The housing bubble did not belong exclusively to Bush. Housing inflation started up significantly in 1999, and many of the monetary and fiscal policies which caused the bubble to burst belong to Clinton. The housing crash caused the recession which in turn caused unemployment beyond that of the construction industry's fall, all of which contributed to the inability to pay mortgages, especially under water mortgages.what the heck. Lets add Michigan. They're in the news today.
View attachment 67150678
poor Michigan. Not only did they not really even get the short term euphoria of the Bush Mortgage Bubble, their prices are down there only beating Nevada. ouch. The auto industry was really hit hard by the Great Bush Recession that the Bush Mortgage Bubble caused. Bush should apologize to Detroit. Can somebody get a "too big to fail" bank to tell Bush to apologize. He seems to jump when they tell him to.
Since I live at ground zero of the bubble, Las Vegas, I recognize that chart very well and 1999 indeed is the start point. Bush carries much blame because he not only ignored it, he acerbated it. Some leader he turned out to be:roll:
Assigning blame does little good. Housing is back to affordable again (here) and has been rising again for the last year. It's so far from the bubble top though that even today, I see it's leveling off and the rush of invstors from 2009-2011 is slacking off. So, even today, you can buy a house for 60% of the 2002 prices and about 25% of the 2005 prices.
Assigning blame does do some good though.
It ensures the idiots won't get reelected. That was done mostly in 2008, but I'm afraid the US has a short memory.
No shock that Dn couldn’t see the bubble. He clings to the disproven narrative that the Great Bush Recession caused all the defaults. He has to ignore the sharp increase in defaults started soon after banks lowered their lending standards. I’ve proven it but he pretends he didn’t see the proof. .The housing bubble did not belong exclusively to Bush. Housing inflation started up significantly in 1999, and many of the monetary and fiscal policies which caused the bubble to burst belong to Clinton. The housing crash caused the recession which in turn caused unemployment beyond that of the construction industry's fall, all of which contributed to the inability to pay mortgages, especially under water mortgages
I’m a little surprised you don’t see the bubble speckle. But not shocked. As far as your linkless anecdotal story goes, the Case Shiller and the OFHEO data on Las Vegas shows the same massive spike in prices in 2004 again proving the dates of the Bush Mortgage Bubble. But again, home prices going up doesn’t cause a world wide recession. A dramatic increase in defaults causing a credit freeze does. And the defaults starting mid 2005 were caused by lower lending standards starting in late 2004. In addition to the graphs that prove my point, let Bush explain it to you.Since I live at ground zero of the bubble, Las Vegas, I recognize that chart very well and 1999 indeed is the start point. Bush carries much blame because he not only ignored it, he acerbated it. Some leader he turned out to be:roll: .
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/Documents/q4progress update.pdfBush’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.
It lets you know which party destroyed the economy of the planet thus they should not be given another opportunity to do it.Assigning blame does little good.
I dont really care which political party gets the blame these days.
I care more about who is trying to fix the root causes of the crash and wants to reform the system to prevent it from happening again.
I dont really care which political party gets the blame these days.
I care more about who is trying to fix the root causes of the crash and wants to reform the system to prevent it from happening again.
Well that’s two cons that cant see the bubble.
I’m a little surprised you don’t see the bubble speckle. But not shocked. As far as your linkless anecdotal story goes, the Case Shiller and the OFHEO data on Las Vegas shows the same massive spike in prices in 2004 again proving the dates of the Bush Mortgage Bubble. But again, home prices going up doesn’t cause a world wide recession. A dramatic increase in defaults causing a credit freeze does. And the defaults starting mid 2005 were caused by lower lending standards starting in late 2004. In addition to the graphs that prove my point, let Bush explain it to you.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/Documents/q4progress update.pdf
It lets you know which party destroyed the economy of the planet thus they should not be given another opportunity to do it.
Speckle, its not what I think. Its what I’ve proven. Prices didn’t rise “dramatically” until 2004. The graph shows it. The rise you claim you saw in 1999 didn’t look any different before 1999 or after 1999. It looked ‘dramatically’ different in 2004. And the graph is identical to the Las Vegas specific data: steady appreciation and then shots up 2004. And speckle, I’m not just mindlessly posting a graph and saying “see this one metric proves it started [put any year here when Bush was not president]”. I posting facts. The graphs in this thread are just but a small piece of the overwhelming evidence that the Bush Mortgage Bubble started in 2004 because of Bush’s policies and regulators.Gee Vern, are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? I was here and saw what I saw. If you think that housing didn't rise dramatically before 2005 ….
I’m wasn’t telling you to post a link. I’m just pointing out that your version is not only not supported by the facts, its refuted by the facts.My "linkless" story was presented as anecdotal and since I am the source of the data, why don't we just skip the expense of the link.
Er uh speckle, I find cons often argue something I didn’t post. “inflating values” being evil is Dn’s narrative. I have posted consistently about “lower lending standards” and I’ve proven it.If inflating values is so evil, why is it being done right now - again? Of course, you won't see those lofty heights of 2005, indeed, these prices just might stick.
You are not disagreeing with me, you are ignoring the facts I’ve posted. And because of the posts of yours that I’ve read, I was surprised you would look at something that clearly shows prices didn’t rise “dramatically” until 2004 and then not see it.I'll let that con remark slide this time since you were polite about it. If you've managed to overlook my 7000 posts I suppose that anyone who doesn't agree with you
Never saw someone talk to themselves in a thread before.
And it's not even interesting. The title should simply be "It is all Bush's fault!" with a content of "I can't get over Bush, and everything is his fault!".
Would have been more to the point without so many words.
Subprime lending has grown rapidly over the past decade. Rising concerns about abusive practices by subprime lenders have been a byproduct of this growth. By early 2004, these concerns prompted Georgia and more than 30 other states to pass laws designed to eliminate abusive or predatory lending practices by the financial services firms, including those with federal charters, operating within their boundaries.
Acting on a request from a national bank, the OCC in 2003 concluded that federal law preempts the provisions of the Georgia Fair Lending Act (GFLA) that would otherwise affect national banks’ real estate lending. At this same time, the OCC also proposed a final rule to clarify the types of state laws that are applicable to national banks. In early 2004, the OCC adopted a final rule providing that state laws that regulate the terms of credit are preempted. The main features of state anti-predatory lending statutes are typically provisions that restrict or prohibit certain loan terms.
In addition, clarification of the applicability of state laws to national banks should remove disincentives to subprime lending and increase the supply of credit to subprime borrowers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?