This sums it up pretty well

Desh said:
Yeap and those peoples lack of understanding was used by the lending institutions to create a product they could make money off of at the momment.

This is whaqt happens when you allow the market to just regulate its self. People think of the momment and sacrafice the future market to make a fucking quick buck.

Happy happy joy joy
Click to expand...

That's the problem of the retards that got themselves into a sticky situation...exactly as you said, people looking to make a quick buck, even if that buck isn't really there.
 
Damocles said:
Except it wasn't. The reality is that the law forced more lenient loan requirements on the bank. That is not "leaving them alone", it is in fact the opposite.

Yes, people should have changed the law so that they could return to more sane loaning practices. But they all decided to trumpet more <insert group here> own homes than ever before.

This is what you get when you muck around in the market, not leave it alone.
Click to expand...


This was in place for years without any problems with exploding sub prime Damo.


What changed in the 2000s?
 
Desh said:
Laws regulating lending institutions could have staved this off.
Click to expand...

And here we go around the circle again....

Desh you fucking retard... WHO dismantled Glass Steagall? Oh yeah, it was BOTH parties, starting (AS WE HAVE TOLD YOU OVER AND OVER AGAIN) in 1992 and continuing on through Bush. Guess which TWO parties are responsible for not only loosening credit, but also encouraging banks to make loans they would not have made in the past?
 
Superfreak said:
And here we go around the circle again....

Desh you fucking retard... WHO dismantled Glass Steagall? Oh yeah, it was BOTH parties, starting (AS WE HAVE TOLD YOU OVER AND OVER AGAIN) in 1992 and continuing on through Bush. Guess which TWO parties are responsible for not only loosening credit, but also encouraging banks to make loans they would not have made in the past?
Click to expand...

This is the problem with partisan hacks--- they cannot see that both parties are ridiculous, seeking to blame only the opposing party for all of the country's problems.
 
Desh said:
This was in place for years without any problems with exploding sub prime Damo.


What changed in the 2000s?
Click to expand...

A recession and the subsequent low interest rates Desh. How many fucking times do you have to be told that? Then the borrowers began taking out more and more loans against their homes at low rates. Too stupid according to you to realize that rates would eventually go back up and thus increase any adjustable rate mortgages. But that very simple concept is apparently to advanced for individuals to understand... isn't it desh?
 
Who was in the place to stop this guys?


Who was in control when this became a problem that needed dealing with?

Who sat on their asses and said there was NO problem with an econly fueled by an exploding increase in these types of loans.


It is amazing to me the lengths people will go to avoid having the Republicans being blame for their failure to act.
 
Desh you sound like a junior high school child, your point is as retarded as someone saying clinton caused the dot com bubble and burst because he could have legistlated protection against it. You can't write laws that prevent people from being stupid.
 
Desh said:
This was in place for years without any problems with exploding sub prime Damo.


What changed in the 2000s?
Click to expand...
Rubbish, it is what creates a bubble. That others added more air to it, doesn't change that it was bad policy and not "leaving the market to itself" as you tried to say.

It's a zit, that it grew a head today doesn't mean that it wasn't a zit yesterday too.
 
Desh said:
It is amazing to me the lengths people will go to avoid having the Republicans being blame for their failure to act.
Click to expand...

Just like the lengths you will go to in order to avoid admitting that the situation is a bipartisan failure, and that Clinton's shit stinks just as much as the rest of the politicians'.
 
Superfreak said:
A recession and the subsequent low interest rates Desh. How many fucking times do you have to be told that? Then the borrowers began taking out more and more loans against their homes at low rates. Too stupid according to you to realize that rates would eventually go back up and thus increase any adjustable rate mortgages. But that very simple concept is apparently to advanced for individuals to understand... isn't it desh?
Click to expand...

were you one of those who claimed thtere was no recession ? many bush supporters did.
 
uscitizen said:
were you one of those who claimed thtere was no recession ? many bush supporters did.
Click to expand...

No. The recession began in 2000 and ended (technically speaking) in March of 2001. The recession was declared in March of 2001 after the three negative quarters of GDP growth.
 
Desh said:
It is amazing to me the lengths people will go to avoid having the Republicans being blame for their failure to act.
Click to expand...

What is truly funny is that you are obviously so blinded by your party blinders that you cannot realize that NO ONE on here is trying to avoid blaming Reps. Everyone BUT YOU is blaming both parties for this mess. Everyone but you realizes that the lenders AND borrowers are to blame.

Only the complete partisan hacks like you refuse to see that it was BOTH parties and not just one or the other.
 
gonzojournals said:
Just like the lengths you will go to in order to avoid admitting that the situation is a bipartisan failure, and that Clinton's shit stinks just as much as the rest of the politicians'.
Click to expand...


Why did the 1993 not end in a subprime problem until 15 years later?

Because it was more than this law that created it.

You can also blame any banking /lending law with that same logic.

This is how laws always get made. Laws are put in place to solkve a percieved problem. That percieved problem may actually be solved by the law and then later unintended consequences of the law surface and a new law is then enacted to solve that problem. On and On and On it goes.

The failure lies in the people who do not adress the problems that arrise in a timely manner.

This is the blame I am alloting the republicans who were in control at the time.

Instead of being willing to give them the blame you twist and turn and spin go into convulsions.
 
Desh said:
Why did the 1993 not end in a subprime problem until 15 years later?

Because it was more than this law that created it.

You can also blame any banking /lending law with that same logic.

This is how laws always get made. Laws are put in place to solkve a percieved problem. That percieved problem may actually be solved by the law and then later unintended consequences of the law surface and a new law is then enacted to solve that problem. On and On and On it goes.

The failure lies in the people who do not adress the problems that arrise in a timely manner.

This is the blame I am alloting the republicans who were in control at the time.

Instead of being willing to give them the blame you twist and turn and spin go into convulsions.
Click to expand...
Yes. Like a zit growing on your face, it just gets bigger and more painful the longer it is allowed to fester until it grows a head. Your attempt is to only call it a zit when the head appears.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top