- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I will not allow myself to again get into this question of whether or not decisions made by the Bush43 administration caused the housing crisis, but we might want to remember that our friends at the Wall Street banks played an important role.
The implications for Goldman Sachs and, indeed, many of the major banks that engaged in unethical and possibly illegal practices within the context of Abacus-like deals could be massive. According to the recently released United States Senate Subcommittee Financial Crisis Report, Goldman Sachs "securitized high risk mortgages" from 2004-2007 for "lucrative fees," "magnified the impact of toxic mortgages on financial markets," "took a short position on the mortgage market." "created a conflict between the firm's proprietary interests and the interests of its clients," did not disclose "taking a short position" in the Abacus deal, and "used Credit Default Swaps … to bet against the mortgage market." — "Corporate Codes of Conduct and Business Principles in Light of the Goldman Sachs Lawsuit Settlement," Review of Business & Finance Case Studies, 2011, p.64
OK, I take what I said back. Here's some material that's been posted in this forum repeatedly. Looks like some useful stuff to me, and appears to answer this call:
The "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." — The President's Working Group on Financial Markets, Oct 2008
View attachment 67196612
Just more "opinions of others" and "charts that tell nothing," I suppose.
nope, the point remains Wallison, who you keep referring to, argues subprime did bring it down.So Bush created the sub prime program?
You say all sorts of things to defend Texas idiots, but the point right here is your referencing Wallison and subprime.My point all along has bee that Bush ALONE did not cause the financial crisis but it seems that some here disagree and believe he alone caused the crisis.
Try this, see if it is possible for you to not confuse me with someone else (fenton, vern) ...and then realize what Wallison/Pinto argue, that is if you are going to keep referring to Wallisons' books/articles....mkay? Think you can do that? Is that possible?If you aren't in that group then you would be right. There were more factors than the sub prime loans that caused the problem and many to blame. Vern and others here ignore that and blame Bush solely.
nope, the point remains Wallison, who you keep referring to, argues subprime did bring it down. You say all sorts of things to defend Texas idiots, but the point right here is your referencing Wallison and subprime.Try this, see if it is possible for you to not confuse me with someone else (fenton, vern) ...and then realize what Wallison/Pinto argue, that is if you are going to keep referring to Wallisons' books/articles....mkay? Think you can do that? Is that possible?
I await your proof that it was the sub prime loans between 2004-2007 that caused the crisis
The ripple effect illustrates the wide-ranging impact the subprime mortgage crisis has
had not only on the U.S. economy but on society in general.
Conclusion
Economists and analysts have come to understand the causes of the subprime crisis. The
resulting fallout of the mortgage crisis has been well-documented. Legislators, regulators,
industry insiders and others have witnessed its devastating effect on U.S. and global
economies.
The ripple effect illustrates the wide-ranging impact the subprime mortgage crisis hasIt was not the sub prime loans alone that caused the problem, what part of that do you not understand?? Were there other factors that led to the financial crisis?
The ripple effect illustrates the wide-ranging impact the subprime mortgage crisis has
had not only on the U.S. economy but on society in general.
Conclusion
Economists and analysts have come to understand the causes of the subprime crisis. The
resulting fallout of the mortgage crisis has been well-documented. Legislators, regulators,
industry insiders and others have witnessed its devastating effect on U.S. and global
economies.
The subprimes that defaulted badly, at high levels were originated between 2002-07:
View attachment 67196621
Defaults don't create bubbles, the defaults were the result of the housing bubble popping. I think all of this is much too complex for you to debate.Yes, defaults were high but those defaults of loans between 04-07 didn't create the bubble
Defaults don't create bubbles, the defaults were the result of the housing bubble popping. I think all of this is much too complex for you to debate.
it is for you because you write so many incorrect postsNot complex at all
I never said he was, this is again incorrectyour problem is you cannot admit that Bush alone wasn't the problem.
yup, 2001 to 2006.The bubble was created over time
it is for you because you write so many incorrect posts I never said he was, this is again incorrectyup, 2001 to 2006.
This is a prime example of your inability to stay focused, the HOUSING PRICE BUBBLE that popped in 2006 did not start in "1994".No, sorry, from 1994
subprime was not a "program". You are utterly confused.when the program was created until 2007.
as you....what? You were always confused on this point....and your confusion gets worse...As for you never saying he was solely responsible, good for you as you
Housing price index... the bubble...did not exceed the the previous 1989 peak until after 2000, the subprime loans that did the damage, that defaulted, were originated after 2000.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
Notice the growth in private debt from 1994 to the present and you will see that the bubble was growing significantly
subprime was not a "program". You are utterly confused.after the creation of the sub prime program in 1994
This is a prime example of your inability to stay focused, the HOUSING PRICE BUBBLE that popped in 2006 did not start in "1994".
subprime was not a "program". You are utterly confused.
as you....what? You were always confused on this point....and your confusion gets worse...
Housing price index... the bubble...did not exceed the the previous 1989 peak until after 2000, the subprime loans that did the damage, that defaulted, were originated after 2000.
subprime was not a "program". You are utterly confused.
That's a keeper.It was Clinton that created the sub prime loans
Wow...really? "public debt"? LOL.so why can't you accept the fact that the increase in public debt
I have NO RESPECT for people who come on and insult/spread bile about others all while hiding behind their computer screens under an assumed name.
what did "your" President do before he became a Senator and did he have any responsibility for putting people who couldn't afford homes into their homes?
That's a keeper.
Wow...really? "public debt"? LOL.
Policies of the Clinton Administration[edit]
As noted, the National Homeownership Strategy, which advocated a general loosening of lending standards, at least with regard to affordable housing, was devised in 1995 by HUD under the Clinton Administration. During the rest of the Clinton Administration HUD set increasingly rigorous affordable housing loan requirements for Fannie and Freddie.
In 1995 the Clinton Administration made changes to the CRA. The changes were extensive and, in the opinion of critics, very destructive. Under the new rules, banks and thrifts were to be evaluated "based on the number and amount of loans issued within their assessment areas, the geographical distribution of those loans, the distribution of loans based on borrower characteristics, the number and amount of community development loans, and the amount of innovation and flexibility they used when approving loans."[153] Some analysts maintain that these new rules pressured banks to make weak loans.[154]
I knew you were going to conflate "subprime" and CRA, which is exactly what Wallison/Pinto do, which is why their argument fails, they screwed up the data they used to try to argue subprime CAUSED THE BUBBLE AND CRASH....but wait, your argument was that subprime did not cause the crash.....even while you rely on Wallison who does.Apparently research isn't a strength of yours as well so I hope this is a keeper
People taking out mortgages....is private debt.....not "public debt".as for pubic debt and the chart I posted that is personal debt owned by individuals unlike the public debt owned by the govt. and paid for by the taxpayers. Do liberals ever admit when they are wrong?
I knew you were going to conflate "subprime" and CRA, which is exactly what Wallison/Pinto do, which is why their argument fails, they screwed up the data they used to try to argue subprime CAUSED THE BUBBLE AND CRASH....but wait, your argument was that subprime did not cause the crash.....even while you rely on Wallison who does.
Subprime lending existed before any of this, it is simply a loan given to a lendee who has a greater risk (low credit rating, few assets) and carries a higher interest rate, it can go back to pawn loans, it can apply to auto loans, all sorts. In mortgages, it applies to non-conforming/not up to FHA standards......and ALL cra loans were conforming loans. Don't tell me I don't know this, I have lived it and have had plenty of practice defeating Fenton's et al arguments on the topic.
People taking out mortgages....is private debt.....not "public debt".
Hurr durr.....so are you still going to argue that "major sub prime loan failures did not happen"it was the sub prime loans that contributed to the bubble
They are different, because the one that consists of debt from mortgages in OUR discussion (not who you posted a "graph" for)....is called "private debt". You tried to call private mortgage debt a "public debt", it isn't. Get your terms correct.The public debt issue from the chart posted is different than the public debt generated from the budget. I would have thought you would know that.
Hurr durr.....so are you still going to argue that "major sub prime loan failures did not happen"
They are different, because the one that consists of debt from mortgages in OUR discussion (not who you posted a "graph" for)....is called "private debt". You tried to call private mortgage debt a "public debt", it isn't. Get your terms correct.
...have to correct you, constantly, so that any sort of a coherent debate can take place.Look, I am tired of wordsmithing liberals
A meaningless argument, the point you made that you keep avoiding is:I have made my point that the financial crisis was not created by Bush
...have to correct you, constantly, so that any sort of a coherent debate can take place.
A meaningless argument, the point you made that you keep avoiding is:
"major sub prime loan failures did not happen"
They did, you know they did, and they were a major part of how and why the credit system collapsed.
right here:Please post the quote from me where I said that major sub prime loan defaults didn't happen??????
We went over this yesterday.....which for you was a long time ago, erased from your memory.What you posted shows that the relaxed regulations which obviously would have led to major sub prime loan failures didn't happen thus Bush played a minor role in creating the problem.
Uh-huhI am done here.
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?