• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Mortgage Bubble Was The Democrat's Fault

Just when you thought the debate was settling down on this... :doh

Anyway, it would be foolish of us all to say the Mortgage Bubble or Financial Collapse was the exclusive fault of Republicans, or Democrats, or CRM, or Deregulation, or any other single factor. It was a perfect storm of many faults, caused by many people with 'D and 'R behind their name, for all sorts of nonsensical reasons, and across a very long period of time. To suggest that it is all or nothing on either party or some piece of legislation is hyper-partisan buffoonery.

I am probably well north of 50 books, studies, and detailed analysis pieces of all the implications of all the elements that lead up to the crash and it is beyond obvious that there is no single silver bullet we can recover and say that is the one that killed it all.
 
Just when you thought the debate was settling down on this... :doh

Anyway, it would be foolish of us all to say the Mortgage Bubble or Financial Collapse was the exclusive fault of Republicans, or Democrats, or CRM, or Deregulation, or any other single factor. It was a perfect storm of many faults, caused by many people with 'D and 'R behind their name, for all sorts of nonsensical reasons, and across a very long period of time. To suggest that it is all or nothing on either party or some piece of legislation is hyper-partisan buffoonery.

I am probably well north of 50 books, studies, and detailed analysis pieces of all the implications of all the elements that lead up to the crash and it is beyond obvious that there is no single silver bullet we can recover and say that is the one that killed it all.

Shhhh!!!!!! You'll ruin the fantasy and spoil the false narrative!
 
Just when you thought the debate was settling down on this... :doh

Anyway, it would be foolish of us all to say the Mortgage Bubble or Financial Collapse was the exclusive fault of Republicans, or Democrats, or CRM, or Deregulation, or any other single factor. It was a perfect storm of many faults, caused by many people with 'D and 'R behind their name, for all sorts of nonsensical reasons, and across a very long period of time. To suggest that it is all or nothing on either party or some piece of legislation is hyper-partisan buffoonery.

I am probably well north of 50 books, studies, and detailed analysis pieces of all the implications of all the elements that lead up to the crash and it is beyond obvious that there is no single silver bullet we can recover and say that is the one that killed it all.

I think you can point to 3 major factors that had any one of them been in place it would have majorly lessened the damage of the housing crisis.
 
I think you can point to 3 major factors that had any one of them been in place it would have majorly lessened the damage of the housing crisis.

Well, you went there. Which 3 are you referring to? (And bonus chance... put them in order of importance please.)
 
Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac | Thomas Jefferson Street | US News

Everyone wants to blame the Republicans but the fault belongs to the Democrats. US News and World Report is not Fox News.

Everyone??? God no, I never have. And actually most Dems I know have blamed BOTH sides, AND the banks for the bubble.

IMO it's mostly the Republicans who only want to blame 1 side. You see that here all the time. They'll point to Clinton signing Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which many believe helped cause the bubble and crash, and there is truth to that. But of course they won't mention that those 3 names on that act---Are all Republican Senators.
 
Well, you went there. Which 3 are you referring to? (And bonus chance... put them in order of importance please.)

1. Regulating derivatives
2. The Fed's easy money policy
3. Regulating bond rating agencies

There were plenty of other problems but they either couldn't be prevented or would have been stopped/lessened with the aforementioned.
 
US News and World Report is not Fox News.
Michael D. Barone (born September 19, 1944) is an American conservative political analyst, pundit and journalist. ...... Barone is also a regular commentator on United States elections and political trends for the Fox News Channel. In April 2009, Barone joined the Washington Examiner, leaving his position of 18 years at US News and World Report.[4] He is based at the American Enterprise Institute as a resident fellow.
 
Just when you thought the debate was settling down on this... :doh

Anyway, it would be foolish of us all to say the Mortgage Bubble or Financial Collapse was the exclusive fault of Republicans, or Democrats, or CRM, or Deregulation, or any other single factor. It was a perfect storm of many faults, caused by many people with 'D and 'R behind their name, for all sorts of nonsensical reasons, and across a very long period of time. To suggest that it is all or nothing on either party or some piece of legislation is hyper-partisan buffoonery.

OS, I don't think blaming Bush is hyper-partisan or buffoonery. I agree that conservatives who blame Carter, Clinton or Frank are hyper-partisans and buffoons. But the mortgage bubble started 4 years into bush's presidency because of his policies and regulation. Now if you want to argue that the republican congress is partly to blame too you could make a case but that doesn't make me a hyper-partisan and buffoon. there are still some hyper-partisans and buffoons who think democrats controlled congress.

I am probably well north of 50 books, studies, and detailed analysis pieces of all the implications of all the elements that lead up to the crash and it is beyond obvious that there is no single silver bullet we can recover and say that is the one that killed it all.

bad mortgages are that silver bullet. No bad mortgages then no credit crunch, no recession, no financial crisis, no Great Bush Recession. what caused the bad mortgages?
 
OS, I don't think blaming Bush is hyper-partisan or buffoonery. I agree that conservatives who blame Carter, Clinton or Frank are hyper-partisans and buffoons. But the mortgage bubble started 4 years into bush's presidency because of his policies and regulation. Now if you want to argue that the republican congress is partly to blame too you could make a case but that doesn't make me a hyper-partisan and buffoon. there are still some hyper-partisans and buffoons who think democrats controlled congress.

bad mortgages are that silver bullet. No bad mortgages then no credit crunch, no recession, no financial crisis, no Great Bush Recession. what caused the bad mortgages?

You are going down a partisan rant, and making a terrible assumption that there are no prerequisites to the housing bubble "4 years into bush's presidency." Worse you ask a question about bad mortgages as if that entirely revolves around Bush and 107th - 109th Congresses.

That is not the case. For instance, deregulation predates that and so does Fed involvement.

Again, as I said, "It was a perfect storm of many faults, caused by many people with 'D and 'R behind their name, for all sorts of nonsensical reasons, and across a very long period of time."

If you want to go down the it was all Republican's fault be my guest. But it will be devoid of basic economics, actual conditions prior to Bush 43 getting into office, and all those parties involved going back a long way that set the stage for this mess.
 
Besides, didn't the Housing Act that started (or at least set the stage for) all the "sub-prime" madness get signed by Clinton?
 
Posting a bunch of provocatively-titled threads isn't going to make you relevant, you know. You are still ignorant about all of these topics.

There you go with the insults again. That's all you have in your bag is insults instead of arguments. I see instead of commenting and making a coherent argument on the thread subject you would rather just insult people, which makes you the ignorant one. Same for MMI. Instead of making even one post in the thread making an argument he would rather like your insulting post.
 
Last edited:
There you go with the insults again. That's all you have in your bag is insults instead of arguments. I see instead of commenting and making a coherent argument on the thread subject you would rather just insult people, which makes you the ignorant one.

You offer nothing to respond to. You link to an article, pick a thread title meant to anger people, and offer not one shred of your own commentary. You are an empty vessel.

You obviously wanted a response, and you got one. If you don't like getting insulted, then post something meaningful to respond to, for once.
 
You are still ignorant about all of these topics.

Yes, as evidenced by the fact that in the OP he offers nothing but a link. No excerpt, no comment, nothing but a lame attempt to support the source, which, as has been noted, was written by Bonehead Barone, a regular Faux contributor and a writer for the far-right Washington Examiner. Barone left US News when the Negro became POTUS, headed for the greener grass of RW hate media.

>>provocatively-titled threads isn't going to make you relevant

I'll note in passing that there's no hyphen in "provocatively entitled."

Compounds formed by an adverb ending in ly plus an adjective or participle (such as largely irrelevant or smartly dressed) are not hyphenated either before or after a noun, since ambiguity is virtually impossible. (The ly ending with adverbs signals to the reader that the next word will be another modifier, not a noun.) (Chicago Manual of Style)​

Of course it wouldn't be English without exceptions.

The adverb in "a sharply worded reprimand" does not take a hyphen, but the one in "a not-so-sharply-worded reprimand" does. The adverb itself isn't taking a hyphen, but the whole phrase "not-so-sharply-worded" is a gigantic [phrasal] adjective. (source)​

all you have in your bag is insults instead of arguments.

We all know that isn't true. John acts like an adult in this community, only disparaging posters when his patience has run out.

>>instead of commenting and making a coherent argument on the thread subject you would rather just insult people

Where's yer friggin' "comment" or "argument." All you posted is a link and some of yer usual whining.

>>which makes you the ignorant one.

Which makes you the one with nothing useful to contribute, no even a Fentonian pile of crap.

>>Same for MMI. Instead of making even one post in the thread making an argument he would rather like your insulting post.

How do you know I haven't posted here before? Are you back to pretending to Ignore me?

You are an empty vessel.

I'd say more like a sunken vessel, an unsalvageable wreck.
 
Last edited:
Shhhh!!!!!! You'll ruin the fantasy and spoil the false narrative!

Their fault ? Meh, they definitlely played a HUGE part in it thats for sure.

Clinton suing banks into abandoning their lending standards and his co-opting the GSEs into buying maasive amounts of Subprime loans and Securities through his " affordable lending " quotas and his appointing his corrupt Democrat buddies to run the GSEs into the ground ( Franklin Raines ) was huge.

Of-course there's allot of people that still think the Housing bubble happened under Bush's watch but they're typically low information Hillary supporters who blame the Banks anyway.

You literallycant teach them anything new
 
OS, I don't think blaming Bush is hyper-partisan or buffoonery. I agree that conservatives who blame Carter, Clinton or Frank are hyper-partisans and buffoons. But the mortgage bubble started 4 years into bush's presidency because of his policies and regulation. Now if you want to argue that the republican congress is partly to blame too you could make a case but that doesn't make me a hyper-partisan and buffoon. there are still some hyper-partisans and buffoons who think democrats controlled congress.



bad mortgages are that silver bullet. No bad mortgages then no credit crunch, no recession, no financial crisis, no Great Bush Recession. what caused the bad mortgages?



1999.....

Franklin Raines Celebrates Fannie Mae reaching its 1Trillion dollar goal early !
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fannie-mae-to-meet-1-trillion-goal-early-ceo-raines-launches-ten-year-2-trillion-american-dream-commitment-to-help-close-homeownership-gaps-and-strengthen-communities-73104592.html

1999.....
Andrew Cuomo commits GSE's to 2.4 Trillion dollars in Subrpime purchases.
HUD Archives: Cuomo Announces Action to Provide $2.4 Trillion in Mortgages for Affordable Housing for 28.1 Million Families
 
Last edited:
Shhhh!!!!!! You'll ruin the fantasy and spoil the false narrative!

Ah, yes, the socialist propaganda.

I owned stock in a small family bank. They were harassed by the feds for not giving mortgages to deadbeats who's financial history indicated they wouldn't pay or their financial status indicated they couldn't pay. The bank quit issuing credit cards because they were told they had to issue credit cards to deadbeats who wouldn't pay.

A month ago the bank sold out. I suspect a large part of the problem is that small banks to bribe politicians like Wells Fargo, Smith Barney, and Fannie Mae do.
 
You are going down a partisan rant, and making a terrible assumption that there are no prerequisites to the housing bubble "4 years into bush's presidency." Worse you ask a question about bad mortgages as if that entirely revolves around Bush and 107th - 109th Congresses.

That is not the case. For instance, deregulation predates that and so does Fed involvement.

Again, as I said, "It was a perfect storm of many faults, caused by many people with 'D and 'R behind their name, for all sorts of nonsensical reasons, and across a very long period of time."

first off OS, that was no rant. That was simply me pointing out your vague and empty rhetoric. Second, for someone who so eagerly touted their "expertise" on the subject, I was expecting something a little more that you simply repeating your vague and empty rhetoric. I've heard the "many actors" "many factors" "perfect storm" " a bunch of stuff from anybody but Bush" thousands of times but I've never gotten any specifics that could explain "dramatically lower lending standards starting late 2004".

And look, you did the "vague and empty rhetoric" to blame deregulation before Bush. OS, I wasn't posting vague and empty rhetoric to blame Bush for deregulation. I was referring to Bush preempting all state laws against predatory lending. And Bush's policy was especially toxic because they said it preempted state laws even for state chartered banks if they were affiliated with a national bank. And the "regulation" part of the Bush Mortgage Bubble was not only did Bush's regulators encourage these Bush Loans, they were fighting with state regulators who were trying to stop them. so basically a mortgage bubble based on predatory loans starts shortly after Bush preempts all state laws against predatory lending. Surely you came across this at some in your "research" of the subject?

Here's the funny part. When the OCC preempted all state laws against predatory lending, they did so with the explicitly stated purpose of increasing subprime loans.
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.”

http://www.occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/economics-working-papers/2008-2000/wp2004-4.pdf

The OCC's job is make sure banks operate in a safe and sound manner. Not to encourage a particular style of lending.

If you want to go down the it was all Republican's fault be my guest. But it will be devoid of basic economics, actual conditions prior to Bush 43 getting into office, and all those parties involved going back a long way that set the stage for this mess.

Already did OS. And just like you, conservatives couldn't post anything factual or relevant to explain "dramatically lower lending standards starting late 2004" in that thread either

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...-bush-mortgage-bubble-faqs-w-1083-1531-a.html

So OS, please enlighten us with your explanation of how "dramatically lower lending standards starting late 2004" is anybody but Bush's fault. Repeating "nuh uh, it was a bunch of stuff" over and over is not going to prove I'm the hyper partisan and buffoon.
 
Ah, yes, the socialist propaganda.

I owned stock in a small family bank. They were harassed by the feds for not giving mortgages to deadbeats who's financial history indicated they wouldn't pay or their financial status indicated they couldn't pay. The bank quit issuing credit cards because they were told they had to issue credit cards to deadbeats who wouldn't pay.

A month ago the bank sold out. I suspect a large part of the problem is that small banks to bribe politicians like Wells Fargo, Smith Barney, and Fannie Mae do.

Pat, your attempt at posting an anecdotal story to prove your point is a fail. You've literally posted a mish mosh of conservative narratives you believe but don't understand to try to make a point. The false conservative narrative is that the mean ole feds made poor little banks give mortgages to deadbeats.
 
Pat, your attempt at posting an anecdotal story to prove your point is a fail. You've literally posted a mish mosh of conservative narratives you believe but don't understand to try to make a point. The false conservative narrative is that the mean ole feds made poor little banks give mortgages to deadbeats.

Lending standards were " dramatically lowered " long before 2004 VERN...

1998...
Janet Reno's Remarks in front of the Community Reinvestment Coalition...
https://www.justice.gov/archive/ag/speeches/1998/0320_agcom.htm

Suing banks and forcing them to lower their lending standards started in the early 90's VERN. There's Janet Reno bragging about the numerous SUCCESSFUL DOJ lawsuites against lenders.

1999.....
Franklin Raines Celebrates Fannie Reaching 1 Trillion Dollar Goal Early ?
Fannie Mae to Meet $1 Trillion Goal Early; CEO Raines Launches Ten-Year $2 Trillion ?American Dream

Wow, Fannie Mae was able to reach their " affordable lending goal " early by buying prime loans VERN ? Lol ! Of-course not.

They were buying trash loans. In fact, VERN the first large scale securitization of Subprime loans happened in 1997 when Freddie Mac guaranteed 380 Million dollars worth of Subprime loans.

That happened BEFORE 2004.


So.. .
Homeownership rate in 1993 ???
63 %

Homeonwership rate in 2000 ???
68%

A 5% increase under Clinton

Homeownership rate in 2008 ?
69 %

A 1% increase under Bush
 
They were harassed by the feds for not giving mortgages to deadbeats who's financial history indicated they wouldn't pay or their financial status indicated they couldn't pay.

BS. Or is "deadbeat" in this context synonymous with Negro and wetback?
 
Ah, yes, the socialist propaganda.

I owned stock in a small family bank. They were harassed by the feds for not giving mortgages to deadbeats who's financial history indicated they wouldn't pay or their financial status indicated they couldn't pay. The bank quit issuing credit cards because they were told they had to issue credit cards to deadbeats who wouldn't pay.

A month ago the bank sold out. I suspect a large part of the problem is that small banks to bribe politicians like Wells Fargo, Smith Barney, and Fannie Mae do.

And the Dodd-Frank, which was to end 'Too Big To Fail' did exactly the opposite, raising the cost of regulatory compliance to the point that small banks couldn't afford it, and only creating ever more 'too big to fail' banks. Kinda like how ObamaCare promised everything and is now imploding.

Why can't Democratic politicians be honest about the bills they are supporting? Instead of relying on a continuous stream of grifting?
 
Back
Top Bottom