So long, troll.
As America Changes, Some Anxious Whites Feel Left Behind
- Thread starter Guno צְבִי
- Start date
So long, troll.
GSE's did not cause the housing crisis.
GSE's couldn't purchase risky loans thanks to a 2000 Clinton-era HUD rule that prohibited GSE's from purchasing risky loans.
Bush reversed that rule in 2004. Why? Because he was trying to inflate a mortgage bubble to cover for the failure of his tax cuts to deliver on any of the promises made of them.
Here's the 2000 Clinton-era HUD rule: "(In 2000) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."
Here's Bush reversing that rule: "In 2004, the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."
Also, GSE's weren't responsible for the collapse. What was responsible was your deregulation policies and beliefs. Your deregulation is why lending standards for subprime loans were reduced beginning in 2004.
That is true; and the FACTS bear that out. But in small brained liberal moron land, you think that means next year. Are you really this stupid; or just a dishonest moron on steroids?
Dear idiot; Bush inherited a recession. After TWO tax cuts, revenue increased. That's just FACT. Now you can whine, you can scream and you can stomp your little feet; it doesn't make you look any less stupid.
Your issue is with intelligence and honesty. Now do everyone a favor and ......
And they blamed Black people. Said Blacks were taking out loans they couldn't afford.
No it isn't! Revenue was below 2000 levels for four years following the Bush Tax Cuts in 2001. Why are you denying that? It's clear in the stats. Revenue collected in 2001-4 was below revenue for 2000.
The facts do not bear that out (and you haven't proven they do, not once) because the facts show that revenue from 2001-4 was below revenue for 2000. The Bush Tax Cuts started in 2001.
A recession? No. The recession in 2001 didn't start until April of 2001, after Bush was already President for a couple months. And it ended by November. And it was such a weak recession that GDP for 2001 was still positive.
After two tax cuts? No. The Bush Tax Cuts were passed in 2001, and revenue was below 2000 levels until 2005. And 2005 was when the mortgage bubble was in full swing. Without people using their homes as ATMs, Bush's GDP growth was the worst since the Great Depression.
And if you want to credit the tax cuts for the revenue growth in 2005, then you must also credit the tax cuts for the mortgage bubble since that was what was driving Bush's economy. A housing bubble you also, confusedly, blame on Democrats. So what we have here is an example of you trying to take credit for the gains, while socializing the loss. Which is so typically Conservative, you might as well just end your post with a swastika or burning cross.
Bush is the one who credited the housing bubble to his tax cuts in 2004...which means his tax cuts also bear the blame for the collapse of the housing market. Because you can't have it both ways.
Of course they did....because not only are they terrible at governing and managing an economy, but they're fucking racists assholes too.
You said "tax cuts always increase revenue", which is demonstrably wrong by the fact that revenue from 2001-4, after the tax cuts, was below revenue for 2000.
It's also a fact that without Bush deregulating the mortgage industry, there would not have been a collapse and his growth was pathetic.
Your garbage tax cuts doubled the debt. And you were silent the entire time because debt and deficits mean nothing to you; you just pretend they do to make yourself sound serious and intelligent. But you and I both know that's just an act, and you're really just a deficient, insecure, deplorable loser who wins vicariously through Trump because your own personal life is one of abject failure.
Moron thinks he knows what he is talking about.
You're the moron here.
I asked you a very simple question; that pension liability that you're screeching about is over how many years?
Your response is to post the same meme over and over, which indicates that you don't know what the fuck yiou're talking about, but your ego is too big and fragile for you to simply slink away like the slimy slug you are, so you exercise Dunning-Kruger so you can breathe a sigh of relief that you have successfully avoiding culpability yet again.
What a pussy.
evince
Truthmatters
I'll be looking for a link that supports your moronic claim of this Bush "reversal" of some "rule" as being the cause.
Meanwhile, some reading for the moron and I suggest you watch that video again and again until it sinks into that thick neanderthal skull of yours:
The True Origins of This Financial CrisisThe American Spectator
As originally enacted in 1977, the CRA vaguely mandated regulators to consider whether an insured bank was serving the needs of the “whole” community. For 16 years, the act was invoked rather infrequently, but 1993 marked a decisive turn in its enforcement. What changed? Substantial media and political attention was showered upon a 1992 Boston Federal Reserve Bank study of discrimination in home mortgage lending. This study concluded that, while there was no overt discrimination in banks’ allocation of mortgage funds, loan officers gave whites preferential treatment. The methodology of the study has since been questioned, but at the time it was highly influential with regulators and members of the incoming Clinton administration; in 1993, bank regulators initiated a major effort to reform the CRA regulations.
https://spectator.org/42211_true-origins-financial-crisis/
How The Government Caused The Mortgage Crisis
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-government-caused-the-mortgage-crisis-2009-10
Two low IQ leftist liars in a circle jerk. Both of you are wrong. It was the members of the Democratic Party of the Jackass that made those moronic claims. Watch the video. I think it may have been both because of this:
Oxley pulls Fannie, Freddie bill under heat from Bush - MarketWatch
"Strong opposition by the Bush administration forced a top Republican congressman to delay a vote on a bill that would create a new regulator for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
Federal Reserve Bank - Atlanta
"Despite what appeared to be a broad consensus on GSE regulatory reform, efforts quickly stalled. A legislative markup scheduled for October 8, 2003, in the House of Representatives was halted because the Bush administration withdrew its support for the bill,"
(fyi, broad consensus means it would have probably passed. what happened to it again? oh yea bush stopped it)
evince
Truthmatters
One of the major promises of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is to stimulate greater competition in the financial services industry, and give investors a wider array of services at lower prices. Much of that has occurred, but not as much as was expected, in part due to ambiguity in the governing legal rules. Today's action is especially important to help bring the legislative promise of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to fulfillment.
the linkisthfirst link in my signature
this was done by the republican party to avoid the good effects in the Gram leach bliely act signed by Clinton
the republicans didn't implement the rules so the banks got everything they wanted and NONE of the things they didnt want from GLB act
The GLB act would have worked fine if the fucking republicans under Bush has implemented the rules
the linkisthfirst link in my signature
this was done by the republican party to avoid the good effects in the Gram leach bliely act signed by Clinton
the republicans didn't implement the rules so the banks got everything they wanted and NONE of the things they didnt want from GLB act
The GLB act would have worked fine if the fucking republicans under Bush has implemented the rules
The links are in the post you responded to you, boy wonder...they're light blue. Is this your first time on a message board?
Here's the 2000 Clinton-era HUD rule: "(In 2000) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."
Here's Bush reversing that rule: "In 2004, the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."
See, my links come from the WaPo and the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
Yours are just bullshit propaganda from right-wing echo chamber.
You're a joke, dude.
Funny how you use right-wing, Nazi propaganda to support your argument even though in 2008, the Federal Reserve said this about the CRA with regard to the mortgage crisis you Conservative idiots caused:
From the Federal Reserve, which trumps your lies:
"Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "
Ouch.
