Thread: Are you "Furious".

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Clinton IS responsible for the Housing Bubble. I told you to research the Community Reinvestment Act, but as usual you didn't bother to check any facts.

The CRA was started by Carter, expanded by Clinton and is directly responsible for the housing bubble, and the Derivative mess. It FORCED the banks to make bad loans to people that could not afford them.

Originally Posted by gugi

Oh, that's a really good one , FORCED!!!
I can tell you're not a banker, nor have you ever played one on TV Keep up the good work, though, the banks need you!

Actually having been in the Mortgage business, he might have used the word "forced" strongly but he is kinda right here.. The mortgage guidelines were relaxed and banks that wanted Fed backing did have to write a percentage of loans that would never have been approved by the more stringent underwriting guidelines..

You might not remember the huge advertising campaigns for getting everyone into home ownership, and the Clinton administration taking the credit for this, but it did happen..

Underpriveledged Home ownwership was a point of pride during the Clinton years, that fact that the homes were over-appraised and the Loans were mostly Balloons and ARM's was what caused so many problems.

Now not to only blame Clinton you also had way to much Spec buying and selling going on too, because of the relaxed guidelines, basically anyone with a job could buy a home and in some markets could leverage the home at 125% with zero out of pocket costs... Or the best form of creative financing was to make a 80% conforming loan by writing a second mortgage for the downpayment using that 125% available

Oh yes there was some fun stuff going on back then

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Actually having been in the Mortgage business, he might have used the word "forced" strongly but he is kinda right here.. The mortgage guidelines were relaxed and banks that wanted Fed backing did have to write a percentage of loans that would never have been approved by the more stringent underwriting guidelines..

But that's not what caused the crisis, not even close. Those bad loans 'forced' by the government are really a drop in the bucket - get the numbers and see for yourself.

You've certainly noticed that when the banks get forced to do something they don't like, those who are trying to force them face really good and really well financed challengers for the next election. Along with substantial losses of campaign contributions. On related note it's a lot of fun to watch 'senate hearings' when the subjects are the largest contributors to the senators' campaigns .
For extra fun don't you ever skip a chance to drink with lobbyists

This guy really does not give any credence to someone else's argument. I guess in Mr. Gem Star's case, having been an underwriter for home loans is still not enough.

I am just tired of this "six of one, half a dozen" rhetoric that comes from the other side.

Originally Posted by gugi

But that's not what caused the crisis, not even close. Those bad loans 'forced' by the government are really a drop in the bucket - get the numbers and see for yourself.

That is not what I said, please re-read the post...

Actually having been in the Mortgage business, he might have used the word "forced" strongly but he is kinda right here.. The mortgage guidelines were relaxed and banks that wanted Fed backing did have to write a percentage of loans that would never have been approved by the more stringent underwriting guidelines..

You might not remember the huge advertising campaigns for getting everyone into home ownership, and the Clinton administration taking the credit for this, but it did happen..

Underpriveledged Home ownwership was a point of pride during the Clinton years, that fact that the homes were over-appraised and the Loans were mostly Balloons and ARM's was what caused so many problems.
Now not to only blame Clinton you also had way to much Spec buying and selling going on too, because of the relaxed guidelines, basically anyone with a job could buy a home and in some markets could leverage the home at 125% with zero out of pocket costs... Or the best form of creative financing was to make a 80% conforming loan by writing a second mortgage for the downpayment using that 125% available



The relaxed guidelines were the first step, then when that started the money flowing more and more guidleines were set aside, throw in some greed and then at the end of the line you have the crisis..

The very first step in this was the change from 80% max LTV it was the proverbial "Frog in the Pot" scenario, I was actually a Loan Originator when that changed and we went to 95% quickly followed by what we called "Creative Financing"..

Originally Posted by gssixgun

That is not what I said, please re-read the post...
...
The relaxed guidelines were the first step, then when that started the money flowing more and more guidleines were set aside, throw in some greed and then at the end of the line you have the crisis..

You can start at the relaxed guidelines as a first step, or you can start at any other point in the chain of events contributing to it (you can find a whole number of them at Causes of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). If you believe in cause and effect you can track it down all the way to the Big Bang.

Yet the original statement:

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Clinton IS responsible for the Housing Bubble.

is just as wrong.

I hate to take a sarcastic angle of some of the comments but the phrase "not knowing your arse from your elbow" comes to mind.

If we want to discuss the merits or demerits of the CRA, then we should start a new thread. This is all about F&F.

Originally Posted by MasterMason03

This is all about F&F.

HA !!!!! this is about left-vs-right, blue-vs-red Yada Yada Yada and whether Obama is going to be President for another 4 years, and if ya think it ain't, then the phrase "not knowing your arse from your elbow" does come to mind :P


Nobama 2012 if you please,,,, now back to your regularly scheduled program

I gotta bow out of this one now, because no matter what anyone says or does, I know for sure, positively, no matter what, I ain't voting for him...

Originally Posted by MasterMason03

I hate to take a sarcastic angle of some of the comments but the phrase "not knowing your arse from your elbow" comes to mind.

If we want to discuss the merits or demerits of the CRA, then we should start a new thread. This is all about F&F.

So, why aren't you talking about F&F? It looks like every time it's your turn to back your declarations with reasoned argument following a simple logical thread you get stumped and fold.

I challenged the last things you posted on the subject and you haven't responded. Let me help you - here's the excerpt of that FoxNews article I was referring to:

But Tom Fitton, president of the conservative watchdog Judicial Watch, said the documents likely "won't be protected."
He pointed to the case involving his group -- the one from 2004 -- and said the court decision conflicts with the Obama administration's current claims.
As in the current case, the 2004 case involved an attempt by the White House to lock down Justice Department documents. That case, however, involved a different type of executive privilege claim -- the Bush White House was trying to invoke the "presidential communications privilege" over documents pertaining to pardons issued under the Clinton administration. The court ruled that the claim didn't work, because the documents in question never made their way to the president's office.
The court opened the door for the Bush administration to consider invoking the "deliberative process privilege" instead -- which it did.

That is the precise category of "privilege" that Obama and Holder are now invoking to withhold Fast and Furious documents.

Notice the difference between the first two sentences and the rest? The first is simply an unsubstantiated declaration of the type you keep throwing around, the second is called reasoned logical argument, and that's what I'm looking for.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I gotta bow out of this one now, because no matter what anyone says or does, I know for sure, positively, no matter what, I ain't voting for him...

You know that unless you vote in Colorado, you are doing nothing more than wasting your time no matter who you vote for, or against.

Gugi, if you were told for your entire life that the sky is purple and you just stepped outside on day and saw it was blue, then you would think is was some vast right-wing conspiracy.