FACTS on Dubya's great recession

The Bush Administration repeatedly blocked Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE) reform. In the 108th Congress, the House Financial Services Committee reached an agreement to markup legislation originally scheduled for October 8, 2003. However, on October 7, 2003, the Treasury Department announced its opposition to this agreement, killing progress on GSE reform. (Congressional Research Service, "Improving the Effectiveness of GSE Oversight: Legislative Proposals in the 108th Congress.")

https://opencrs.com/document/RL32069/

In the 109th Congress, Democrats supported bipartisan legislation drafted by the Republican Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Representative Oxley, which would have given the new GSE regulator broad authority over setting capital requirements and limiting portfolio size. This bill passed the House 331-90. Senate Democrats supported and offered the bill in the Senate, but the Bush Administration opposed it and the bill did not receive Republican support in the Senate. According to Mr. Oxley, the White House gave Congress and the GSE reform legislation "a one-finger salute."

·"'We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we're facing now, if we hadn't had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed,' Mr. Oxley says." (Financial Times, 9/11/0

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8780c35e-7e91-11dd-b1af-000077b07658.html#axzz2n1xnmkQf

·GSE reform "wasn't a priority of this Administration's. They quite frankly put it on the back burner. And now we see what we have." (Douglas Holtz-Eakin, NPR, 9/16/0

http://m.npr.org/story/94658962


George W. Bush was a major proponent of the kind of mortgages that banks had started making under the CRA. He urged low-to-no doc mortgages and the elimination of downpayments, just like the CRA regulators had long done. “We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,” the President said in a 2002 speech. “We can change the print, and we've got to.”





Again, the Bush Administration gutted the White Collar Crime Division after 911.

The bureau slashed its criminal investigative work force to expand its national security role after the Sept. 11 attacks, shifting more than 1,800 agents, or nearly one-third of all agents in criminal programs, to terrorism and intelligence duties. Prosecutions of frauds against financial institutions dropped 48 percent from 2000 to 2007, insurance fraud cases plummeted 75 percent, and securities fraud cases dropped 17 percent.

This is what less government can look like. So, mention this to your Ron Paul supporter friends, k? Without the help of FBI Whitecollar Investigators, the fraudsters are free to rampage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



More from the NYtimes:

During these years, the bureau asked for an increase of $800 million, but received only $50 million more. In the 2007 budget cycle, the F.B.I. obtained money for a total of one new agent for criminal investigations.


In 2004, one senior F.B.I. official, Chris Swecker, warned publicly that a flood of fraudulent mortgage deals had the potential to become “an epidemic.”

Yet the next year, as public warnings about fraud in the subprime lending markets began to approach their height, the F.B.I. had the equivalent of only 15 full-time agents devoted to mortgage fraud out of a total of some 13,000 agents in the bureau.


That number has grown to 177 agents, who have opened 1,522 cases. But the staffing level is still hundreds of agents below the levels seen in the 1980s during the savings and loan crisis.

Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:



The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.


Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to purchase more low income home loans, $440 billion in MBSs and then reversed the Clinton rule that actually reigned in Freddie and Fannie


One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2005

 

Spare the cutpaste of the same cherrypicks for the humpteenth time in the thread. Repeating them ad nausea won't make them any less cherrypicked. The Clinton Administration's hands are far dirtier in the mortgage collapse as has been well-documented in the thread.

 

The insanity of Clinton derangement syndrome is noted for Dubya's regulator failure, as I've clearly outlined here by those with functioning brains

 

The only thing you've "outlined" here is repetitive, cherry-picked cutpastes from leftist blogs and GWB derangement syndrome. No one here, certainly not me (as my last few posts make abundantly clear), ever posted that the mortgage collapse was solely due to Clinton Administration policies. I don't claim that the mortgage collapse was the sole fault of any one presidential administration because doing so would make me a complete, obvious, partisan moron.

 

Of course. It can't be Bush's fault. He was only the President of the United States and in control of the Govt administration and regulation during the entire time the housing prices blew up to their absurd level and started to implode while he pushed his expansive "Ownership Society" policies and bragged how he had increased home ownership percentages.

And it can't be the Republicans fault. They only contolled both chambers of Congress from 1995 to 2007, during the time the housing bubble blew up to its aburd levels and started imploded, and completely controlled what legislation could be brought up for vote. Or not.

It must be Clinton's fault. Even though he wasn't in office for 8 years and didn't have the power to do anything, he's a Democrat and the most successful president post WWII, so he's a good guy to blame. And the gay guy who was a minority in the House who couldn't bring up a bill to chew gum for a vote. They like to blame him too because he talked funny. And the law passed to prevent discrimination against blacks and minorities.

Their blatant partisan bias is so obvious its just a joke.

- - - Updated - - -

it's Clinton's fault?

[video=youtube;hDou01X5d28]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDou01X5d28[/video]

A brief moment of lucidity from a famous RW talking head.

 

Dealt with over and over in the thread, not refuted. Of course, the economy is a light switch, of course it is. Keep on cherry-picking and omitting necessary context from the mortgage collapse, keep on getting it flat wrong in pursuit of a half-baked, union-label partisan appeal

Incidentally, I forget more about the mortgage collapse every day than Bill O'Reilly, or any TV pundit, will ever know in their lives... or likely anyone on this forum will ever know in their lives. Unlike the cutpaste brigade here, I actually lived it for a 25 year career. But THIS man forgets more about it every day than -I- will ever know, making him godlike in comparison to OReilly and the cutpasters here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGmDSXN9N5Q

Anyone interested in a straightforward, clear, and most importantly IN CONTEXT discussion of the mortgage collapse should watch this video.

 

Gov't policy? 1990's?? lol


Federal Reserve and Fannie Freddie??? lol

PLEASE EXPLAIN THE WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE???

Please explain how F/F lost market share during Dubya's subprime bubble that has ANY credible economists who use Ed Pinto's BS numbers this wingnutter uses? Pretty please??? lol

Barney Frank huh? lol


NO ONE TAKES THIS KLOWN, OR YOU RIGHT WINGERS SERIOUSLY. NO ONE WITH A BRAIN AT LEAST

Conservatives Can’t Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis



The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.


Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed


https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2010/12/21/8832/politics-most-blatant/



Jun 16, 2005 - The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history.

The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops



NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?

According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history.

In Europe, prices have long been at dizzy heights in Ireland and Spain, but over the past year have also spurted at rates of 9% or more in France, Italy, Belgium, Denmark and Sweden. Both France (15%) and Spain (15.5%) have faster house-price inflation than the United States.


http://www.economist.com/node/4079027



Fannie, Freddie and the Right Wing Myth of a "Mortgage Meltdown"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Fa...c_Housing_Insolvency_Meltdown-150207-203.html

The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...sis-stack-up/2011/11/16/gIQA7G23cN_story.html

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

Abstract:

U.S. policymakers often treat market competition as a panacea. However, in the case of mortgage securitization, policymakers’ faith in competition is misplaced. Competitive mortgage securitization has been tried three times in U.S. history - during the 1880s, the 1920s, and the 2000s - and every time it has failed. Most recently, competition between mortgage securitizers led to a race to the bottom on mortgage underwriting standards that ended in the late 2000s financial crisis. This article provides original evidence that when competition was less intense and securitizers had more market power, securitizers acted to monitor mortgage originators and to maintain prudent underwriting. However, securitizers’ ability to monitor originators and maintain high standards was undermined as competition shifted market power away from securitizers and toward originators. Although standards declined across the market, the largest and most powerful of the mortgage securitizers, the Government Sponsored Enterprises (“GSEs”), remained more successful than other mortgage securitizers at maintaining prudent underwriting.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1924831


WEIRD HOW CONSERVATIVES NEVER ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR BAD POLICIES!

 

Background

Wallison, of course, wrote a lonely dissent from both the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission majority report and from his fellow Republican commissioners, in which he alone blamed the global financial crisis on U.S. affordable housing policies. This argument is clearly contradicted by the facts, including the following:

• Parallel bubble-bust cycles occurred outside of the residential housing markets (for example, in commercial real estate and consumer credit).
• Parallel financial crises struck other countries, which did not have analogous affordable housing policies
• The U.S. government’s market share of home mortgages was actually declining precipitously during the housing bubble of the 2000s.

These facts are irrefutable.

Wallison’s argument, which places most of the blame on the affordable housing goals of the former government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before they fell into government conservatorship in 2008, also ignores the actual delinquency rates. As David Abromowitz and I noted in December 2010:

“Mortgages originated for private securitization defaulted at much higher rates than those originated for Fannie and Freddie securitization, even when controlling for all other factors (such as the fact that Fannie and Freddie securitized virtually no subprime loans). Overall, private securitization mortgages defaulted at more than six times the rate of those originated for Fannie and Freddie securitization.”



So how did Wallison get to the conclusion that it was federal affordable housing policies that caused the crisis, despite the countervailing evidence? As Phil Angelides, chairman of the FCIC, has stated, “The source for this newfound wisdom [is] shopworn data, produced by a consultant to the corporate-funded American Enterprise Institute, which was analyzed and debunked by the FCIC Report.”

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/0...-about-the-genesis-of-the-u-s-housing-crisis/





Fannie/Freddie Market Share Plummeted During Boom

There is no way to reconcile this chart with the jihadist blatherings of folks like AEI and CATO.

The facts of the matter are simply this: During the housing boom, it was Wall Street, and their mad purchases of Sub-Prime, Alt A and non conforming loans for their privately issued securitization that drove the credit bubble. Not, as the ideologically blinded Peter Wallison claims, Fannie & Freddie.

Class dismissed.


http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/02/fannie-freddie-market-share/
\

 

Faulty Conclusions Based on Shoddy Foundations

FCIC Commissioner Peter Wallison and Other Commentators Rely on Flawed Data from Edward Pinto to Misplace the Causes of the 2008 Financial Crisis

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/02/pdf/pinto.pdf



Cato': “Should CRA Stand for 'Community Redundancy Act?'


Back in 2000, Cato had a different line on the CRA. Jeffrey Gunther wrote an article in a Cato journal arguing that the CRA should stand for “Community Redundancy Act” because competitive forces in the market made it unnecessary — lenders seeking profits would not discriminate against particular communities. Gunther cited subprime lending as an example of the type of profit-seeking innovation that made the CRA unnecessary. He noted exactly what CRA defenders argue today:

“If CRA were the driving force behind the recent increases in home-purchase lending in low-income neighborhoods, we would see evidence of a treatment effect. Lenders subject to the ‘CRA treatment’ [regulated banks] would have refocused their activity toward CRA objectives to a greater extent than lenders in the untreated control group [nonbank lenders]. However, there is little evidence of such a treatment effect. To the contrary, it was lenders in the control group that refocused their efforts in line with the mid-1990s boom in lending in low-income neighborhoods. In fact, lending in low-income neighborhoods grew faster than other types of lending at institutions not covered by CRA, whereas low-income lending grew at the same rate as other types of lending activity for CRA-covered lenders.”

Gunther’s optimism about subprime lending seems naive in hindsight, although it was shared by many prominent economists and policymakers from Alan Greenspan on down.


LOL

http://baselinescenario.com/2009/11/19/cra-bashing-nth-generation/

 

Equally bad government meddling in mortgage markets in those countries for decades in pursuit of illicit stimulus, central loose money in those countries, unwise consolidation waves in financial services fueled by graft in those countries, overbuilding in those countries just like the US. Meddling in mortgage markets to overheat an economy is hardly a US invention, and is not any kind of new thing, been going on since the advent of central banking. The factors Allison clearly lays out in the video are certainly not a US monopoly. Thanks for making MY case

But the dilemma remains, paste and repaste and repaste and repaste and repaste the above as you like, IF the US collapse was only one domino in a worldwide chain, then what happened in the US can't be the fault of only GWB policies, can it? GWB wasn't running all those other mortgage markets in all those other countries, was he? You can't have it both ways. Since there was worldwide collapse, Occam dictates that overall illicit stimulus via mortgage market meddling by central governors for decades in those countries is the simplest and most likely explanation. Or perhaps it was solely the fault of the Republicans in Whereveristan.

Illegible, incomprehensible garble that doesn't come close to making a point or forwarding any kind of cohesive argument.

I take a man at the helm of one of the largest mortgage lenders in the country during the 90s and 2000s VERY seriously... far more seriously than I take cutpasters from left wing blogs with no knowledge of the banking industry whatsoever:

http://www.cato.org/people/john-allison

Cutpaste some more left wing blogs though, as I'm sure you will.

Claiming that securitization itself had anything to do with the mortgage collapse is like claiming that whatever design is put on the back of a dollar bill causes inflation. It is a convenient boogeyman for the blameshifting Complex though, because laymen don't understand what securitization is. It's simply a pool of mortgages turned into bonds, something that was done with GNMAS in the 70s, with CMOs in the 80s and 90s (that I personally sold millions of dollars of before going into banking and law), putting the lie to the above claim from the leftsource cutpaste, and yet somehow it turned "evil" during the Bush Administration. Hogwash.

It's no secret that the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-lawyer-MSM Complex has spent BILLIONS trying to shift blame to the private sector and of course only -Republican- policy for the collapse. I believe Allison. Readers here are certainly free to draw their own conclusions.

 

All utterly irrelevant to the very real corruption of credit standards that CRA caused in a financial industry allowed to consolidate unwisely and mostly by the Clinton Administration.

Oh, and guess who gets million dollar speaking fees today? Guess who pays them?

 

Cutpaste some more LW blogs repetitively in long, incomprehensible, gibberish-filled posts as opposed to meaningfully addressing anything anyone who disagrees with you posts in any responsive way. Just block quote posts that disagree with you over and over and cutpaste the same garbage LW sources over and over. That'll surely convince people.

 

You mean Dubya's REGULATOR failure as he not only cheered on the Banksters WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST? Nah

Alison, like Wallison, AEI. CATO, etc are just lying, like most right wingers, shocking right?



Your inability to respond to this from CATO's

"“If CRA were the driving force behind the recent increases in home-purchase lending in low-income neighborhoods, we would see evidence of a treatment effect. Lenders subject to the ‘CRA treatment’ [regulated banks] would have refocused their activity toward CRA objectives to a greater extent than lenders in the untreated control group [nonbank lenders]. However, there is little evidence of such a treatment effect. To the contrary, it was lenders in the control group that refocused their efforts in line with the mid-1990s boom in lending in low-income neighborhoods. In fact, lending in low-income neighborhoods grew faster than other types of lending at institutions not covered by CRA, whereas low-income lending grew at the same rate as other types of lending activity for CRA-covered lenders.”"


lol

Everything else you posit is just more right wing garbage trying to absolve the wall street Banksters from the subprime credit bubble who even the FCIC GOP member's (except the lone liar, Wallison from AEI) agreed WASN'T do to Gov't policies. Weird right? lol



What you are ignoring is that there was a MASSIVE change in the underwriting that occurred when Fannie/Freddie/CRA lending shifted over to PLS lending. You went from generally well constructed loans (other than LTVs and FICO scores) to 2/28 interest only, negative amortizing loans. No one at Fannie/Freddie/CRA was doing these types of loans (till Dubya allowed it late 2005, to chase the PLS's) , and that fact is reflected in the default rates. Subprime was a purely private sector invention.

 

"Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated."

From my most highly sourced blog, BTW

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/11/dissecting-the-big-lie-about-the-economic-crisis/

 

Readers are encouraged to watch the Allison video, reflecting decades of real banking experience, compare to the cherry-picked unarguments and irrelevant minutiae you repetitively cutpaste, and draw their own conclusions. I agree with Allison, as every bit of my personal industry experience of over 25 years comports with his opinion... other than his Randianism... but no one is perfect.

There was no MASSIVE change in underwriting during the Bush Administration. There was a MASSIVE change in underwriting since the early 90s, and a reduction in overall credit standards over decades inflicted on an industry allowed to consolidate and centralize illicitly in exchange for quid pro quo graft still being paid off today. This is the one large factor Allison doesn't deal with because he participated in it. Overall, though, he is correct in that it was an exercise in government meddling going all the way back to the formation of the Fed.

 

That's funny, I don't care who you are, that's funny. Addlepated, ill-formed cherry-picks repeated over and over and over, mostly from LW blogs passed off as "scientific knowledge." What a hoot.

Readers, draw your own conclusions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Ritholtz

http://www.cato.org/people/john-allison

 

Brian T. Moynihan, CEO and President, Bank of America

"Over the course of this crisis, we as an industry caused a lot of damage. Never has it been clearer how mistakes made by financial companies can affect Main Street, and we need to learn the lessons of the past few years." - Testimony to Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) Washington, D.C. -- January 13, 2010


Scott Stern, CEO of Lenders One

The truth is that many of us in the industry were deeply distressed by the growing practice of pushing high risk loans on borrowers who had no reasonable expectation of being able to repay the mortgage. Disclosures were often less than adequate, and faced with a bewildering array of loan terms, borrowers tended to trust their mortgage banker or broker. The broken trust that resulted has damaged borrower confidence in the mortgage industry. I liken the situation to that of a doctor and patient dealing with a medical procedure. The patient bears some reasonable risk. But they don't bear the risk of malpractice by the doctor. In our industry, we have frankly seen too much mortgage malpractice. - Testimony before the Senate Banking Committee Washington, D.C. April 10, 2008


John Robbins, long-time industry executive and former chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association

During the lending boom, the industry developed products that were "extremely risky that were pushed by everybody up and down the food chain," Mr. Robbins said. "We forgot about our customers, and making money and our commission checks were more important," he said. Kate Berry, "Wachovia Alum Has Tips for an Industry Rebound," American Banker (September 15, 200

Mark Zandi, Chief Economist, Moody's Analytics

"Even after mortgage loans started going bad en masse, the confusing mix of federal and state agencies that made up the nation's regulatory structure had difficulty responding. After regulators finally began to speak up about subprime and the other types of mortgage loans that had spun out of control, such lending was already on its way to extinction. What regulators had to say was all but irrelevant. Yet even the combination of a flawed financial system, cash-flush global investors and lax regulators could not, by itself, have created the subprime financial shock. The essential final ingredient was hubris: a belief that the ordinary rules of economics and finance no longer applied."

Introduction to Zandi's book, Financial Shock.



What Did NOT Cause the Crisis?

http://www.responsiblelending.org/m...the-financial-crisis-quotes-from-bankers.html



Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

 

Sure, IF you "believe" Barney Frank had super powers in the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007, OR that F/F who went from 70% of the securtization market in 2003 to 40% at the peak in 2006 (as the market EXPLODED) could cause a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. Let's not critically think, just blame CRA around since 1977, and with weakened enforcement under Dubya OR F/F around for 70 years all of a sudden caused BanksterS to REQUIRE over 50% of loans to be low/no doc loans in 2006, lol , THAT'S the premise that must be accepted for the "Gubmnt did it " of guys like this, AEI AND CATO DISCIPLES!

 

Allison acknowledged as much in the video, I acknowledge the above also, as vague and meaningless as it is. It doesn't contradict anything I've posted to this thread in the least though.

Once again, freely acknowledged. No one here has said that unethical mortgage banking practices don't exist. Doesn't contradict anything I've ever posted here or in any of numerous threads on the mortgage collapse topic... not in the least. But do quote some more nebulous, nonspecific "scientific knowledge." ROFL.

Yep, just as I've stated all along, government jawboning and enforcement threats against an unwisely, illicitly consolidated and centralized industry led to risky practices throughout the entire industry, banking, mortgage brokerage, etc. Make no mistake though, gov and F&F policy got the turdball rolling. Couldn't do a better job of MAKING MY CASE if you tried. Maybe -read- some of this stuff before you blindly cutpaste it from your google search or desktop folder?

Nebulous, not dispositive of anything, reads like gobbledygook. OTOH, Allison's seasoned BANKING (not rating) analysis couldn't be clearer and more well-reasoned.

Once more, doesn't contradict anything I've posted, doesn't contradict Allison's argument... in the least.

Do keep running and googling and digging furiously through the cutpaste file and passing it off as "scientific knowledge" though. Hilarious.

 

Guys from CATO would NEVER distort or LIE right? lol

Your inability to address CATO'S takedown, in 2000 of CATO's later "Gubmnt did it meme" is noted Bubs

 

Ooo, better stick to the cutpastes after all. You don't do so well when you are trying to string words together into cohesive thoughts of your own.

- - - Updated - - -

Your inability to take whatever Cato did or said, and it's not my responsibility to puzzle that out from mounds of cherry-picked gibberish, and form it into any reasonable claim in your own words that is even worth responding to is noted "Bubs."

 

LOL, Sure Bubs, sure. Gov't policy YOU and your ilk blame was around for DECADES but all of a sudden the subprime loans grew by nearly 400% in 3 years? Gov't did that? lol

My premise is simple, honest and straight forward AND believable Bubs

Banksters created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE in place like China, Russia, (known to push bad housing policies right?, lol), NZ, Australia, Philipines,Ireland and DOZENS of nations

They did this through securitization of the mortgage market that took F/F from 70% to 40% in less than 3 years as PLS's BOOMED by almost $2 trillion


This was WHY over 50% of loans in 2005 were low/no doc loans (no one EVER seems to adress this point, weird right). This was the 2/28, liar loans, NINA, NINJA, zero rate negative amortization, etc

This in the US was CHEERED ON BY DUBYA, who not only fought ALL 50 states trying to regulate the Banksters *Dubya invoked a rule from the civil war saying BIG FED GOV'T RULED, along with ignoring regulator warnings that started in 2004 AND his other policies CLEARLY outlined in this thread.


Right wingers posit:

Gov't policy that was around for decades with weakened enforcement under Dubya (except hosing F/F with Dubya's new "goals, of course) was the reason Banksters allowed 50%+ of loans in 2005 to be liar/no doc loans, lol

 

Your dodges are noted Bubs. Keep ignoring ANYTHING that doesn't fit your predetermined Gov't did it policy in dozens of nations, NOT the Banksters ability to create MBS and sell to investors as "AAA" lol

We will let the readers decide which is more probable, Banksters creating bad loans through credit bubbles (as they did under Ronnie's S&L crisis and Harding/Coolidge's (roaring 20's that turned into the GOP first great depression) AND DUBYA'S SUBPRME CRISIS

THIS WAS THE RESULT GOV'T POLICY AROUND FOR DECADES, lol

 

Seriously, if you want anything other than a derisive response from me, you will structure your posts into paragraphs that consist of fully-formed thoughts and arguments. Until you do, it's going to be all about making fun of the "scientific knowledge" you post and repost and the rude and unresponsive way you cutpaste the same stale things over and over.

Your method of "discussion" in this thread, from start to finish, has been to entirely ignore the substance of posts responsive to your OP with "yeah well what about xyz (irrelevancies, cherry-picks or minutiae)," and then continue on cutpasting the same LW biased sources over and over almost totally unaccompanied with anything resembling your own cohesive thoughts.

 

Your dodge is noted Bubs