Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They have been easing lending practises since early 1980s when Reagan said he wanted a house on every lot. Back then it made pretty good sense. And it made sense in the 1990s, but after 2003 it didn't make any sense at all because a huge housing bubble was forming. The Fed should have jumped on the breaks then, but they just threw more fuel in the fire. They eased lending practises some 40 times between 2001 and 2008. Some changes were minor, and some were major. In 2002 and 2004 Bush announced his goal was to make 5.5 low income African Americans and Hispanics new homeowners. And Greenspan went public to encourage people to take advantage of the sub-prime mortgages while they were still available.
Are you really suggesting that Fannie and Freddie are the source of the crisis?
Bank after bank got greedy and got fat on mortgages
which they did NOT have to do - but did because they were greedy and didn't do their homework because many institutions sold them off and others didn't care because home pricies kept going up.
Add to that the removal of smart 1930's era regulations and well, disaster...
So in other words he spent 8 years doing nothing about something that started before he came into office, because the fundamentals of the economy were strong? Some how I don't think that was the point that you intended.
Then why didn't Bush to anything to fix it? You all jump all over Obama for failing to fix the financial situation over night and yet you're implying that none of it was Bush's fault because it started before he took office?
Why do you even support Republican candidates if you don't think they have any influence over events?
So in other words he spent 8 years doing nothing about something that started before he came into office, because the fundamentals of the economy were strong? Some how I don't think that was the point that you intended.
It's hard to believe he started this thread without considering what he was inferring, isn't it?
Read the New York Times article. It is clear even for you to understand. I'm sorry, the article doesn't have any porn pictures to entertain you though.
The article is also clearly mentioned on Snopes...
None of this could have happened without the Commodity Modernization Act.. none of it..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
