Irrational exuberance was the phrase Greenspan used.
But that doesn't have anything to do with the increase in subprime lending that started in 2004, and it was the subprime lending that caused the bubble which led to the collapse.
Jesus fucking Christ...That was the impetus for it all.
I thought the impetus was Clinton repealing G-S, according to you! Now you're changing the reasons for why a subprime bubble appeared years after the thing you say caused it. The subprime lending bubble wasn't caused by interest rates (those rates were rising during the bubble), it was caused by the weakening of lending standards. The interest rate has nothing to do with the lending standards that were weakened. Lower interest rates don't mean anything when you have no one willing to borrow. Lowering the interest rate doesn't make lending volume increase defacto. If that was the case, then subprime lending would have slowed, not increased as interest rates rose from 2004-6.
All you're doing here is making shit up as you go, and using the same, tired Conservative excuses for why their policy never works. You just blame the Fed for housing even though as the bubble was growing, the Fed was raising rates. So your entire premise, that lower interest rates lead to more lending, is entirely fucking false, isn't it?
So since your premise is fucking wrong, doesn't that pretty much invalidate the rest of your shitty argument?
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Exactly. Conservatives deliberately inflated a housing bubble to make their tax cuts look like they were growing the economy, in time for the 2004 election. Bush even campaigned on his tax cuts creating the housing bubble:
Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership
Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.
https://www.foxnews.com/story/bush-t...home-ownership
So you even have Bush telling his supporters that the reason the housing market was doing so well was because of his tax cuts.
So conversely, that means the housing collapse was also caused by his tax cuts. After all, he's saying in 2004 that it was thanks to his tax cuts that the housing market was booming.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Now you're being deliberately obtuse because I said that the impetus was Clinton's repeal of G-S according to you. And furthermore, I asked you, point blank, where in the repeal of G-S it said banks could lower lending standards for subprime loans?
So you make another fucking lazy defense of your lazy argument because you're a lazy piece of shit.
What else is new in the world?
Yes you did! You said the repeal of G-S is what caused this. You said it right here:I didn't claim Clinton caused it. Reading is fundamental.
I asked you, from this stupid quote, where in the G-S repeal it said anything about banks lowering lending standards? You just ignored that question because answering it would completely unravel your entire premise of "both sides" are to blame, and you do that so you don't have to admit that you're full of shit, and you beliefs are full of shit too.
When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist
Can you not understand the words that were written. What if you sat down and took a deep breath and read what I wrote. You are blaming deregulation but you won't acknowledge who did the deregulating. It's because you're a absolute hack. It's one thing to be partisan, most of us are that, you are a hack. This is just another example of it.
Bookmarks