Reagan/Bush & Bush/Cheney fraudulent home loan schemes strike fear in voters for real

merrill

Gold Member
Dec 27, 2011
2,443
1,015
198
Because it has become an established standard operating procedure(SOP). This pattern spells RINO dominated behind the scenes agenda. Can this be documented?

Of course:

* Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers many many $$ trillions (Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion), Plus millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance.
The Bush family and the S&L (Savings and Loan) Scandal

* Bailing out the Bush/Cheney Home Loan Wall Street Bank Fraud cost consumers $ trillions, millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. Exactly like the Reagan/Bush home loan scam. Déjà vu can we say. Yep seems to be a pattern.
What is the difference between a Ponzi scheme and a housing bubble? | Dollars & Sense

* Bush/Cheney implied more than ONLY 3 financial institutions instead of several were at risk so why $700 billion in bail out money? One of the biggest lies perpetrated to American citizens. Where did this money go? Why were some banks forced to take bail out money?
"Good Billions After Bad" - One Year After Wall Street Bailout, Pulitzer Winners Barlett and Steele Investigate Where All the Money Went


In the end big debt and super duper bailouts were the results which does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power.
 
Because it has become an established standard operating procedure(SOP). This pattern spells RINO dominated behind the scenes agenda. Can this be documented?

Of course:

* Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers many many $$ trillions (Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion), Plus millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance.
The Bush family and the S&L (Savings and Loan) Scandal

* Bailing out the Bush/Cheney Home Loan Wall Street Bank Fraud cost consumers $ trillions, millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. Exactly like the Reagan/Bush home loan scam. Déjà vu can we say. Yep seems to be a pattern.
What is the difference between a Ponzi scheme and a housing bubble? | Dollars & Sense

* Bush/Cheney implied more than ONLY 3 financial institutions instead of several were at risk so why $700 billion in bail out money? One of the biggest lies perpetrated to American citizens. Where did this money go? Why were some banks forced to take bail out money?
"Good Billions After Bad" - One Year After Wall Street Bailout, Pulitzer Winners Barlett and Steele Investigate Where All the Money Went


In the end big debt and super duper bailouts were the results which does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power.

Corporate welfare, as American as a maggoty rotten apple pie.
 
Funny how you leave out Carter and Clinton, the one's respectively who established the CRA and put the screws to banks to make the loans under provisions of the CRA....

FAIL.
 
Because it has become an established standard operating procedure(SOP). This pattern spells RINO dominated behind the scenes agenda. Can this be documented?

Of course:

* Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers many many $$ trillions (Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion), Plus millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance.
The Bush family and the S&L (Savings and Loan) Scandal

* Bailing out the Bush/Cheney Home Loan Wall Street Bank Fraud cost consumers $ trillions, millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. Exactly like the Reagan/Bush home loan scam. Déjà vu can we say. Yep seems to be a pattern.
What is the difference between a Ponzi scheme and a housing bubble? | Dollars & Sense

* Bush/Cheney implied more than ONLY 3 financial institutions instead of several were at risk so why $700 billion in bail out money? One of the biggest lies perpetrated to American citizens. Where did this money go? Why were some banks forced to take bail out money?
"Good Billions After Bad" - One Year After Wall Street Bailout, Pulitzer Winners Barlett and Steele Investigate Where All the Money Went


In the end big debt and super duper bailouts were the results which does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power.

Corporate welfare, as American as a maggoty rotten apple pie.

Sadly, true capitalism would never have allowed TARP and the notion of "too big to fail".
 
Because it has become an established standard operating procedure(SOP). This pattern spells RINO dominated behind the scenes agenda. Can this be documented?

Of course:

* Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers many many $$ trillions (Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion), Plus millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance.
The Bush family and the S&L (Savings and Loan) Scandal

* Bailing out the Bush/Cheney Home Loan Wall Street Bank Fraud cost consumers $ trillions, millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. Exactly like the Reagan/Bush home loan scam. Déjà vu can we say. Yep seems to be a pattern.
What is the difference between a Ponzi scheme and a housing bubble? | Dollars & Sense

* Bush/Cheney implied more than ONLY 3 financial institutions instead of several were at risk so why $700 billion in bail out money? One of the biggest lies perpetrated to American citizens. Where did this money go? Why were some banks forced to take bail out money?
"Good Billions After Bad" - One Year After Wall Street Bailout, Pulitzer Winners Barlett and Steele Investigate Where All the Money Went


In the end big debt and super duper bailouts were the results which does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power.

For the love of all that is holy to you, please learn to think before you post. You are making yourself look ridiculous.
 
Funny how you leave out Carter and Clinton, the one's respectively who established the CRA and put the screws to banks to make the loans under provisions of the CRA....

FAIL.

How come these carefully outlined home loan frauds do not surface during the Carter and Clinton administrations?

Are you saying directives to banks that stated fraud is a legal tool exist in whatever document you offered up? Show me....
 
Last edited:
Funny how you leave out Carter and Clinton, the one's respectively who established the CRA and put the screws to banks to make the loans under provisions of the CRA....

FAIL.

Are you saying directives to banks that stated fraud is a legal tool exist in whatever document you offered up? Show me....

Serious question. How do you manage to get though your entire life without having a single thought for yourself?
 
Starting in 2003, George W. Bush destroyed the world economy by encouraging U.S. banks to make loans to those who could not afford them, through schemes such as the "American Dream Downpayment Initiative".

Also through the destruction of oversight, such as lawsuits to prevent state securities laws from being enforced on Bush's watch.

Once Bush's policies led to their inevitable result of economic collapse, the United States found itself in a situation where it had to take on debt in order to restore the economy.

ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details
 
Funny how you leave out Carter and Clinton, the one's respectively who established the CRA and put the screws to banks to make the loans under provisions of the CRA....

FAIL.

Are you saying directives to banks that stated fraud is a legal tool exist in whatever document you offered up? Show me....

Serious question. How do you manage to get though your entire life without having a single thought for yourself?

Your rebuttal did not address the comments presented...
 
Funny how you leave out Carter and Clinton, the one's respectively who established the CRA and put the screws to banks to make the loans under provisions of the CRA....

FAIL.

Are you saying directives to banks that stated fraud is a legal tool exist in whatever document you offered up? Show me....

Under provisions of the CRA, ANY allegation of redlining would be sufficient to allow regulators to hold up ANY business banks had before the regulators. It was a de facto way of forcing banks to make risky loans. Now, banks like any other business, did what they had to do on the back end to mitigate the extra risk that was taken on like SISA loans, etc.

And we see what the end result was. Am I excusing the actions of some banks and some investment firms? Absolutely not. However, once again, free markets were diddled with and we see what happened... true free markets would never have allowed for SISA loans, etc. The push for everybody to own a home, coupled with cheap cash for real estate speculators and a inflated housing market created an untenable economic situation.
 
Last edited:
Are you saying directives to banks that stated fraud is a legal tool exist in whatever document you offered up? Show me....

Serious question. How do you manage to get though your entire life without having a single thought for yourself?

Your rebuttal did not address the comments presented...

This topic has been discussed ad infinitum on this forum. You have provided nothing of substance, no non-partisan new information... just yet more partisan crap which, I assume, you think is sufficient to base an opinion.

You're ridiculous.
 
Often, government plays a role in bubbles. The housing bubble was in part generated by the Federal Reserve maintaining low interest rates. Easy money meant readily obtainable loans and, at least in the short run, low monthly payments.

Also, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan denied the housing bubble’s existence—not fraud exactly, but deception that kept the bubble going. (Greenspan, whose view was ideologically driven, got support in his bubble denial from the academic work of the man who was to be his successor, Ben Bernanke.)

In addition, government regulatory agencies turned a blind eye to the highly risky practices of financial firms, practices that both encouraged the development of the bubble and made the impact all the worse when it burst.

Moreover, the private rating agencies (e.g., Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s) were complicit. Dependent on the financial institutions for their fees, they gave excessively good ratings to these risky investments. Perhaps not fraud in the legal sense, but certainly misleading.

During the 1990s, the government made tax law changes that contributed to the emergence of the housing bubble. With the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, a couple could gain up to $500,000 selling their home without any capital gains tax liability (half that for a single person).

Previously, capital gains taxes could be avoided only if the proceeds were used to buy another home or if the seller was over 55 (and a couple could then avoid taxes only on the first $250,000). So buying and then selling houses became a more profitable operation.

And, yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities ignoring their regulatory responsibilities.

Dollars and Sense
 
Often, government plays a role in bubbles. The housing bubble was in part generated by the Federal Reserve maintaining low interest rates. Easy money meant readily obtainable loans and, at least in the short run, low monthly payments.

Also, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan denied the housing bubble’s existence—not fraud exactly, but deception that kept the bubble going. (Greenspan, whose view was ideologically driven, got support in his bubble denial from the academic work of the man who was to be his successor, Ben Bernanke.)

In addition, government regulatory agencies turned a blind eye to the highly risky practices of financial firms, practices that both encouraged the development of the bubble and made the impact all the worse when it burst.

Moreover, the private rating agencies (e.g., Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s) were complicit. Dependent on the financial institutions for their fees, they gave excessively good ratings to these risky investments. Perhaps not fraud in the legal sense, but certainly misleading.

During the 1990s, the government made tax law changes that contributed to the emergence of the housing bubble. With the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, a couple could gain up to $500,000 selling their home without any capital gains tax liability (half that for a single person).

Previously, capital gains taxes could be avoided only if the proceeds were used to buy another home or if the seller was over 55 (and a couple could then avoid taxes only on the first $250,000). So buying and then selling houses became a more profitable operation.

And, yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities ignoring their regulatory responsibilities.

Dollars and Sense

I agree with most of what you said.. but you lose me at the idea the people were duped into borrowing money they could never afford to repay. When you take on a mortgage, BY LAW, you are apprised over every aspect of that loan from the rate of interest, to the term of the loan and the payment terms. If you have $1,500 disposable income, a $2,000 mortage probably isn't going to work out well.
 
If clients obviously could not afford to buy properties why did financial institutions sign off on the loans?

There is nothing in writing suggesting the institutions had to make such loans if the money was not there to justify any such loan.

None of which could have proceeded without government regulatory agencies turning a blind eye.
 
Yup, its all those evil Republicans' fault. The Dems have never supported such bailouts.


Wait a minute...
 
If clients obviously could not afford to buy properties why did financial institutions sign off on the loans?

There is nothing in writing suggesting the institutions had to make such loans if the money was not there to justify any such loan.

None of which could have proceeded without government regulatory agencies turning a blind eye.

I already covered that in a previous post.
 
Often, government plays a role in bubbles. The housing bubble was in part generated by the Federal Reserve maintaining low interest rates. Easy money meant readily obtainable loans and, at least in the short run, low monthly payments.

Also, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan denied the housing bubble’s existence—not fraud exactly, but deception that kept the bubble going. (Greenspan, whose view was ideologically driven, got support in his bubble denial from the academic work of the man who was to be his successor, Ben Bernanke.)

In addition, government regulatory agencies turned a blind eye to the highly risky practices of financial firms, practices that both encouraged the development of the bubble and made the impact all the worse when it burst.

Moreover, the private rating agencies (e.g., Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s) were complicit. Dependent on the financial institutions for their fees, they gave excessively good ratings to these risky investments. Perhaps not fraud in the legal sense, but certainly misleading.

During the 1990s, the government made tax law changes that contributed to the emergence of the housing bubble. With the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, a couple could gain up to $500,000 selling their home without any capital gains tax liability (half that for a single person).

Previously, capital gains taxes could be avoided only if the proceeds were used to buy another home or if the seller was over 55 (and a couple could then avoid taxes only on the first $250,000). So buying and then selling houses became a more profitable operation.

And, yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities ignoring their regulatory responsibilities.

Dollars and Sense

I agree with most of what you said.. but you lose me at the idea the people were duped into borrowing money they could never afford to repay. When you take on a mortgage, BY LAW, you are apprised over every aspect of that loan from the rate of interest, to the term of the loan and the payment terms. If you have $1,500 disposable income, a $2,000 mortage probably isn't going to work out well.

We have no idea how these individuals were duped into these situations. No matter the loans should never have been approved for any reason.
 
Often, government plays a role in bubbles. The housing bubble was in part generated by the Federal Reserve maintaining low interest rates. Easy money meant readily obtainable loans and, at least in the short run, low monthly payments.

Also, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan denied the housing bubble’s existence—not fraud exactly, but deception that kept the bubble going. (Greenspan, whose view was ideologically driven, got support in his bubble denial from the academic work of the man who was to be his successor, Ben Bernanke.)

In addition, government regulatory agencies turned a blind eye to the highly risky practices of financial firms, practices that both encouraged the development of the bubble and made the impact all the worse when it burst.

Moreover, the private rating agencies (e.g., Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s) were complicit. Dependent on the financial institutions for their fees, they gave excessively good ratings to these risky investments. Perhaps not fraud in the legal sense, but certainly misleading.

During the 1990s, the government made tax law changes that contributed to the emergence of the housing bubble. With the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, a couple could gain up to $500,000 selling their home without any capital gains tax liability (half that for a single person).

Previously, capital gains taxes could be avoided only if the proceeds were used to buy another home or if the seller was over 55 (and a couple could then avoid taxes only on the first $250,000). So buying and then selling houses became a more profitable operation.

And, yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities ignoring their regulatory responsibilities.

Dollars and Sense

You know who else was complicit? Barney Franks, Chris Dodds and a whole cluster of other Democrats.

Long ago, I did a post laying out the guilt on both sides of the aisle, outlining how both sides played a substantial part in the housing debacle. Difference between your post and mine... mine was non partisan, honest, contained rational, independent thought... and blamed ALL those responsible... not some partisan bullshit whining about the GOP.

You should be ashamed of your lack of intellect.
 
Yup, its all those evil Republicans' fault. The Dems have never supported such bailouts.


Wait a minute...

It all started under Bush when that asshole Paulsen said the world was coming to an end in 72 hours if we didn't go with the bailouts... then the Dems come in and double down on the same stupidity.
 
Often, government plays a role in bubbles. The housing bubble was in part generated by the Federal Reserve maintaining low interest rates. Easy money meant readily obtainable loans and, at least in the short run, low monthly payments.

Also, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan denied the housing bubble’s existence—not fraud exactly, but deception that kept the bubble going. (Greenspan, whose view was ideologically driven, got support in his bubble denial from the academic work of the man who was to be his successor, Ben Bernanke.)

In addition, government regulatory agencies turned a blind eye to the highly risky practices of financial firms, practices that both encouraged the development of the bubble and made the impact all the worse when it burst.

Moreover, the private rating agencies (e.g., Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s) were complicit. Dependent on the financial institutions for their fees, they gave excessively good ratings to these risky investments. Perhaps not fraud in the legal sense, but certainly misleading.

During the 1990s, the government made tax law changes that contributed to the emergence of the housing bubble. With the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, a couple could gain up to $500,000 selling their home without any capital gains tax liability (half that for a single person).

Previously, capital gains taxes could be avoided only if the proceeds were used to buy another home or if the seller was over 55 (and a couple could then avoid taxes only on the first $250,000). So buying and then selling houses became a more profitable operation.

And, yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities ignoring their regulatory responsibilities.

Dollars and Sense

I agree with most of what you said.. but you lose me at the idea the people were duped into borrowing money they could never afford to repay. When you take on a mortgage, BY LAW, you are apprised over every aspect of that loan from the rate of interest, to the term of the loan and the payment terms. If you have $1,500 disposable income, a $2,000 mortage probably isn't going to work out well.

We have no idea how these individuals were duped into these situations. No matter the loans should never have been approved for any reason.

Of course not... but when regulators can hold up any business you have before them on a mere allegation of redlining... well here we are.

This notion of it's all Reagan, Bush & Cheney's (Dick Cheney???) fault is ridiculous.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top