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.
First off, stop blaming a HUD change in policy, Fannie Mae and Freddie MAc actually owned a smaller share of the market when it came to sub prime mortgages in 2005 than they did in 1999.
"Owned" is a disingenuous measure. What Fannie and Freddie did was buy and bundle those subprime loans into MBS and then sold them to worldwide governments, financial institutions, and investors without disclosing the subprime risk. Their MBS buyers depended on the implied US Government guarantee. Hence, the $2 trillion QE bailout of the GSEs.
What actions did conservative leaders take that had an equally (or more) catastrophic effect on the economy than the 2.4 trillion buyout? I don't think anyone is saying conservatives are "without sin", but which were as or more damaging than the buyout?
Please cite your sources with your answer.
I'm a moderate, so I don't exactly have a dog in this fight. Just curious to see the facts from the other side.
Clinton's HUD Secretary ordered Fannie and Freddie to buy $2.4 trillion in sub-prime loans.
What matters is that Clinton's HUD Secretary ordered Fannie and Freddie to buy $2.4 trillion in sub-prime loans.
Like I wrote previously you ignore who was funding the worst of the sub-prime mortgage market place. The real estate bubble involved way more than HUD initiatives.
Like I wrote previously you ignore who was funding the worst of the sub-prime mortgage market place. The real estate bubble involved way more than HUD initiatives.
Choosing what facts to consider (or misrepresent) and ignoring those facts that don't support one's position is the "life blood" of most comments in these threads, is it not? Pointing this out is like criticizing magicians for using tricks to perform their magic.
Choosing what facts to consider (or misrepresent) and ignoring those facts that don't support one's position is the "life blood" of most comments in these threads, is it not? Pointing this out is like criticizing magicians for using tricks to perform their magic.
It is not only the life blood on these treads, but it also life blood among the political class. I can understand disagreements when it comes to debatable points. For instance I would understand if there were disagreements concerning what should be the laws governing derivatives or to what extent the government should be involved in the mortgage marketplace. However the ignorance of historical facts even among those who should know better, including those in position of power to influence the laws going forward, is stunning.
It is not only the life blood on these treads, but it also life blood among the political class. I can understand disagreements when it comes to debatable points. For instance I would understand if there were disagreements concerning what should be the laws governing derivatives or to what extent the government should be involved in the mortgage marketplace. However the ignorance of historical facts even among those who should know better, including those in position of power to influence the laws going forward, is stunning.
Right you are, and I think most of these comments well demonstrate how and why most average Americans vote as they do, why we have the dysfunctional Congress that we do, why we have the problems in our political system that we do..., but there's a game on, so please excuse me as I have more important things to do than concern myself with things like facts or truth or trying to really make sense of things objectively...
Like I wrote previously you ignore who was funding the worst of the sub-prime mortgage market place. The real estate bubble involved way more than HUD initiatives.
No, it didn't.
Apparently, you don't understand what $2.4 trillion means.
The bank bailouts didn't even come close to that amount.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Choosing what facts to consider (or misrepresent) and ignoring those facts that don't support one's position is the "life blood" of most comments in these threads, is it not?
stop Blaming Democrats for Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, For God's sake, there are 3 Republicans in the name.
There were 222 Republican in the house, 207 voted for it, only 5 against .
55 in the senate, 52 in favor, 1 against.
Blaming Democrats for policies republicans pushed and then applauded when passed is a joke.
Cuomo ordered Fannie and Freddie to buy $2.4 trillion in sub-prime loans.
No one forced him to do that, other than his boss Billy Boy Clinton.
But go ahead and show me how Graham-Leach-Bliley "forced" Cuomo and Clinton to do what they wanted to do anyway.
LOL
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.
