Our President Has Done A Good Job

[AmericanFirst]

The housing fiasco started under carter with the formation of fanny and freddie, then clinton signed law forcing banks to loan money to unqualified consumers.

You're an ignorant ******* idiot.

I am not a libtard so I can not be an idiot. Idiot.

 

[Andylusion]

Second, in your video:

"ACORN forced banks to issue risky home loans"

Really? How did they 'force' banks to do that, exactly?

While you're at it, please describe what is wrong or bad about ACORN in the first place? That video makes them sound like al Qaeda.

ACORN sued banks in court, to lower lending standards. There are lawsuit documents online, that show this, and have B. Obama listed for the prosecution.

Then why aren't you linking to them?

Link, please.

Very well.

Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011

Litigation Cited here.
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

Scroll down to "people", and under "Plaintiff's Lawyers" second from the bottom, Obama.

Back to the live leak site....
Documents Plaintiffs in 1995 Obama-led Citibank lawsuit submitted class action claims The Daily Caller

These documents are “proof of claim” records for more than 100 of the class-action plaintiffs based in or near Chicago. The paperwork shows their assertion that Citibank had denied them mortgages, an outcome they believed was related to their race.

The case was settled out of court with Citibank agreeing to change its standards for lending in urban areas and to applicants who would not otherwise qualify.

At least 46 of Obama’s 186 clients have declared bankruptcy since 1996, often multiple times.

They lowered their lending standards, to allow people to qualify for loans, who otherwise would not have.
25% of those were on the original lawsuit..... have gone bankrupt. Some multiple times. I couldn't verify how many had multiple bankruptcies.

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

It's pretty clear. More loans to people who didn't qualify. That's all there is too it.

 

[Mojo2]

Hey @Mojo2 :

After the fact:

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble

It Was Bush Who Pushed Minority Home Buying Not Clinton

http://www.newsweek.com/so-much-bushs-ownership-society-92163


Before the fact:

Bush to push ownership society - Sep. 2 2004

USATODAY.com - Bush ties his economic policies to home ownership

Bush pushes home ownership opportunities for minorities - The Boston Globe



From the first link:

"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."

- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002​

Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.

There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Bush chose to oversee them - an old school buddy - pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.

As early as 2006, top advisers to Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn. As recently as February, for example, Bush was still calling it a "rough patch."

The result was a series of piecemeal policy prescriptions that lagged behind the escalating crisis.

"There is no question we did not recognize the severity of the problems," said Al Hubbard, Bush's former chief economic adviser, who left the White House in December 2007. "Had we, we would have attacked them."

And I agree with ALL of that.

Bush did push for more home ownership. Absolutely he did. EVERYONE thought more home ownership was a good thing. In fact, that's why Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act, in 1977. It was to encourage more home ownership.

And by the way, there was a housing boom and bust during the late 70s.

Reagan supported more home ownership. Bush Sr. supported more home ownership. Clinton and Bush Jr, supported more home ownership. Congress supported more home ownership.

The difference though, is that Reagan supported the ideal, and encourages people to do it, but never tried to force it to happen using government.

Clinton, and then later Bush, did.

Now here's the key.... Everything that Bush Jr did.... it was all bad. But the problem is, the sub-prime market, and the housing price bubble, still started before Bush was in office.

What he did was still bad! But...... the problem still started before he was in office.

And by the way.... Your last quote..... "we would have attacked [the problem]" - Al Hubbard.

No, actually they would not have.

There is no possible way to 'deflate' a market bubble, without it popping. It's inherent to what a market bubble is. You can't avoid that.

Now, if you would like me to walk you through how that works, I can do that.

But when someone says "why didn't Bush fix the housing bubble"... the answer is, he couldn't.

There are only two things he could do, and possibly a third. He possibly could have relaxed lending standards even more, so as to intentionally keep the bubble growing. That might have allowed the bubble to continue until he was out of office.

But beyond that, he could only do two things... ignore it and hope the bubble doesn't pop until after he leaves office, or intentionally pop the bubble.

Now regardless of the left wing claiming Bush was a demon, and the right-wing claiming he was a saint.... the reality is, Bush was a politician.

If Bush had popped the bubble intentionally, what would have happened? Everyone would have been screaming that "everything was fine until Bush screwed up the economy!"

And you leftists... you know I'm right. You know it. You know that right now, if Bush had intentionally popped the Housing bubble in 2005, or 2003, or whenever.... you know that right now, on this forum, you would posting "Yeah everything was peachy until Bush ruined the housing market, after claiming there was some 'bubble' somewhere".

You know you would. Don't even try and lie.

And Bush knows that too. So even if Bush did know, which he didn't, but even if he did..... there's no way he would have popped the bubble. Why would you pop a market bubble, knowing you'll be blamed for it? Better to just quietly ignore it, and hope it pops when the next guy is in office.

How you don't have a ton of Thanks and Agrees and Informative icons for this post, by now, surprises me.

Very informative, Androw.

 

[Mojo2]

Fox News. Fair and Balanced.

 

[Synthaholic]

Second, in your video:

"ACORN forced banks to issue risky home loans"

Really? How did they 'force' banks to do that, exactly?

While you're at it, please describe what is wrong or bad about ACORN in the first place? That video makes them sound like al Qaeda.

ACORN sued banks in court, to lower lending standards. There are lawsuit documents online, that show this, and have B. Obama listed for the prosecution.

Then why aren't you linking to them?

Link, please.

Very well.

Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011

Litigation Cited here.
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

Scroll down to "people", and under "Plaintiff's Lawyers" second from the bottom, Obama.

That case is about redlining, not sub-prime mortgages, dope.

Redlining is the practice of denying, or charging more for, services such as banking,insurance,[2] access to health care,[3] or even supermarkets,[4] or denying jobs to residents in particular, often racially determined,[5] areas.

 

[Papageorgio]

That case is about redlining, not sub-prime mortgages, dope.

Redlining is the practice of denying, or charging more for, services such as banking,insurance,[2] access to health care,[3] or even supermarkets,[4] or denying jobs to residents in particular, often racially determined,[5] areas.

Still trying to convince yourself, keep going, you'll get there one day.

 

[Andylusion]

Second, in your video:

"ACORN forced banks to issue risky home loans"

Really? How did they 'force' banks to do that, exactly?

While you're at it, please describe what is wrong or bad about ACORN in the first place? That video makes them sound like al Qaeda.

ACORN sued banks in court, to lower lending standards. There are lawsuit documents online, that show this, and have B. Obama listed for the prosecution.

Then why aren't you linking to them?

Link, please.

Very well.

Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011

Litigation Cited here.
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

Scroll down to "people", and under "Plaintiff's Lawyers" second from the bottom, Obama.

That case is about redlining, not sub-prime mortgages, dope.

Redlining is the practice of denying, or charging more for, services such as banking,insurance,[2] access to health care,[3] or even supermarkets,[4] or denying jobs to residents in particular, often racially determined,[5] areas.

I didn't insult you. There is no reason to be a jerk.

Intentions matter less than results. I am completely aware of what the case was about.
Doesn't matter. What matters is the results. The results were that Citibank, in settlement with Obama, agreed to lower lending standards.

The fact 25% of the people who reaped the results of this lawsuit, ended up bankrupt, proves my point.

And the fact Obama himself said specifically that sub-prime loans were a good idea, suggests that he favored them.

That's pretty conclusive in my book.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

View attachment 31791

Yeah, your English teacher did a good job to...


not.

 

[Andylusion]

That case is about redlining, not sub-prime mortgages, dope.

Redlining is the practice of denying, or charging more for, services such as banking,insurance,[2] access to health care,[3] or even supermarkets,[4] or denying jobs to residents in particular, often racially determined,[5] areas.

Still trying to convince yourself, keep going, you'll get there one day.

Even if the lawsuit was about redlining... so what? Banks redline for reason. Communities rise and fall constantly. Any given community area, is either growing, or it is falling.

What people don't seem to grasp, is that your neighbors home, effects your home. If your neighbors are all drug dealers, the value of your home is going to fall.

If you are bank, and you know the collateral for your mortgage, is dropping in value.... do you want to make that mortgage? Of course not.

Red lining, is the system of saying "housing values in this area are dropping, and we don't want to give a mortgage for them.". Because doing so invites default.

The fact 25% of the people who got mortgages under Obama's lawsuit, proves they were a bad risk. The bank was right.

 

[Mojo2]

Second, in your video:

"ACORN forced banks to issue risky home loans"

Really? How did they 'force' banks to do that, exactly?

While you're at it, please describe what is wrong or bad about ACORN in the first place? That video makes them sound like al Qaeda.

ACORN sued banks in court, to lower lending standards. There are lawsuit documents online, that show this, and have B. Obama listed for the prosecution.

Then why aren't you linking to them?

Link, please.

Very well.

Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011

Litigation Cited here.
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

Scroll down to "people", and under "Plaintiff's Lawyers" second from the bottom, Obama.

That case is about redlining, not sub-prime mortgages, dope.

Redlining is the practice of denying, or charging more for, services such as banking,insurance,[2] access to health care,[3] or even supermarkets,[4] or denying jobs to residents in particular, often racially determined,[5] areas.

Redlining was the cause celebre which attracted the attentions of a young Barack and a radical Chicago Catholic Priest named Pfleger to accuse the banks of redlining and exerting pressure on them to make risky loans to appease the two community shit stirrers.

This suggests Barack Obama played an important role in causing the economic meltdown.

That's like the firebug starting an arson fire. Then he goes home and dons his fireman's uniform to fight the fire he started.

 

[Mojo2]

Our President Has Done a Good job, Alright.

A GOOD JOB OF CONNING AMERICA.



Now that the Libs are less dogmatic about electing THEIR 'dog' (mainly because he's already been elected twice) maybe they are now ready to entertain the troubling information about Obama which we Conservatives have known since 2007.

 

[Listening]

The housing fiasco started under carter with the formation of fanny and freddie, then clinton signed law forcing banks to loan money to unqualified consumers.

You're an ignorant ******* idiot.

Who has pretty much owned your ass.