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.
The recession was caused by Wall Street, even though the GOP repeats the zombie lie that it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the problem, which just isn't so. It was Wall St. greed buying up worthless mortgages, repackaging them as AAA securities and selling them to unsuspecting investors that caused the economic crash, not the government.
Fannie and freddie didnt fail?????/ Their still not failing??????
Your right wall street was part of it. But so was fannie and freddie.
lol The article starts off, "Add President Clinton to the long list of people who deserve a share of the blame for the housing bubble and bust."
Then the next paragraph... "President Bush continued the practices because they dovetailed with his Ownership Society goals, and of course Congress was strongly behind the push. But Clinton and his administration must shoulder some of the blame."
Come on man. I think you need to do some research.
Edit: Hindsight is 20/20
2nd edit: Everyone is to blame. Republicans and democrats.
Pushed in the 90s by the Clinton Administration. Everyone should have housing! Even if they can't afford it!
Now, I have given you two places to start. Instead of just reading what I linked, I suggest you take some of that information and start searching. I never said Bush is free and clear of this, I said this started way back, under Democratic rule.
Edit: Aw hell, here's another site with links FOR you. Of course, I doubt you'll read it since it says, "conservative" and "Fox News" in the page owned by the blogger. But, if you are above all that, read the article and click the links and start your searching.
Wrong, the government stuck their slimy little hands in to the business. "Everyone should be allowed to get housing!"
THERE'S A REASON SOME PEOPLE DON'T GET TO HAVE THESE THINGS! They can't afford it.
And it ultimately falls on the consumer. The writing was there, I do NOT feel sympathy for those who did not read the fine print. That is your responsibility as a consumer. That is no one's fault but the consumer. Living beyond their means, the sense of entitlement, greed.
And the banks were forced to do it because Democrats thought everyone should have housing...it just wasn't faaaiiir the other way. Waah!
The vast majority of sub-prime mortgages were not even issued by institutions that were governed by the CRA act. The banks and other institutions did this voluntarily because before it fell apart they were making billions of dollars. No one had to force them to do.
Firing Back on the CRA Libel | OurFuture.org 3. The housing bubble burst when too many people with home loans mandated by the Community Reinvestment Act failed to make their mortgage payments.
False. The CRA only applies to FDIC member banks and thrifts. Back in the 1970s, these institutions were responsible for most of the country's mortgage lending. But starting in the 1980s and on up to the present, we saw a huge boom in lending businesses—such as finance companies like Countrywide—that weren't banks, and didn't take deposits that required FDIC insurance. Thus, they didn't have any obligation to the CRA. And they were free to set their own lending standards, which were often far less cautious than those required of FDIC-insured banks.
4. The bulk of the "junk" loans that have been packaged into mortgage-based securities are CRA loans.
False. An analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data in the country's 15 biggest metropolitan areas found that 84.3 percent of the high-cost loans made in 2006 were originated by non-CRA lenders—including 83 percent of high-cost loans to low- and moderate-income individuals. The Federal Reserve notes that, across the country, non-CRA lenders were twice as likely as CRA lenders to issue subprime loans to vulnerable borrowers. Furthermore, the Fed also reports that responsible mortgages made by CRA lenders have about the same low rate of foreclosure as other traditional mortgages.
5. If the government had just set the lenders free to do their thing, the market would have prevented this. It's just another example of how government oversight always leads to market failure.
Wrong again, buckaroo. As explained just above, up to four-fifths of these loans were issued by financial institutions that operated with little or no federal regulatory oversight. In fact, in 2006, only one of the top 25 subprime lenders was a CRA institution. A few others were mortgage/finance company affiliates of CRA-covered lenders, but even these were separate businesses that didn't operate under CRA rules (including Countrywide, CitiMortgage, and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage). Likewise: the vast majority of the top 20 issuers of risky interest-only and option ARM loans were not CRA-affiliated lenders. If anything, the CRA example proves—once again—that government oversight not only works; it's essential to maintain safe and sane capital markets.
Pushed in the 90s by the Clinton Administration. Everyone should have housing! Even if they can't afford it!
Now, I have given you two places to start. Instead of just reading what I linked, I suggest you take some of that information and start searching. I never said Bush is free and clear of this, I said this started way back, under Democratic rule.
I didn't realize our government was setup where one administration controls all the power. From 1993 to 1995 we went from a solidly democratic congress to a solidly republican congress. So what's the point of assigning the blame game and what does it accomplish? Even if "this started" under the democrats then why didn't the republicans stop it? Furthermore, what's your motive here? Do you actually care about solutions or do you just want to assign blame in order to satisfy and validate your own beliefs?
Quote:
Edit: Aw hell, here's another site with links FOR you. Of course, I doubt you'll read it since it says, "conservative" and "Fox News" in the page owned by the blogger. But, if you are above all that, read the article and click the links and start your searching.
I'm actually more conservative leaning but I believe the political parties are a waste of time as their dogmas can't stand up to a rapidly evolving world. Plus it's just stupid to take a side and argue for it when it comes to running the world's most powerful country.
Lastly, I do read Fox News and MSNBC. I just know both sources slant their news to favor their own side. However, at least MSNBC is open about their stance while FOX still parades this fair and balanced BS.
just reading through it, i am not impressed at all.
more of the same: politicians distorting the market through the tax code, ONLY picking certain groups to receive some benefit.
...as if, the way to "jolt the economy", as 0bama says, is for business owners to hire people, and give raises, not because measures have been enacted by 0bama that increased productivity and profits, but because they can get a one time piece of government cheese.
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.
