A reminder of what caused the economic crisis we've been in for four years: Democrat policies (party affiliation, Whitehouse)

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

If you paid attention, you would know that CRA doesn't apply globally.

You're still thinking at a too rudimentary level. What do you not understand about "FOREIGN investors?"

You don't really think U.S. investors bought all $6 trillion of the GSEs MBS, do you?

If you had the ability to deal with facts, you would know that CRA wasn't the cause.

The journal article I posted lays out a convincing case that it, in fact, DID, footnoted and all. Darn those facts, huh?

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

You're still thinking at a too rudimentary level. What do you not understand about "FOREIGN investors?"

You don't really think U.S. investors bought all $6 trillion of the GSEs MBS, do you?

No they didn't. But, you are still trying to run from rudimentary details. Why?

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

No they didn't. But, you are still trying to run from rudimentary details. Why?

I posted extensive details. It is YOU who is thinking at a rudimentary level.

Read the journal article. It cites sources, footnotes, the whole works.

[NoJiveMan]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

No they didn't. But, you are still trying to run from rudimentary details. Why?

It's called spin and deflect, an old RW approach.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by NoJiveMan

It's called spin and deflect, an old RW approach.

It's called FACTS. Read the journal article. It cites sources, has footnotes, the whole works.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

I posted extensive details. It is YOU who is thinking at a rudimentary level.

Something you don't want to touch for very understandable reasons. If they are rudimentary, you wouldn't need to run around them.

Read the journal article. It cites sources, footnotes, the whole works.

To heck with "the journal article". Tell me whether you believe that allowing mega financial institutions to lend at over 30:1 wouldn't promote credit issues and such debacles as these?

[InformedConsent]

Why are lefties so afraid to place blame where it actually belongs? Do you really NOT want to learn from the mistake and therefore be doomed to repeating it again?

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Why are lefties so afraid to place blame where it actually belongs?

And yet, you're the one avoiding discussing a fact, supposedly "rudimentary".

[NoJiveMan]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

It's called FACTS. Read the journal article. It cites sources, has footnotes, the whole works.

No, sorry consent, it's called faux.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Why are lefties so afraid to place blame where it actually belongs? Do you really NOT want to learn from the mistake and therefore be doomed to repeating it again?

It's because my friend, lefties are NOT totally to blame, look at the righties and place some blame there too.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

To heck with "the journal article".

Translation: You won't consider facts that dispute your "opinion."

Tell me whether you believe that allowing mega financial institutions to lend at over 30:1 wouldn't promote credit issues and such debacles as these?

When the underlying assets are high risk but NOT represented as such, yes it would. Guess who misrepresented OVER HALF of the high risk MBS?

Yep... the GSEs

Furthermore, the GSEs were leveraged WAY above 30:1