If GOP takes Senate, how long until 2nd Great Depression?

[Dad2three]

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

In the 90s when Clinton put the screws to financial services companies to make sub-prime loans and funded it with endless free money.

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

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative

Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture


“The Presidents Working Group’s March 2008 policy statement acknowledged that 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.”

 

[g5000]

Start with $70 trillion of investor cash, and then see how many prime borrowers you can find to borrow all that cash.

You can't do it. It's impossible.

And so you have to seek out sub-prime borrowers, and you have to convince prime borrowers to borrow more than they should.

An average schmuck might have a good credit rating, but he may only be a good risk up to $250,000. If you loan him more than that, the risk on that loan is no longer optimal. You are pushing him into higher risk of default.

This is what happened. Simple as that. Wall Street threw the underwriting laws of the Universe out the window in order to push more money into more hands in greater quantities than those borrowers could manage.

The more money they could get out there, the more fees they earned. This was the entire motive which drove the crash.

They were not forced to do this. Anyone who thinks so is a gullible idiot. Wall Street was demanding more and more deregulation to make this possible so they could feed their global financial derivatives machines.

 

[g5000]

You saw it with your own eyes, kids. In your white suburban towns. You saw your neighbors buying big houses, and then taking out instant HELOCs on those houses to buy SUVs and boats and Disney vacations.

Your neighbor Biff is not this bullshit CRA-borrower your idiotic Fox News propaganda assholes have filled your ignorant minds with.

When your neighbors started defaulting, did you say to yourself, "I had no idea Biff was a negro!"?

Huh?

Shut off your propaganda channels and go outside and open your goddammed eyes.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They were not forced to do this.

dear they were not forced becuase it seemed like a great idea. The liberals had always inflated the housing market so values always went up. If it got to a point where someone could not pay, no biggie, just sell and everyone makes a profit. Capitalism is self-correcting, but liberalism is not.

Simple enough??

 

[koshergrl]

We've been in a weak recovery since 10/2009, even with pure Pub obstruction and phony crises. Now the Pubs have cut the crappe, the rest of the world has weakened- see TODAY on Wall St.- A-HOLES and you chumps.

Can I call it, or can I call it?

Call WHAT, hater dupe. The truth you ignore? Change the gd channel.

Lol.
Psychotic. Obama acolitis.

 

[francoHFW]

, even with pure Pub obstruction .

dear, you lack the education and IQ to be here. Please explain how Republican obstruction of Barry's socialism could possible be a bad thing or admit you lack the IQ and education to be here.

Masters in World History, fluent in 3 languages, 145 IQ in 6th grade, ya silly git. Any actual arguments, brainwashed functional moron?

Masters in World History, LOL. No wonder you couldn't get a job that paid anything and turned to government.

My two masters are in business (Michigan) and Computer Science (Virginia Tech). That's after double majoring in Math and Computers at Maryland. I wanted to earn my own money.

Sorry you don't know anything about politics or history. I was in business as well as teaching. Lots of fun, but they had serious holes in ethics and politics. See sig, last line. And you are supposedly interested in politics, but you've been hijacked by greedy idiot Pubs and their bought off pundits and pols...

 

[francoHFW]

We've been in a weak recovery since 10/2009, even with pure Pub obstruction and phony crises. Now the Pubs have cut the crappe, the rest of the world has weakened- see TODAY on Wall St.- A-HOLES and you chumps.

Can I call it, or can I call it?

Call WHAT, hater dupe. The truth you ignore? Change the gd channel.

Lol.
Psychotic. Obama acolitis.

Call WHAT, brainwashed dingbat?

 

[g5000]

They were not forced to do this.

dear they were not forced becuase it seemed like a great idea. The liberals had always inflated the housing market so values always went up. If it got to a point where someone could not pay, no biggie, just sell and everyone makes a profit. Capitalism is self-correcting, but liberalism is not.

Simple enough??

"If it got to a point where someone could not pay, no biggie, just sell and everyone makes a profit." It is precisely this idiotic reasoning which led to the crash. When the market is in a bubble, sooner or later you run out of bigger fools to sell to, dimwit. And that is what brought the house down, literally.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

If we should take a giant leap backwards and put the party of greed and excess back in charge cutting social programs while going hog wild on spending on corporate subsidies, tax breaks, defense contracts, and Federal Salaries and benefits -- the income gap will quickly grow to pre-Depression levels and when people have no money to spend in a Consumer Driven Economy -- the country will fall apart pretty fast.

And while the ship is sinking, the scumbags at Fox will blame Obama.

I doubt much will change at least for the next two years, just more gridlock. Obama would start using his veto power because he has nothing to lose. Now if the Tea Party folks get control of government in two years, then a strong dose of fiscal constraint will send the market tumbling.

Obama won't have to veto- we can filibuster with one guy just like you a-holes did for a year and a half.

Umm. You guys pulled the nuclear option out of your ass and used it against the GOP. Pandora is out of the box. Prepare to be outvoted.

 

[francoHFW]

They were not forced to do this.

dear they were not forced becuase it seemed like a great idea. The liberals had always inflated the housing market so values always went up. If it got to a point where someone could not pay, no biggie, just sell and everyone makes a profit. Capitalism is self-correcting, but liberalism is not.

Simple enough??

Simple enough for a simpleton. In the real world. Booosh., greedy Pubs and their business cronies,. . and his regulators caused the real estate meltdown duh. The CRA etc ended discrimination against WORTHY poor woorkers, Boooshies sold scams to unemployed lol, showed bankers around the world how to join in the fun.

 

[g5000]

They were not forced to do this.

dear they were not forced becuase it seemed like a great idea. The liberals had always inflated the housing market so values always went up. If it got to a point where someone could not pay, no biggie, just sell and everyone makes a profit. Capitalism is self-correcting, but liberalism is not.

Simple enough??

Simple enough for a simpleton. In the real world. Booosh., greedy Pubs and their business cronies,. . and his regulators caused the real estate meltdown duh. The CRA etc ended discrimination against WORTHY poor woorkers, Boooshies sold scams to unemployed lol, showed bankers around the world how to join in the fun.

The idea that the crash is all on Republicans and not the Democrats, too, is as retarded as the idea that the CRA was to blame for the crash.

 

[Dad2three]

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

ah so then it could not have been caused by too little regulation in the USA?

REALLY? So NOT that the same 'hands off' approach happened elsewhere too? lol

Politics Most Blatant

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.

Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

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

Thanks again to the Bush administrations allowing the greedy & unethical brokers to operate at their will.

 

[Dad2three]

They were not forced to do this.

dear they were not forced becuase it seemed like a great idea. The liberals had always inflated the housing market so values always went up. If it got to a point where someone could not pay, no biggie, just sell and everyone makes a profit. Capitalism is self-correcting, but liberalism is not.

Simple enough??

Simple enough for a simpleton. In the real world. Booosh., greedy Pubs and their business cronies,. . and his regulators caused the real estate meltdown duh. The CRA etc ended discrimination against WORTHY poor woorkers, Boooshies sold scams to unemployed lol, showed bankers around the world how to join in the fun.

The idea that the crash is all on Republicans and not the Democrats, too, is as retarded as the idea that the CRA was to blame for the crash.

HOW WAS IT THE DEMS? Which regulatory power did they have then?

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that 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.”


"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDNT REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

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

ah so then it could not have been caused by too little regulation in the USA?

Deregulation, and non-regulation, were big factors in the crash. There was a race to the bottom between countries.

BUT each nation had it's own regulators and underwriting standards


Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.


Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.

Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture

 

[Dad2three]

Start with $70 trillion of investor cash, and then see how many prime borrowers you can find to borrow all that cash.

You can't do it. It's impossible.

And so you have to seek out sub-prime borrowers, and you have to convince prime borrowers to borrow more than they should.

An average schmuck might have a good credit rating, but he may only be a good risk up to $250,000. If you loan him more than that, the risk on that loan is no longer optimal. You are pushing him into higher risk of default.

This is what happened. Simple as that. Wall Street threw the underwriting laws of the Universe out the window in order to push more money into more hands in greater quantities than those borrowers could manage.

The more money they could get out there, the more fees they earned. This was the entire motive which drove the crash.

They were not forced to do this. Anyone who thinks so is a gullible idiot. Wall Street was demanding more and more deregulation to make this possible so they could feed their global financial derivatives machines.

BINGO, that's why money flooded into the US under Dubya and US household debt doubled his first 7 years

 

[francoHFW]

They were not forced to do this.

dear they were not forced becuase it seemed like a great idea. The liberals had always inflated the housing market so values always went up. If it got to a point where someone could not pay, no biggie, just sell and everyone makes a profit. Capitalism is self-correcting, but liberalism is not.

Simple enough??

Simple enough for a simpleton. In the real world. Booosh., greedy Pubs and their business cronies,. . and his regulators caused the real estate meltdown duh. The CRA etc ended discrimination against WORTHY poor woorkers, Boooshies sold scams to unemployed lol, showed bankers around the world how to join in the fun.

The idea that the crash is all on Republicans and not the Democrats, too, is as retarded as the idea that the CRA was to blame for the crash.

BS. They started it, "regulated" it, etc. OK, 95%. Funny how gov't sponsored bubbles/busts always come under Pubs and "deregulation"...CRA is ANOTHER Pub canard. Call a spade a spade.

 

[Dad2three]

They were not forced to do this.

dear they were not forced becuase it seemed like a great idea. The liberals had always inflated the housing market so values always went up. If it got to a point where someone could not pay, no biggie, just sell and everyone makes a profit. Capitalism is self-correcting, but liberalism is not.

Simple enough??

Gawwwd you'rte a moron

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. In March of 2008, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blamed loans “to the minorities, to the poor, to the young” as causing foreclosures. Not long after, conservative commentator Michele Malkin went so far as to claim that illegal immigration caused the crisis.

This tendency to shift blame to minorities and poor people for the financial crisis soon developed into a well-honed narrative on the right.
Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments

PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[g5000]

HOW WAS IT THE DEMS? Which regulatory power did they have then?

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

False premise. This was a global derivatives bubble. And the foundation for it in the US was 1999 and 2000. The FSMA and CFMA passed by the GOP Congress and signed by Bill Clinton.

Robert Rubin was all for deregulating the financial services industry. Ironically, after he left the White House, he went on to manage Harvard's endowment fund, and lost billions of dollars because of the derivatives bubble. Awesome.

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

I would say it started going off the rails as early as 2003. The problem was not realized by anyone of import until late 2005.

 

[g5000]

You will also find that many Wall Street firms are big donors to Democrats. Chuck Schumer is completely owned by Wall Street.

The former CEO of Goldman Sachs went on to be the Democratic governor of New Jersey, and then ran a hedge fund into the ground, breaking securities laws along the way.

 

[Dad2three]

HOW WAS IT THE DEMS? Which regulatory power did they have then?

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

False premise. This was a global derivatives bubble. And the foundation for it in the US was 1999 and 2000. The FSMA and CFMA passed by the GOP Congress and signed by Bill Clinton.

Robert Rubin was all for deregulating the financial services industry. Ironically, after he left the White House, he went on to manage Harvard's endowment fund, and lost billions of dollars because of the derivatives bubble. Awesome.

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

I would say it started going off the rails as early as 2003. The problem was not realized by anyone of import until late 2005.

NONSENSE

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists


There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in.
Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that 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.”

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


November 27, 2007

A Snapshot of the Subprime Market

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:

2007 $1.3 trillion

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion

Percentage increase from 2003: 292%


Number of subprime mortgages made in 2005-2006 projected to end in foreclosure:

1 in 5



Proportion of subprime mortgages made from 2004 to 2006 that come with "exploding" adjustable interest rates: 89-93%


Proportion approved without fully documented income: 43-50%


Proportion with no escrow for taxes and insurance: 75%



Proportion of completed foreclosures attributable to adjustable rate loans out of all loans made in 2006 and bundled in subprime mortgage backed securities: 93%


Subprime share of all mortgage originations in 2006: 28%


Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8%



Subprime share of all home loans outstanding:64%
14%


Subprime share of foreclosure filings in the 12 months ending June 30, 2007: 6