life. lol. funny you guys never seem to learn
LMAO...Sorry, that's no excuse. Bush was The President and we need to evaluate any president on what they did or did not do, not on what they say.
Dem's in congress block Bush repeated efforts to deal with the problem and you blame Bush? That sounds about typical for dishonest Democrats.
What repeated efforts?
Was a bill drafted and never put to an up or down vote?
Did President Bush stand before The Congress during a State of the Union Address and let the American People and their members of Congress know that the state of our economy was at risk?
Did President Bush send out his Sect. of the Treasury and other economic advisers to warn the American people to beware (with a similar warning of mushroom clouds in boardrooms)?
Did President Bush raise taxes to pay for the war on terror (Homeland Security and the invasion and occupation of Iraq)?
Did he ask the Attorney General to investigate potential abuses of the CRA (or was the AG too busy vetting the religious bent of possible US Attorney's with the help of Monica Goodling
Did bush make congress do their job"?
No. I guess he could have done better at that.
But as a result, it sure as hell aint congresses fault.
Hey sparky...congress was not a bunch of children. They were a bunch of well paid well educated adults who promised to do a good job if they were elected.
But hey...its not their fault.....Big Daddy did not make them do their job.
Do you not see how your obsession with the failures of Bush has clouded your judgment?
Nothing is as simple as Democrats want it to be, lets also remember the Democratic controlled congress was holding funding for the wars over Bush head to get what they wanted.
This is the kind of shit that makes this place so unpleasant. All of the dickheads that pull this same ole same ole.
I'd rather post pretty pictures than talk to all of you jizzbreath mofos.Clever. Now explain why.
Nothing clever about my remark, it is simply true, and your effort to remake history isn't honest, clever or unexpected. President Bush was the nation's leader when one horrific and one terrible event occurred: 9-11 and the nearly total crash of our economy. He was also President when we invaded and occupied Iraq, and cut taxes while spending an enormous amount of our treasury on expanding government, by establishing Homeland Security and prosecuting war, without raising the necessary revenue. Nor did he listen to the advice of those who warned of the housing bubble.
Thus, since the election of President Obama, an effort to rewrite the history of the 21st Century has commenced by dishonest partisans, some in fact who worked to prevent the recovery and now seem willing to admit the Great Recession is over simply because they controlled the H. or Rep. Ignoring the fact that shutting down the government in a foolish political stunt was costly.
Iceweasle posted proof that Bush warned congress of the coming crisis for years, yet Frank and Dodd ignored the warnings.
Then you post this nonsense.
Sorry, but I think you should read his post before you continue to look foolish.
Minority member of the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007 Barney Frank where minority can stop NOTHING? LOL
Name the bill that Dodd stopped in the Senate?
The GOP, in all their wisdom decided for the first time, to share responsibilities with the minority party. This is why Democrats held so many committee hearings and investigations during the Bush Administration.
Sure they did Bubba, SURE. Now care to give ONE bill Barney Frank stopped in the GOP House? Tax cuts for rich, twice? 2 wars? UNFUNDED Medicare expansion? Getting between a man and his wife (Schiavvo)?
PLEASE tell me the super power the Dems had in the GOP House? lol
Sounds like you bought somewhere in the central New York are...maybe Broome County? Down in southern NY, attorney fees are much higher.I did not know that of Oregon. That is a state issue and should be addressed.In a nutshell, people signed without knowing what they are signing. I have attended thousands of closings.....whereas it is rare that an attorney is present at a refinance closing, I don't EVER recall an attorney not being involved in a purchase.....an attorney drafts the contract, goes back and forth with the opposing attorney as it pertains to minor particulars; reviews the settlement statement (HUD) prior to the closing, and then explains the documents to the client as they sign.
You are making it something it never was...it was not a broker/banker versus an uneducated victim.
The uneducated "victim" had the advantage of legal counsel.
That is true in for example NY State where attorney's are in charge of the purchase/closing process but there are states where an attorney is rarely ever involved in a purchase. Oregon for example, realtors are relied upon to handle the legal stuff (scary) neither are attorneys, both are paid by the seller, talk about a conflict of interest and lack of competence.
Here in NY, attorneys oversee purchases, but usually just a signing agent (notary) is required for re-fi's. Then there is the other end of the spectrum such as Massachusetts...where an attorney is required for refis as well as purchases.
I bought and sold 2 houses in NY, I thought requiring attorney's to manage the transaction was a great idea and the attorney fee was quite modest. I felt bad they didn't get paid more compared to the realtors. Nothing against a truly professional realtor but its been my experience there are a bunch of licensed realtors who are dumb as a brick I don't want them doing the legal work on my purchase.
Real Estate lawyers do the closings. Quite lucrative. I'm sure they made money.
The attorney made $600 to prepare/review all the paperwork throughout the transaction vs the realtors raked in thousands for 5 minutes work entering the listing into the MLS.
why is that relevant?LMAO...Sorry, that's no excuse. Bush was The President and we need to evaluate any president on what they did or did not do, not on what they say.
Dem's in congress block Bush repeated efforts to deal with the problem and you blame Bush? That sounds about typical for dishonest Democrats.
What repeated efforts?
Was a bill drafted and never put to an up or down vote?
Did President Bush stand before The Congress during a State of the Union Address and let the American People and their members of Congress know that the state of our economy was at risk?
Did President Bush send out his Sect. of the Treasury and other economic advisers to warn the American people to beware (with a similar warning of mushroom clouds in boardrooms)?
Did President Bush raise taxes to pay for the war on terror (Homeland Security and the invasion and occupation of Iraq)?
Did he ask the Attorney General to investigate potential abuses of the CRA (or was the AG too busy vetting the religious bent of possible US Attorney's with the help of Monica Goodling
Did bush make congress do their job"?
No. I guess he could have done better at that.
But as a result, it sure as hell aint congresses fault.
Hey sparky...congress was not a bunch of children. They were a bunch of well paid well educated adults who promised to do a good job if they were elected.
But hey...its not their fault.....Big Daddy did not make them do their job.
Do you not see how your obsession with the failures of Bush has clouded your judgment?
Nothing is as simple as Democrats want it to be, lets also remember the Democratic controlled congress was holding funding for the wars over Bush head to get what they wanted.
What did the Democrats want, and what impact did the alleged "funds" entail?
I did not know that of Oregon. That is a state issue and should be addressed.In a nutshell, people signed without knowing what they are signing. I have attended thousands of closings.....whereas it is rare that an attorney is present at a refinance closing, I don't EVER recall an attorney not being involved in a purchase.....an attorney drafts the contract, goes back and forth with the opposing attorney as it pertains to minor particulars; reviews the settlement statement (HUD) prior to the closing, and then explains the documents to the client as they sign.
You are making it something it never was...it was not a broker/banker versus an uneducated victim.
The uneducated "victim" had the advantage of legal counsel.
That is true in for example NY State where attorney's are in charge of the purchase/closing process but there are states where an attorney is rarely ever involved in a purchase. Oregon for example, realtors are relied upon to handle the legal stuff (scary) neither are attorneys, both are paid by the seller, talk about a conflict of interest and lack of competence.
Here in NY, attorneys oversee purchases, but usually just a signing agent (notary) is required for re-fi's. Then there is the other end of the spectrum such as Massachusetts...where an attorney is required for refis as well as purchases.
I bought and sold 2 houses in NY, I thought requiring attorney's to manage the transaction was a great idea and the attorney fee was quite modest. I felt bad they didn't get paid more compared to the realtors. Nothing against a truly professional realtor but its been my experience there are a bunch of licensed realtors who are dumb as a brick I don't want them doing the legal work on my purchase.
Real Estate lawyers do the closings. Quite lucrative. I'm sure they made money.the typical fee in the NYC area for representing a buyer is about 2500. The attorney does not draft the loan documents. That is done by the bank attorney (known as the settlement attorney)...and contrary to popular belief, the settlement attorney does not work for the bank; he or she represents the bank.I did not know that of Oregon. That is a state issue and should be addressed.In a nutshell, people signed without knowing what they are signing. I have attended thousands of closings.....whereas it is rare that an attorney is present at a refinance closing, I don't EVER recall an attorney not being involved in a purchase.....an attorney drafts the contract, goes back and forth with the opposing attorney as it pertains to minor particulars; reviews the settlement statement (HUD) prior to the closing, and then explains the documents to the client as they sign.No it doesn't. Sales (and that is what the banks engaged in) is to get someone to buy to benefit the seller, rarely the buyer. Telling someone who is not familiar with the process the broker/banker tandem convinced the unsophisticated buyer that the home they want is really affordable. Simply sign here, and here and here and here (as anyone who has ever secured a loan understands, even when they don't really understand what they are signing) and come back in five years and we'll refinance the loan, or you can sell the home and make a huge profit.
Hell, the banker had nice suit and a great smile, and the broker drove a new and shiny SUV when they looked at the home that could be theirs. They were assured the price of the home they looked at would continue to more expensive if they didn't act now, and in the future they could use the rising value to fund their retirement or even buy that vacation home in the mountains.
You are making it something it never was...it was not a broker/banker versus an uneducated victim.
The uneducated "victim" had the advantage of legal counsel.
That is true in for example NY State where attorney's are in charge of the purchase/closing process but there are states where an attorney is rarely ever involved in a purchase. Oregon for example, realtors are relied upon to handle the legal stuff (scary) neither are attorneys, both are paid by the seller, talk about a conflict of interest and lack of competence.
Here in NY, attorneys oversee purchases, but usually just a signing agent (notary) is required for re-fi's. Then there is the other end of the spectrum such as Massachusetts...where an attorney is required for refis as well as purchases.
I bought and sold 2 houses in NY, I thought requiring attorney's to manage the transaction was a great idea and the attorney fee was quite modest. I felt bad they didn't get paid more compared to the realtors. Nothing against a truly professional realtor but its been my experience there are a bunch of licensed realtors who are dumb as a brick I don't want them doing the legal work on my purchase.
But for that 2500, the buyers attorney negotiates the contract, (usually not a difficult process), reviews the HUD and explains to the buyer what they are getting into.
The brokers ARE idiots...but in all fairness, their fees are large because it covers all of the deals they did NOT make, but busted their butts for......true reason why realtor commissions are 6%.
I did not know that of Oregon. That is a state issue and should be addressed.In a nutshell, people signed without knowing what they are signing. I have attended thousands of closings.....whereas it is rare that an attorney is present at a refinance closing, I don't EVER recall an attorney not being involved in a purchase.....an attorney drafts the contract, goes back and forth with the opposing attorney as it pertains to minor particulars; reviews the settlement statement (HUD) prior to the closing, and then explains the documents to the client as they sign.No it doesn't. Sales (and that is what the banks engaged in) is to get someone to buy to benefit the seller, rarely the buyer. Telling someone who is not familiar with the process the broker/banker tandem convinced the unsophisticated buyer that the home they want is really affordable. Simply sign here, and here and here and here (as anyone who has ever secured a loan understands, even when they don't really understand what they are signing) and come back in five years and we'll refinance the loan, or you can sell the home and make a huge profit.
Hell, the banker had nice suit and a great smile, and the broker drove a new and shiny SUV when they looked at the home that could be theirs. They were assured the price of the home they looked at would continue to more expensive if they didn't act now, and in the future they could use the rising value to fund their retirement or even buy that vacation home in the mountains.
You are making it something it never was...it was not a broker/banker versus an uneducated victim.
The uneducated "victim" had the advantage of legal counsel.
That is true in for example NY State where attorney's are in charge of the purchase/closing process but there are states where an attorney is rarely ever involved in a purchase. Oregon for example, realtors are relied upon to handle the legal stuff (scary) neither are attorneys, both are paid by the seller, talk about a conflict of interest and lack of competence.
Here in NY, attorneys oversee purchases, but usually just a signing agent (notary) is required for re-fi's. Then there is the other end of the spectrum such as Massachusetts...where an attorney is required for refis as well as purchases.
I bought and sold 2 houses in NY, I thought requiring attorney's to manage the transaction was a great idea and the attorney fee was quite modest. I felt bad they didn't get paid more compared to the realtors. Nothing against a truly professional realtor but its been my experience there are a bunch of licensed realtors who are dumb as a brick I don't want them doing the legal work on my purchase.
Real Estate lawyers do the closings. Quite lucrative. I'm sure they made money.
Imo, the pertinent question is why do the Banks so want to get rid of the Volker rule?why is that relevant?LMAO...Dem's in congress block Bush repeated efforts to deal with the problem and you blame Bush? That sounds about typical for dishonest Democrats.
What repeated efforts?
Was a bill drafted and never put to an up or down vote?
Did President Bush stand before The Congress during a State of the Union Address and let the American People and their members of Congress know that the state of our economy was at risk?
Did President Bush send out his Sect. of the Treasury and other economic advisers to warn the American people to beware (with a similar warning of mushroom clouds in boardrooms)?
Did President Bush raise taxes to pay for the war on terror (Homeland Security and the invasion and occupation of Iraq)?
Did he ask the Attorney General to investigate potential abuses of the CRA (or was the AG too busy vetting the religious bent of possible US Attorney's with the help of Monica Goodling
Did bush make congress do their job"?
No. I guess he could have done better at that.
But as a result, it sure as hell aint congresses fault.
Hey sparky...congress was not a bunch of children. They were a bunch of well paid well educated adults who promised to do a good job if they were elected.
But hey...its not their fault.....Big Daddy did not make them do their job.
Do you not see how your obsession with the failures of Bush has clouded your judgment?
Nothing is as simple as Democrats want it to be, lets also remember the Democratic controlled congress was holding funding for the wars over Bush head to get what they wanted.
What did the Democrats want, and what impact did the alleged "funds" entail?
Or is it that you highly doubt such "antics" goes on in politics?
the mortgage broker industry is dying a slow but inevitable death. With direct lending available on line, one can apply for numerous loans on their own with numerous banks in a matter of an hour.I did not know that of Oregon. That is a state issue and should be addressed.That is true in for example NY State where attorney's are in charge of the purchase/closing process but there are states where an attorney is rarely ever involved in a purchase. Oregon for example, realtors are relied upon to handle the legal stuff (scary) neither are attorneys, both are paid by the seller, talk about a conflict of interest and lack of competence.
Here in NY, attorneys oversee purchases, but usually just a signing agent (notary) is required for re-fi's. Then there is the other end of the spectrum such as Massachusetts...where an attorney is required for refis as well as purchases.
I bought and sold 2 houses in NY, I thought requiring attorney's to manage the transaction was a great idea and the attorney fee was quite modest. I felt bad they didn't get paid more compared to the realtors. Nothing against a truly professional realtor but its been my experience there are a bunch of licensed realtors who are dumb as a brick I don't want them doing the legal work on my purchase.
Real Estate lawyers do the closings. Quite lucrative. I'm sure they made money.the typical fee in the NYC area for representing a buyer is about 2500. The attorney does not draft the loan documents. That is done by the bank attorney (known as the settlement attorney)...and contrary to popular belief, the settlement attorney does not work for the bank; he or she represents the bank.I did not know that of Oregon. That is a state issue and should be addressed.In a nutshell, people signed without knowing what they are signing. I have attended thousands of closings.....whereas it is rare that an attorney is present at a refinance closing, I don't EVER recall an attorney not being involved in a purchase.....an attorney drafts the contract, goes back and forth with the opposing attorney as it pertains to minor particulars; reviews the settlement statement (HUD) prior to the closing, and then explains the documents to the client as they sign.
You are making it something it never was...it was not a broker/banker versus an uneducated victim.
The uneducated "victim" had the advantage of legal counsel.
That is true in for example NY State where attorney's are in charge of the purchase/closing process but there are states where an attorney is rarely ever involved in a purchase. Oregon for example, realtors are relied upon to handle the legal stuff (scary) neither are attorneys, both are paid by the seller, talk about a conflict of interest and lack of competence.
Here in NY, attorneys oversee purchases, but usually just a signing agent (notary) is required for re-fi's. Then there is the other end of the spectrum such as Massachusetts...where an attorney is required for refis as well as purchases.
I bought and sold 2 houses in NY, I thought requiring attorney's to manage the transaction was a great idea and the attorney fee was quite modest. I felt bad they didn't get paid more compared to the realtors. Nothing against a truly professional realtor but its been my experience there are a bunch of licensed realtors who are dumb as a brick I don't want them doing the legal work on my purchase.
But for that 2500, the buyers attorney negotiates the contract, (usually not a difficult process), reviews the HUD and explains to the buyer what they are getting into.
The brokers ARE idiots...but in all fairness, their fees are large because it covers all of the deals they did NOT make, but busted their butts for......true reason why realtor commissions are 6%.
Real Estate in CA demands a 7% commission and the agent usually recommends the mortgage broker, who will seek funding for the buyer.
Nothing clever about my remark, it is simply true, and your effort to remake history isn't honest, clever or unexpected. President Bush was the nation's leader when one horrific and one terrible event occurred: 9-11 and the nearly total crash of our economy. He was also President when we invaded and occupied Iraq, and cut taxes while spending an enormous amount of our treasury on expanding government, by establishing Homeland Security and prosecuting war, without raising the necessary revenue. Nor did he listen to the advice of those who warned of the housing bubble.
Thus, since the election of President Obama, an effort to rewrite the history of the 21st Century has commenced by dishonest partisans, some in fact who worked to prevent the recovery and now seem willing to admit the Great Recession is over simply because they controlled the H. or Rep. Ignoring the fact that shutting down the government in a foolish political stunt was costly.
Iceweasle posted proof that Bush warned congress of the coming crisis for years, yet Frank and Dodd ignored the warnings.
Then you post this nonsense.
Sorry, but I think you should read his post before you continue to look foolish.
Minority member of the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007 Barney Frank where minority can stop NOTHING? LOL
Name the bill that Dodd stopped in the Senate?
The GOP, in all their wisdom decided for the first time, to share responsibilities with the minority party. This is why Democrats held so many committee hearings and investigations during the Bush Administration.
Sure they did Bubba, SURE. Now care to give ONE bill Barney Frank stopped in the GOP House? Tax cuts for rich, twice? 2 wars? UNFUNDED Medicare expansion? Getting between a man and his wife (Schiavvo)?
PLEASE tell me the super power the Dems had in the GOP House? lol
Race-card for one. The GOP is deathly afraid of being called racists.
This is the kind of shit that makes this place so unpleasant. All of the dickheads that pull this same ole same ole.
I'd rather post pretty pictures than talk to all of you jizzbreath mofos.The real cause? George W. Bush. The dam was leaking before W. took office, but he's the one who told the Congress to take their fingering out of the leak.
Clever. Now explain why.
Nothing clever about my remark, it is simply true, and your effort to remake history isn't honest, clever or unexpected. President Bush was the nation's leader when one horrific and one terrible event occurred: 9-11 and the nearly total crash of our economy. He was also President when we invaded and occupied Iraq, and cut taxes while spending an enormous amount of our treasury on expanding government, by establishing Homeland Security and prosecuting war, without raising the necessary revenue. Nor did he listen to the advice of those who warned of the housing bubble.
Thus, since the election of President Obama, an effort to rewrite the history of the 21st Century has commenced by dishonest partisans, some in fact who worked to prevent the recovery and now seem willing to admit the Great Recession is over simply because they controlled the H. or Rep. Ignoring the fact that shutting down the government in a foolish political stunt was costly.
Iceweasle posted proof that Bush warned congress of the coming crisis for years, yet Frank and Dodd ignored the warnings.
Then you post this nonsense.
Sorry, but I think you should read his post before you continue to look foolish.
Minority member of the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007 Barney Frank where minority can stop NOTHING? LOL
Name the bill that Dodd stopped in the Senate?
The GOP, in all their wisdom decided for the first time, to share responsibilities with the minority party. This is why Democrats held so many committee hearings and investigations during the Bush Administration.
We can thank progressives for that lightening fast "recovery"....
Stimulus, spending and massive debt, for growth ! Lol
I can only offer you my opinion as I am not on the board of one of the major banks.....and not privy to their thinking...Imo, the pertinent question is why do the Banks so want to get rid of the Volker rule?why is that relevant?LMAO...What repeated efforts?
Was a bill drafted and never put to an up or down vote?
Did President Bush stand before The Congress during a State of the Union Address and let the American People and their members of Congress know that the state of our economy was at risk?
Did President Bush send out his Sect. of the Treasury and other economic advisers to warn the American people to beware (with a similar warning of mushroom clouds in boardrooms)?
Did President Bush raise taxes to pay for the war on terror (Homeland Security and the invasion and occupation of Iraq)?
Did he ask the Attorney General to investigate potential abuses of the CRA (or was the AG too busy vetting the religious bent of possible US Attorney's with the help of Monica Goodling
Did bush make congress do their job"?
No. I guess he could have done better at that.
But as a result, it sure as hell aint congresses fault.
Hey sparky...congress was not a bunch of children. They were a bunch of well paid well educated adults who promised to do a good job if they were elected.
But hey...its not their fault.....Big Daddy did not make them do their job.
Do you not see how your obsession with the failures of Bush has clouded your judgment?
Nothing is as simple as Democrats want it to be, lets also remember the Democratic controlled congress was holding funding for the wars over Bush head to get what they wanted.
What did the Democrats want, and what impact did the alleged "funds" entail?
Or is it that you highly doubt such "antics" goes on in politics?
I get it that they don't care for Obama vilifying them, and the dems have lost Wall St as a major funding source .... although Hill may well change that back to where it was before Obama. But, why is it worth hundreds of millions for Wall St to bankroll the gop on this? It's not like Wall St is suffering from overregulation stifling profits.
Try to stay on topic please.This is the kind of shit that makes this place so unpleasant. All of the dickheads that pull this same ole same ole.
I'd rather post pretty pictures than talk to all of you jizzbreath mofos.Clever. Now explain why.
Nothing clever about my remark, it is simply true, and your effort to remake history isn't honest, clever or unexpected. President Bush was the nation's leader when one horrific and one terrible event occurred: 9-11 and the nearly total crash of our economy. He was also President when we invaded and occupied Iraq, and cut taxes while spending an enormous amount of our treasury on expanding government, by establishing Homeland Security and prosecuting war, without raising the necessary revenue. Nor did he listen to the advice of those who warned of the housing bubble.
Thus, since the election of President Obama, an effort to rewrite the history of the 21st Century has commenced by dishonest partisans, some in fact who worked to prevent the recovery and now seem willing to admit the Great Recession is over simply because they controlled the H. or Rep. Ignoring the fact that shutting down the government in a foolish political stunt was costly.
Iceweasle posted proof that Bush warned congress of the coming crisis for years, yet Frank and Dodd ignored the warnings.
Then you post this nonsense.
Sorry, but I think you should read his post before you continue to look foolish.
Minority member of the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007 Barney Frank where minority can stop NOTHING? LOL
Name the bill that Dodd stopped in the Senate?
The GOP, in all their wisdom decided for the first time, to share responsibilities with the minority party. This is why Democrats held so many committee hearings and investigations during the Bush Administration.
Post the "many committee hearings and investigations during the Bush Administration" and their outcomes. Then we'll compare the witch hunts by Issa and his outcomes.
BTW, the D's never passed a bill of impeachment during the Bush Administration and what of all those investigations of President Clinton? Why wasn't Reagan Impeached, Iran-Contra was more than a misdemeanor and possibly a high crime.
Can you name a single politician that has accepted responsibility for any of the problems our nation experiences?Wall Street wanted to limit the GSE's portfolios so it could get more market share. Bush, acting as Wall Street's bitch, tried to get the GSEs portfolios capped. The Democrats stopped this plan.Sorry, that's no excuse. Bush was The President and we need to evaluate any president on what they did or did not do, not on what they say.
Dem's in congress block Bush repeated efforts to deal with the problem and you blame Bush? That sounds about typical for dishonest Democrats.
No one was acting out of pure motives.
No one.
I blame everyone for the housing bubble, Rep's, Dem's, and the foolish citizens who purchased more home than they could afford, took out 2nd mortgages and spent like there's no tomorrow. What I have a problem with is lying scum Democrats in congress who acted like they had nothing to do with the whole mess. I have never seen such a group of snakes as Democrats.
The real victims of the housing bubble? The banks. Yes, the banks. They were threatened by the government if they did not show "equality" in lending and were forced to write loans to those that would likely default....
And then, of course, there were the ARM loans...people loved the idea of refinancing, taking a mess of cash out, and having their payments LOWERED for 5 years....and they all believed they would be able to refinance when the ARM expired....so they spent the cash out, had a field day....and then their LTV's changed for the worse, and they couldn't refinance...their rates shot up to prime plus whatever, and they couldn't afford it.
But they lived the high life for 5 years.....and now they are...dare I say.....VICTIMS of their own greed.
It does not take rocket science to understand what really took place.
As soon as government took the risk out of sub-prime loans many banks piled on to cash in running non-stop ads, its not like they were dragged into this kicking and screaming.
LMAO...Sorry, that's no excuse. Bush was The President and we need to evaluate any president on what they did or did not do, not on what they say.
Dem's in congress block Bush repeated efforts to deal with the problem and you blame Bush? That sounds about typical for dishonest Democrats.
What repeated efforts?
Was a bill drafted and never put to an up or down vote?
Did President Bush stand before The Congress during a State of the Union Address and let the American People and their members of Congress know that the state of our economy was at risk?
Did President Bush send out his Sect. of the Treasury and other economic advisers to warn the American people to beware (with a similar warning of mushroom clouds in boardrooms)?
Did President Bush raise taxes to pay for the war on terror (Homeland Security and the invasion and occupation of Iraq)?
Did he ask the Attorney General to investigate potential abuses of the CRA (or was the AG too busy vetting the religious bent of possible US Attorney's with the help of Monica Goodling
Did bush make congress do their job"?
No. I guess he could have done better at that.
But as a result, it sure as hell aint congresses fault.
Hey sparky...congress was not a bunch of children. They were a bunch of well paid well educated adults who promised to do a good job if they were elected.
But hey...its not their fault.....Big Daddy did not make them do their job.
Do you not see how your obsession with the failures of Bush has clouded your judgment?
Nothing is as simple as Democrats want it to be, lets also remember the Democratic controlled congress was holding funding for the wars over Bush head to get what they wanted.
OVER 80% OF LOANS 2004-2007, WERE OUTSIDE OF GOV'T BACKING BUBA, lol
I can only offer you my opinion as I am not on the board of one of the major banks.....and not privy to their thinking...Imo, the pertinent question is why do the Banks so want to get rid of the Volker rule?why is that relevant?LMAO...
Did bush make congress do their job"?
No. I guess he could have done better at that.
But as a result, it sure as hell aint congresses fault.
Hey sparky...congress was not a bunch of children. They were a bunch of well paid well educated adults who promised to do a good job if they were elected.
But hey...its not their fault.....Big Daddy did not make them do their job.
Do you not see how your obsession with the failures of Bush has clouded your judgment?
Nothing is as simple as Democrats want it to be, lets also remember the Democratic controlled congress was holding funding for the wars over Bush head to get what they wanted.
What did the Democrats want, and what impact did the alleged "funds" entail?
Or is it that you highly doubt such "antics" goes on in politics?
I get it that they don't care for Obama vilifying them, and the dems have lost Wall St as a major funding source .... although Hill may well change that back to where it was before Obama. But, why is it worth hundreds of millions for Wall St to bankroll the gop on this? It's not like Wall St is suffering from overregulation stifling profits.
I believe they were very much taken aback by the way the President and democratic congress put the entire blame squarely on the banks. The banks knew that the President and congress was well aware of what took place during the collapse...so they saw Volker as one who was assigned to the task to simply come up with a reason that blames the banks...be it true or not...and any solution would be supporting a fallacy.
Again, just my opinion.
