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.
Articles like this are why Investor's Business Daily has a reputation at or below the level of NewsMax or the National Enquirer. There is barely an honest sentence to be found anywhere within this piece.
Only if it is spoken by leftist lunatics the likes of Bill Maher do demwits get the message.
Articles like this are why Investor's Business Daily has a reputation at or below the level of NewsMax or the National Enquirer. There is barely an honest sentence to be found anywhere within this piece.
I am disappointed in you, your arguments are usually well thought out and presented cogently.
Last edited by shorebaby; 04-29-2009 at 06:54 PM..
...there was no housing bubble, there would be no burst...
It wasn't the housing market that came apart. It was credit markets that froze. The underlying cause of that freeze happened to be crappy mortgage paper that cowboy capitalists pumped into the system, but it remains inaccurate to state that a poisoned well is no longer usable because it ran dry. Unwind the unemployment and financial market collapses that also resulted from that credit freeze and its aftershocks, and the housing market is no different from what it ever was. The housing stock is still the same, wealth and income are still the same, there are still the same numbers of owners wanting to sell, and still the same number of clients wanting to buy. All that has materially changed is access to credit. Frank was not talking about credit markets.
Barney Fwank...Yes, its his fault. Yes its Bubba Clintons fault. Yes its Jimmy Carters fault. Do the research folks. Facts don't lie. Oh and lets place a little blame on the people who bought houses they could never afford (the stupid consumers). Its nice to see how many morons, who know nothing about this subject, recite things they hear on the Nightly News or CNN and take it as fact. Anything can sound good or bad if you only hear one side of the story. Do your homework, then chime in...
Reading right-wing propaganda sites does not count as research and is very unlikely to advance either one's stock or understanding of the facts. You have a great deal of homework of your own to do.
If you're completely unable to see any culpability on the part of any Democrat, then you've exposed yourself as blindly partisan and lacking any credibility.
The refutations have been over claims made against Frank, and now recently Dodd, that have no basis or merit. That is a far cry from from claiming no culpability for any Democrat at all. This post wasn't much more than a bait-and-switch evasion of an obligation to back up the charges that have been made. Did you have anything to offer that was actually relevant to that obligation?
"It's instructive to go back to the early stages of the subprime market, which has essentially emerged out of the CRA," ex-Fed chief Alan Greenspan said in recent testimony on the roots of the crisis.
Out of context, that quote is rather misleading. Subprime lending actually goes back to 1980 when federal law superseded then-existing state usury laws. Prior to that, risk-based credit pricing (which is all subprime lending actually is) was effectively illegal. A big boost came from Reagan's tax increase in 1986 which did away with the deduction for nearly all forms of personal interest except home mortgage interest. That created a strong incentive to get all of one's borrowing into a position where it was secured by home equity. The first big players in the early days of subprime were the finance companies...Beneficial, Household, The Money Store, etc. Banks and S&L's didn't play much until CRA enforcement came along, but the subprime market itself was already quite well established by that time.
Forgive me if i put more faith in Allen Greenspan.
Its not about faith, I showed the numbers that prove that the CRA is not to blame, post something that shows the numbers proving the CRA is atleast partialy to blame. I provided evidence to refute your opinion piece you're going to need to provide contrary evidence or you have been proven wrong.
Out of context, that quote is rather misleading. Subprime lending actually goes back to 1980 when federal law superseded then-existing state usury laws. Prior to that, risk-based credit pricing (which is all subprime lending actually is) was effectively illegal. A big boost came from Reagan's tax increase in 1986 which did away with the deduction for nearly all forms of personal interest except home mortgage interest. That created a strong incentive to get all of one's borrowing into a position where it was secured by home equity. The first big players in the early days of subprime were the finance companies...Beneficial, Household, The Money Store, etc. Banks and S&L's didn't play much until CRA enforcement came along, but the subprime market itself was already quite well established by that time.
Now that is what I have come to expect of you.
However in addition to Greenspan, the St Louis Fed disagrees with you.
Subprime lending is a relatively new and
rapidly growing segment of the mortgage market
that expands the pool of credit to borrowers who,
for a variety of reasons, would otherwise be denied
credit.
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.
