This sums it up pretty well

Desh said:
The law was not a danger to the economy until it was used in a Massive way to fuel a slagging economy. You change a law when it proves to harm you right?

The effects were not harmful untill it was apllied differently than it had ever been applied before.
Click to expand...

Tell me desh... if the law in place protected us from just such a scenario... WHY did they change it to begin with?

Tell us Desh... how was it "applied differently"???
 
Cypress said:
Who on this board has been saying for at least three years, that predatory lending and subprime lending needs to be reigned in and regulated. My recollection is that it was Desh, USC and other democrats.

Who on this board was advocating letting the free market handle it, and dismissing the oncoming crises by saying that stupid people deserve to get burned? I think it was you and fellow bush voters.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. I have also said that this is idiotic and that it would eventually lead to foreclosures.

Bad policy is always bad policy whether it started in the admin before. Bush should have done something about it rather than attempt to ride that train. It doesn't change the reality of where it began, and why it was continued.
 
Damocles said:
Rubbish. I have also said that this is idiotic and that it would eventually lead to foreclosures.

Bad policy is always bad policy whether it started in the admin before. Bush should have done something about it rather than attempt to ride that train. It doesn't change the reality of where it began, and why it was continued.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Damocles said:
The effects were always harmful. You could see the beginning of the effect as the economy slagged a bit at the beginning of Clinton's term to regain on the insane Tech bubble. The harm began and continued through two administrations.

And SF, 1992 was Clinton's first year. The attempt was to be able to claim "More <insert specific group here> than ever before own homes!" Everybody wanted on that train, that's why they continued the program.
Click to expand...

Hmm... could have sworn he was sworn in to office in 1993.

Otherwise I totally agree.
 
Obfuscate said:
I'm not going to stick up for the current Repulicans and their handling of the economy but in all honesty Fiscal Policy does very little compared to Monetary policy and can really do nothing but make situations worse when they try to control global forces or the buisiness cycle. History proves that. There is a big problem because with Communisim and socialism being abandoned world wide since the 80's, these economies have grown and they wanted the safe secure bets that the US has been historically. You had too much money chasing too few goods which helped esculate prices to unsustainable levels and we are now dealing with that. Add in 1% Fed rates that made it very inexpensive to build new homes and develop new land that helped create the oversupply we see now.
Click to expand...


If the lenders had not been making loans they should have not approved it would have never reached this breaking point.

There are those who say its the consumers fault for being stupid. I dont agree with this because if you tried to run an economy where the consumer would have to get a degree in realestate law before they were edcucated well enough to buy a home safely you would have a pretty shitty economy.
 
time for the inevitable bash.
What king of fiscal responsibility should we have expected out of people that elected bush twice ?

:)
 
Superfreak said:
. Yes, the low rates spurred growth, but they were kept low for too long. .
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why I support a fixed Monetary growth rule. No fed chairman can make the correct forecasts all the time. Greenspan needed to lower rates but I agree they were too low for too long.
 
Desh said:
If the lenders had not been making loans they should have not approved it would have never reached this breaking point.

There are those who say its the consumers fault for being stupid. I dont agree with this because if you tried to run an economy where the consumer would have to get a degree in realestate law before they were edcucated well enough to buy a home safely you would have a pretty shitty economy.
Click to expand...

What a load of bullshit. You don't need a degree in "real estate law" to understand the financial implications of taking on more debt. What a fucking cop out.

I agree the lenders should not have made the loans. Nor should the government have encouraged them to make loans they previously were not allowed to make. But to act as if the borrowers are innocent in all of this is idiotic.
 
Obfuscate said:
Yes, that's why I support a fixed Monetary growth rule. No fed chairman can make the correct forecasts all the time. Greenspan needed to lower rates but I agree they were too low for too long.
Click to expand...

yep but it made the bush economy look good, so no myopic republicans complained. And based any libs that brought up the possibility of the bad said fo things. darned cherrypickers!
Dems in congress too on this one.
 
Superfreak said:
Tell me desh... if the law in place protected us from just such a scenario... WHY did they change it to begin with?

Tell us Desh... how was it "applied differently"???
Click to expand...

When did the subprime loans explode?

Look at the years the vast amounts were taken out.

Who again were the sponsers of the law?

If the consolidations of the industry were the problem then say so.

If it was the effect of allowing these loans to take place back in 1993 then say so.

Which was it?
 
Superfreak said:
What a load of bullshit. You don't need a degree in "real estate law" to understand the financial implications of taking on more debt. What a fucking cop out.

I agree the lenders should not have made the loans. Nor should the government have encouraged them to make loans they previously were not allowed to make. But to act as if the borrowers are innocent in all of this is idiotic.
Click to expand...

They were uneducated.

Do you really think ANY consumer took out one of these loans thinking they would lose their asses?

They were convinced by their lenader that it was a safe and good financial decision.
 
Desh said:
When did the subprime loans explode?

Look at the years the vast amounts were taken out.

Who again were the sponsers of the law?

If the consolidations of the industry were the problem then say so.

If it was the effect of allowing these loans to take place back in 1993 then say so.

Which was it?
Click to expand...

When interest rates began to rise.

Many of the loans were people refinancing their loans to lower rates.

Republicans AND Democrats were responsible for changes in the law.

The borrowers never should have taken out the loans they could not afford and the lenders should not have loaned it to them.

How many fucking times do you need for someone to spell it out for you desh? It was BOTH parties, the lenders AND the borrowers who made this mess. Quit being a partisan hack.
 
Desh said:
If the lenders had not been making loans they should have not approved it would have never reached this breaking point.

There are those who say its the consumers fault for being stupid.
Click to expand...

It's both their faults. When a person lies about their stated income to get a loan it is not the loan officers fault. The lenders are getting scorched because they decided to ignore the basic fundementals of economics. There was no way prices could continue to increase at the pace they were and lenders should have stopped earlier in the game. They were less worried about foreclosure because they felt even if there was a foreclosure tha asset would have increased enough to offset any loss. Also, don't forget the loan gaurentees for homes under $417,000. When you have a Government subsidy like this you will make more risky loans.


When they looked at this chart they should have stopped.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6c/Shiller_IE2_Fig_2-1.png
 
Last edited:
Desh said:
They were uneducated.

Do you really think ANY consumer took out one of these loans thinking they would lose their asses?

They were convinced by their lenader that it was a safe and good financial decision.
Click to expand...

That is just a bunch of propaganda desh. Nothing more.
 
And the republicans were solely at fault for NOT averting the problem by ignoring its impact on the future economy.

It was a republican law and they convinced a lame duck president to sign it. Yeah Clinton made a mistake and probably should not have signed it but the Rs did nothing to blunt its negative effects once they were obvious. They saide "OH nothing is wrong things are just perfect" and you and everyone knows it.
 
this is better than the comedy channel
so are dems saying borrowers who can not, could not, Should not lose their homes. Priceless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top