LMAO; you really are too dishonest Counselor. You know he meant The House.
Why do Dumb Liberals Still Blame Bush for the Economy?
- Thread starter Belieber
- Start date
LMAO; you really are too dishonest Counselor. You know he meant The House.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
technically, yes
SmarterthanYou
rebel
spending bills MUST originate in the congress, via the constitution, so my question still stands.
maineman
Banned
the correct terminology is "the house", not "congress". "Congress" refers to both chambers.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
not according to the constitution. read it.
maineman
Banned
ARTICLE I
SECTION 1.
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 7
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
History for dummies...
Government policies were designed to increase homeownership, primarily by reducing mortgage underwriting standards. The most important of these policies were the AH goals enacted in Title XIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (the “GSE Act”).[4] The GSE Act, and its subsequent enforcement by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), set in motion a series of adverse changes in the structure of the US mortgage market and more particularly the gradual degrading of traditional mortgage underwriting standards. The AH goals required Fannie and Freddie to meet certain quotas when acquiring mortgages. The GSE Act had initially specified a quota of 30 percent; that is, 30 percent of the GSEs’ mortgage purchases had to be loans that were made to low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers, defined as borrowers at or below the median income in their communities. During the Clinton administration, HUD increased this quota to 42 percent in 1995 and 50 percent in 2000. HUD’s tightening continued in the George W. Bush administration so that by 2008 the main LMI goal was 56 percent, and a special affordable (SA) subgoal had been added requiring that 27 percent of the loans GSEs acquired be made to borrowers who were at or below 80 percent (and, in some cases, 60 percent) of the median income in their communities.
The initial 30 percent quota was not burdensome for the GSEs. In 1993, for example, Freddie Mac was able to meet the 30 percent quota by acquiring the prime loans that it traditionally purchased from originators. In the same year, 7 percent of its purchases met the SA subgoal. But the GSE Act required HUD to promulgate a new set of goals beginning in 1996, and HUD’s tightening of the AH requirements beginning in that year and continuing through 2008 forced the GSEs to seek loans of less than prime quality. For example, when HUD’s new AH goals for 1996 were released in late 1994, Fannie and Freddie reduced their down payment requirements to 3 percent, and by 2000—after HUD announced plans in 1999 to raise the AH goals to 50 percent—they were acquiring loans with no down payments at all.....
http://tinyurl.com/6lqc8rq
Since the early 1990s, the government has been attempting to expand home ownership in full disregard of the prudent lending principles that had previously governed the U.S. mortgage market. Now the motives of the GSEs fall into place. Fannie and Freddie were subject to "affordable housing" regulations, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which required them to buy mortgages made to home buyers who were at or below the median income. This quota began at 30% of all purchases in the early 1990s, and was gradually ratcheted up until it called for 55% of all mortgage purchases to be "affordable" in 2007, including 25% that had to be made to low-income home buyers.
http://tinyurl.com/yfw9qnu
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
LOL @ bravs the apologist. Republicans had both houses of Congress during most of Bush's tenure...but the war & economy were the fault of Democrats!
cawacko
Well-known member
I'm curious why the Fed doesn't get talked about more for the role it plays in the economy. We often talk about Presidential policies we like and don't like but don't hear much about the Fed and how they handled interest rates and whether they opened the floodgates too much or overly constrained supply etc.
Not quite thingy....3 or 4 months after Bush was sworn in Jeffords changed to Ind. and voted with Dems...so for the 107the Congress was Dem. 51-49 DEM
In the 108th Congress R's had a ONE vote majority and in the 109th a 5 vote majority....
In the 110th the Dems took over completely both houses....so you're close but no cigar.
But isn't it you pinheads that are ALWAYS blaming the minority Party of blocking legislation , or is that only then the R's are in the minority ?....wtf do you think the Dems were doing as the minority party, agreeing
with the Reps....??? Things might have been different if R's voted in lock step like the D's, but they don't....
A 1 vote majority for R's is nothing and 5 vote majority not much better...
You've seen the video and heard the facts, you just refuse to accept the facts....Bush warned of trouble coming 5 different times and all he got
from Barney Frank and company is..."don't worry, everything is fine".....
Here is who FACTCHECK says is to 'blame'.......
- The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
- Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
- Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
- Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
- The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
- Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
- Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
- Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
- The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
- An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
- Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
and when they say Bush failed to provide gov. oversight we've just seen why....his warnings were ignored....his warnings are a part of history.
Silly Nova; stop confusing the dimwit leftists with facts!!! LOL
BINGO; but no matter how many times you play these videos, it wont change dunces minds on the left because they can only parrot empty headed talking points that are spoonfed to them.
More:
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Defective Truth making excuses for his lying buddy.
What he SAID was Republicans controlled CONGRESS...not the HOUSE.
Run along you pathetically ignorant troll; no one gives a shit what irrelevance erupts from your keyboard dumbass.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Yup...right on cue!
Look at the monumental string of invective spewed from Defective Truth's LIE Hole when he's caught lying in order to cover for a fellow Rightie.
He just can't admit he's wrong and I am right...as is so typical of this board's Righties.