Economic collapse of 2008 Democrat's fault, not Bush's

PatriotNews,

Who is the raven haired women with the bare back in your avatar photo?


I ALMOST recognize the picture and it is driving me NUTS!

 

The crisis was caused by the ordinary development of capitalism, these crises will recur and get worse every time until the complete collapse of the system.

And the next crises on the horizon? China's real estate bubble (the biggest one in history) will send shock waves around the world's economies, and react with existing economic crises like the eurozone - tipping them over the edge.

 

The republicans aren't alone there. Remind us who rescued Bear Sterns.

It played some role; it encouraged banks to lend to those they otherwise wouldn't, it's party of the entire tail about a lack of prudence

Are you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dense? I'm not defending ANYONE, no need, there's plenty of blame to go around. What's pathetic is you turning a blind eye to how your "team" participated in the events. I'm neither republic or democrat and don't get a crap about either one of them, but to say that both weren't involved is objectively false.

Going to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) foot around my moral hazard argument again or you think you might try responding to it this time?

 

That's Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro, President Barack Obama's mother.

Her nude photos have been on the internet since before he was elected, but the major news media has covered it up.

 

Again with the "everyone does it" defense. Maybe you should take a pass on commenting on American politics if you don't understand this country or our politics or economy.

 

Seriously?
You believe what you wrote, even though none of your links back it up? (other than the nut bag malkin, which only idiots swallow anyway.)
You've ODS in a very bad way man.

 

Good gawd, are you really this uninformed at this stage of the game?
Look up 'Glass-steigle' and educate yourself!
You obviously have no clue what you are whining about and only parrot the right wing party line in hopes it makes you look smart......it doesn't it makes you look like an idiot.

 

That would be bush the failure, but we aren't talking bailout here.

The CRA did no such thing, in any way shape or form and I defy you or anyone else to prove that it did.
Show me the language....you can't because it isn't there.

 

LOL!!
Man you will swallow anything won't you?
I've got a few bridges I would like to sell you, seriously Obama gave them to me so I can sell them to you for a great price!

 

Nope, not that simple. Maybe next post you can try addressing my claim instead of hiding behind childish comments like this.

I am, my point is that the bailouts that occurred during the S&L crisis set the stage for the lack of prudence in the financial markets. Creditors had an implicit guarantee against default, and as we now know that imply was explicit, not implicit.

It was the entire goal of the CRA to encourage banks to lend to potential homeowners, many of whom were low income and may not have otherwise qualified for a loan. If a bank wishes to expand, merge etc, they need to be in compliance with the CRA. So I stand by what I said, it played a small role in encouraging banks to issue loans that they otherwise may not.

 

Ladies and gentlemen: From the guy who used to post non-stop birther threads: A thread where our esteemed PatriotNews posts about a 4 year old debunked crackpot theory for the cause of the housing market like it's news. Does this man not understand what expert opinion means? Or will he keep getting his information from right wing blogs? Stay tuned to find out!

 

But not much of a role at all in why those loans failed. There was literally no correlation between the CRA and the housing crash. Most CRA loans turned out fine.

 

Agreed, hence why I keep saying small role. My contention is that the CRA encouraged behavior that is counter to the natural incentives that banks have to write good loans, and that is consistent with my more broad assertion that the crux of the housing crisis occurred as a result of moral hazard problem that dates back to at least the Savings and Loan crisis.

 

The CRA did indeed help create the housing crisis.
The CRA is a moral hazard, which means you lose and the other guy, the connected guy, the one who glad hands politicians, gets the proifts.


good article that might help/
http://articles.businessinsider.com...ge-standards-lending-standards-mortgage-rates

1The Creation Of Artificial Demand For Low-Income Mortgages.
Banks that were regulated by the CRA often found it difficult to meet their obligations under the CRA directly. Long standing lending practices by local loan officers were a big problem. But as banks expanded their deposit bases and other businesses, they often found that they were at risk of regulators discovering they had fallen behind in making CRA loans.

2 The Threat Of Regulation Is Often As Good As Regulation.
It is highly misleading to claim that just because mortgage companies were not technically under the CRA that they were not required by regulators to meet similar tests. In fact, regulators threatened that if the mortgage companies didn’t step up to the plate by relaxing lending standards they would be brought under the CRA umbrella and required to do so.

3 The CRA Distorted the Mortgage Market.
With banks offering mortgages with high loan to value, delayed payment schedules and other enticing features, the mortgage companies would have quickly found themselves unable to compete if they didn’t offer similar loans.

 

Good gawd, are you really this uninformed at this stage of the game?
Look up Glass–Steagall Act and educate yourself!
You obviously have no clue what you are whining about and only parrot the left wing party line in hopes it makes you look smart......it doesn't it makes you look like an idiot.

I'm well aware of what Glass-Steagall is, and what it does. Yes, it was deregulated, on a bi-partisan vote by both parties and signed by President Bill Clinton.

Were they wrong to repeal it, in hindsight yes. Did it cause the collapse of the housing market, no. It contrbuted to the risky financial investing and impliments in a much broader banking market. When the real estate bubble burst, it affected a greater number of institutions.

 

some people are in denial about the facts.He still refuses to acknowledge the truth that Reagan was one of the most corrupt evil presidents in history even though he got taken to school on that on his thread and humiliated over it.

 

exactly.well said.

so very true.the fed is an evil entitiy we need to get rid of to be a free country again.

 

If your saying FLIP FLOP Romney will be any different than Obama then you are clueless.the proof is in the pudding.

http://www.politicalforum.com/elect...ns-why-you-fool-if-you-vote-obama-romney.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38

 

What is it about Bush and de-regulation that you are not quite understanding?

 

Ive never seen him post non stop birther threads but anybody who cant accept the facts that Obama is not a us citizen is living in denial and part of the problem why america is in the mess it is.Nobody should take this thread seriously only cause of the fact that this is a guy who got taken to school and his arse handed to him on a platter that Reagan contrary to what he wants to believe,was one of the most evil and corrupt presidents ever.

 

I have asked but have not seen any Bush era de-regulations that contributed to the economic recession caused by the burst of the housing bubble. Can you tell us what they were?

 

You are free to hold that opinion, no matter how wrong it may be.
The only reason a bank, any bank loans money to anyone is to make money, they care nothing about morals, they only care about money.
When Glass-steagle was repealed by the right wing, deregulating the banking industry, it allowed Wall Street to get into the residential housing market.
It was wall street that enticed the banks to write more and more loans, it wasn't good loans over bad loans, it was volume, wall street needed more loans to buy and trade.
The banks soon noticed that they could no longer write 'good' loans and they didn't need to, before the ink was dry they sold them,at a profit, so what did they care about repayment....they didn't and neither did wall street.
The more houses sold, the more the prices went up, and everyone wanted in on the fun, just like that we had ourselves a genuine bubble.

The CRA and fanny and freddy were the rightwings scape goats, it's what they used, lied about, over and over and over they only they can do, to take the heat off deregulation...their love child.

So hold whatever opinion you want, the truth remains the truth.

 

bush the failure was worse than deregulation he ignored what few laws that were left.
He instructed the SEC and other regulators to close their eyes and do nothing, ever hear of Berny Maddoff?
How do you think that and others got away with it for so long?
Were/are you so blind that you can't see what is right in front of you?
Or are you really that partisan?

 

Look up 'moral hazard' then read this page and learn why your notions are full of silliness. Here's another look at how CRA created moral hazard.

http://articles.businessinsider.com...42_1_cra-lending-standards-mortgage-companies

http://articles.businessinsider.com...ge-standards-lending-standards-mortgage-rates

There is clear evidence the CRA contrubuted to the meltdown.

And for further reding. Tom Woods wrote a book called Meltdown.

 

What Bush failure? What deregulation? What instructions to the SEC? Berny Maddoff??? What does this have to do with the financial collapse? You fail to mention any specifics, proof, links, or evidence. Please explain the connection to the housing bubble and relation to the financial collapse.

I can see that you have not supported any of your arguments.

Economics is more about math than partisanship. Do the math, follow the money.