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.
I didn't say Bush deregulated -- I said he contributed by increasing the number of loans being given to those who could not afford them and by pushing those loans onto Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
yes but thats what you would expect from a liberal Republican. Conservatives know that regulating the free market to get millions of people into homes the free market said they could not afford was a goofy idiotic oft repeated mistake, the same one the USSR, Red China, and East Germany made and the same one dopey Obama made 50 times over with Solyndra.
Bush sucked.
How stupid are you? The loans where rubber stamped by Clinton you moron, F & F bought all of this paper, have you ever heard of or understood what the Equal Housing Act is?
RealClearMarkets - How Did Paul Krugman Get It So Wrong?
The mind of a Liberal, what a terrible thing to waste...
Did you and Poet come out of the same womb???
Do you have a clue??? The Feds are funding ZERO DOWN LOANS TODAY MORON!!! NO MI, they are USDA LOANS!!!
Get out of my gym, bitch...[/F]
Guy, the problem didn't happen under Clinton, it happened under Bush.
Mostly because he wasn't watching what the banks were doing.
Even the banking industry isn't blaming the CRA. That's a nutty bunch of shit coming out of hate radio, but of the top 25 banks that failed, only one made CRA loans. Look it up.
Sub Prime lending was born in '93, Clinton was POTUS was he not??
FHA DPA was started under Clinton in '96, he changed the guidelines of CRA, Clinton was POTUS was he not???
Brooksley Born was appointed to the CFTC by Clinton in '94, she was loud & clear & correct about OTC Derivatives and Clinton was POTUS was he not????
Today, right now USDA is funded by tax payer dollars for home loans with ZERO DOWN & NO MI...
The problem was born from CRA dumb dumb, do you understand these loans, CRA, Sub Prime, Alt A loans and FHA DPA where the disease that damaged F & F???
Krugman could not have been more wrong in his assertions. Somehow he missed Fannie and Freddie's acquisition of $4.3 trillion in sub prime, low down payment (5% or less) and Alt-A loans. How about the $2.7 trillion of CRA loans? After accounting for overlap among these groupings, he somehow missed some $5 trillion in such loans, trillions of which remain to plague the nation's economy.
Read for yourself dumb ass, these are facts, talk radio didn't make this shit up...
The same Conservative Congress that couldn't balance a budget for their life after Clinton left office??Yet Liberals weren't in control of the Congress since 1995. Conservatives and Republicans were until 2007, with the exception of a year in and a half when Democrats barely controlled the Senate.
Makes it the fault, mostly, in my opinion, of the party running the country.
So explain why conservatives running the Congress from 1995 to 2001 gave us balanced budgets and surpluses? The GOP was controlling the purse strings of government during most of Bill Clinton's two terms and look what happened. I hate to point out an inconvenient truth but it was Newt Gingritch that forced Clinton into those balanced budgets that led to those surpluses...it wasn't something that Clinton would have done on his own.clearly, it was Clinton, not the Republican-led Congress who balanced the budget.
There's no question the dot com boom helped the economy. Just as the PC boom helped Reagan and the housing bubble helped Bush; yet I never see Conservatives mentioning that. Regardless, it's quite ridiculous to credit Congressional Republicans with balancing the budget when they couldn't do it without Clinton and even though the deficits began declining before Republicans took over the Congress.The same Conservative Congress that couldn't balance a budget for their life after Clinton left office??So explain why conservatives running the Congress from 1995 to 2001 gave us balanced budgets and surpluses? The GOP was controlling the purse strings of government during most of Bill Clinton's two terms and look what happened. I hate to point out an inconvenient truth but it was Newt Gingritch that forced Clinton into those balanced budgets that led to those surpluses...it wasn't something that Clinton would have done on his own.
Clinton can in fact claim to have balanced the budget, Faun but one must remember that only happened because the legislative priority of his first term...universal health care...never happened. I have always lauded Clinton's common sense approach to the economy...he campaigned on Middle Class tax cuts to win the Oval Office but didn't deliver on those tax cuts once he was elected...just as George H.W. Bush didn't deliver on his promise not to raise taxes during HIS Presidency. Both did so because common sense prevailed over politics. Let's face it though...Clinton doesn't balance anything if three things don't occur. The first is the Dot Com Boom. The increases in revenues THERE are what really drove the balanced budget. The second is not having the votes to push through HilaryCare. And the last is Newt Gingritch and the "Contract With America".
Guy, the problem didn't happen under Clinton, it happened under Bush.
Mostly because he wasn't watching what the banks were doing.
Even the banking industry isn't blaming the CRA. That's a nutty bunch of shit coming out of hate radio, but of the top 25 banks that failed, only one made CRA loans. Look it up.
Sub Prime lending was born in '93, Clinton was POTUS was he not??
FHA DPA was started under Clinton in '96, he changed the guidelines of CRA, Clinton was POTUS was he not???
Brooksley Born was appointed to the CFTC by Clinton in '94, she was loud & clear & correct about OTC Derivatives and Clinton was POTUS was he not????
Today, right now USDA is funded by tax payer dollars for home loans with ZERO DOWN & NO MI...
The problem was born from CRA dumb dumb, do you understand these loans, CRA, Sub Prime, Alt A loans and FHA DPA where the disease that damaged F & F???
Krugman could not have been more wrong in his assertions. Somehow he missed Fannie and Freddie's acquisition of $4.3 trillion in sub prime, low down payment (5% or less) and Alt-A loans. How about the $2.7 trillion of CRA loans? After accounting for overlap among these groupings, he somehow missed some $5 trillion in such loans, trillions of which remain to plague the nation's economy.
Read for yourself dumb ass, these are facts, talk radio didn't make this shit up...
Who know where you get your information from, but subprime mortgages began under Reagan, not Clinton.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/01/ChomPennCross.pdf
Ummm, it says they "rapidly grew only after 1995" ... but counter to your bogus claim they were "born in '93," the article about subprime lending I linked stated they actually started under Reagan...Sub Prime lending was born in '93, Clinton was POTUS was he not??
FHA DPA was started under Clinton in '96, he changed the guidelines of CRA, Clinton was POTUS was he not???
Brooksley Born was appointed to the CFTC by Clinton in '94, she was loud & clear & correct about OTC Derivatives and Clinton was POTUS was he not????
Today, right now USDA is funded by tax payer dollars for home loans with ZERO DOWN & NO MI...
The problem was born from CRA dumb dumb, do you understand these loans, CRA, Sub Prime, Alt A loans and FHA DPA where the disease that damaged F & F???
Krugman could not have been more wrong in his assertions. Somehow he missed Fannie and Freddie's acquisition of $4.3 trillion in sub prime, low down payment (5% or less) and Alt-A loans. How about the $2.7 trillion of CRA loans? After accounting for overlap among these groupings, he somehow missed some $5 trillion in such loans, trillions of which remain to plague the nation's economy.
Read for yourself dumb ass, these are facts, talk radio didn't make this shit up...
Who know where you get your information from, but subprime mortgages began under Reagan, not Clinton.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/01/ChomPennCross.pdf
Sub Prime loans where not a loan product in the '80's, this is from the article you posted...
Although the subprime mortgage market
emerged in the early 1980s with the adoption of
DIDMCA, AMTPA, and TRA, subprime lending
rapidly grew only after 1995, when MBS with
subprime-loan collateral become more attractive
to investors.
Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act
Legislation in the United States that deregulated banks while giving the Federal Reserve more authority over non-member banks. Particularly, it required non-member banks to abide by Federal Reserve decisions but allowed greater leeway in bank mergers and in individual banks setting their own interest rates. The Act also raised deposit insurance to $100,000 per account. It is informally known as the Monetary Control Act.
Definition of 'Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act - AMTPA'
An act from 1982 that over-rode many state laws that prevented banks from using mortgages other than conventional fixed-rate mortgages. This act allowed for the total costs of loans to become obscured, and led to the availability of various new mortgages such as adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs), interest only mortgages, and ballon payment mortgages.
I have been in the industry for 30 years, when the AMTPA went into effect it was simply to allow ARM's into the market, very few could buy with 16% to 18% loans...
I want to say my first mortgage was fixed at 11% for the first 5 years, then is converted annually with a cap of 4%, that was 1983...
The first Sub Prime loan I did was in '94, 30% down witth a 12% rate...
Almost everyone I know in our business has never understood why ZERO DOWN LOANS where initiated...
But the escape goat has always been the Equal Housing Act...
Faun your as pawn with little understanding of the US economy, technical boom, pent up demand, and political climate between 1972 and 2008. Most importantly the role bubble economies played from 1990 to 2006. As for Clinton, he had but one choice, sign off or watch the government shut down. Newt him cornered. Bubble economies are great until the bubble pops, they tend to make pathetic mediocre leaders look like mental giants.
Ummm, it says they "rapidly grew only after 1995" ... but counter to your bogus claim they were "born in '93," the article about subprime lending I linked stated they actually started under Reagan...Who know where you get your information from, but subprime mortgages began under Reagan, not Clinton.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/01/ChomPennCross.pdf
Sub Prime loans where not a loan product in the '80's, this is from the article you posted...
Although the subprime mortgage market
emerged in the early 1980s with the adoption of
DIDMCA, AMTPA, and TRA, subprime lending
rapidly grew only after 1995, when MBS with
subprime-loan collateral become more attractive
to investors.
Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act
Legislation in the United States that deregulated banks while giving the Federal Reserve more authority over non-member banks. Particularly, it required non-member banks to abide by Federal Reserve decisions but allowed greater leeway in bank mergers and in individual banks setting their own interest rates. The Act also raised deposit insurance to $100,000 per account. It is informally known as the Monetary Control Act.
Definition of 'Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act - AMTPA'
An act from 1982 that over-rode many state laws that prevented banks from using mortgages other than conventional fixed-rate mortgages. This act allowed for the total costs of loans to become obscured, and led to the availability of various new mortgages such as adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs), interest only mortgages, and ballon payment mortgages.
I have been in the industry for 30 years, when the AMTPA went into effect it was simply to allow ARM's into the market, very few could buy with 16% to 18% loans...
I want to say my first mortgage was fixed at 11% for the first 5 years, then is converted annually with a cap of 4%, that was 1983...
The first Sub Prime loan I did was in '94, 30% down witth a 12% rate...
Almost everyone I know in our business has never understood why ZERO DOWN LOANS where initiated...
But the escape goat has always been the Equal Housing Act...
"Although the subprime mortgage market emerged in the early 1980s"
So much for your nonsense about it being "born in '93."
Holy shit. I see you're stuck on stupid.Ummm, it says they "rapidly grew only after 1995" ... but counter to your bogus claim they were "born in '93," the article about subprime lending I linked stated they actually started under Reagan...Sub Prime loans where not a loan product in the '80's, this is from the article you posted...
Although the subprime mortgage market
emerged in the early 1980s with the adoption of
DIDMCA, AMTPA, and TRA, subprime lending
rapidly grew only after 1995, when MBS with
subprime-loan collateral become more attractive
to investors.
Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act
Legislation in the United States that deregulated banks while giving the Federal Reserve more authority over non-member banks. Particularly, it required non-member banks to abide by Federal Reserve decisions but allowed greater leeway in bank mergers and in individual banks setting their own interest rates. The Act also raised deposit insurance to $100,000 per account. It is informally known as the Monetary Control Act.
Definition of 'Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act - AMTPA'
An act from 1982 that over-rode many state laws that prevented banks from using mortgages other than conventional fixed-rate mortgages. This act allowed for the total costs of loans to become obscured, and led to the availability of various new mortgages such as adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs), interest only mortgages, and ballon payment mortgages.
I have been in the industry for 30 years, when the AMTPA went into effect it was simply to allow ARM's into the market, very few could buy with 16% to 18% loans...
I want to say my first mortgage was fixed at 11% for the first 5 years, then is converted annually with a cap of 4%, that was 1983...
The first Sub Prime loan I did was in '94, 30% down witth a 12% rate...
Almost everyone I know in our business has never understood why ZERO DOWN LOANS where initiated...
But the escape goat has always been the Equal Housing Act...
"Although the subprime mortgage market emerged in the early 1980s"
So much for your nonsense about it being "born in '93."
You either can't comprhend or you're just an idiot...
The article you posted states very clearly " subprime lending rapidly grew only after 1995 "...
Idiot would be more appropriate...
And Clinton was POTUS, he changed the guidelines to CRA dumb dumb...
Where you even alive in '82, how about '94???
Your out of your league...
Get back to the Pee Wee's before I rub your nose in it...
YES. Next.
Holy shit. I see you're stuck on stupid.Ummm, it says they "rapidly grew only after 1995" ... but counter to your bogus claim they were "born in '93," the article about subprime lending I linked stated they actually started under Reagan...
"Although the subprime mortgage market emerged in the early 1980s"
So much for your nonsense about it being "born in '93."
You either can't comprhend or you're just an idiot...
The article you posted states very clearly " subprime lending rapidly grew only after 1995 "...
Idiot would be more appropriate...
And Clinton was POTUS, he changed the guidelines to CRA dumb dumb...
Where you even alive in '82, how about '94???
Your out of your league...
Get back to the Pee Wee's before I rub your nose in it...
You said it was "born" in 1993. The article I posted says they "emerged in the early 80's"
It really isn't my fault you're too retarded to understand that "grew" is not the same as "born."
Here's an example ... you were "born" with a brain -- but it never "grew" beyond the intellect of a three year old.
Savvy?
Faun your as pawn with little understanding of the US economy, technical boom, pent up demand, and political climate between 1972 and 2008. Most importantly the role bubble economies played from 1990 to 2006. As for Clinton, he had but one choice, sign off or watch the government shut down. Newt him cornered. Bubble economies are great until the bubble pops, they tend to make pathetic mediocre leaders look like mental giants.
"Newt him cornered."
WTF does that even mean?
Your challenges with English aside, the economy was already improving before Republicans took over the Congress. And it continued to improve until Clinton left office. You can pretend that Republicans balanced the budget, but you'd look pretty stupid doing so since they gave record breaking deficits (at that time) once Bush was in office.
We can certainly debate how history will treat George W. Bush but if poll numbers are any indication it should be pointed out that W. and Obama have about the same approval ratings as of today.
Well that doesn't make sense either since Newt did not have Clinton cornered. Both sides were at an impasse over the budget. If anything, Newt looked like an idiot when he indicated one of the reasons for his obstinacy was because Clinton slighted him on Air Force One by making him exit from the rear of the plane. So Newt let the government shut down because his feelings were hurt.Faun your as pawn with little understanding of the US economy, technical boom, pent up demand, and political climate between 1972 and 2008. Most importantly the role bubble economies played from 1990 to 2006. As for Clinton, he had but one choice, sign off or watch the government shut down. Newt him cornered. Bubble economies are great until the bubble pops, they tend to make pathetic mediocre leaders look like mental giants.
"Newt him cornered."
WTF does that even mean?
Your challenges with English aside, the economy was already improving before Republicans took over the Congress. And it continued to improve until Clinton left office. You can pretend that Republicans balanced the budget, but you'd look pretty stupid doing so since they gave record breaking deficits (at that time) once Bush was in office.
I don't know why you're grammar policing. Well I do and that's verified by your resulting condescension. It's patently obvious that he simply omitted the word 'had.'
I saw an interview with Clinton talking about how the economy was slow his first 2 1/2 to 3 years in office and then the tech boom hit and that was all she wrote. Even he has admitted that.
