Among the many problems, A effects B and B changes C. The getto loans with no equity caused super inflation in housing prices across the board up to the million dollar homes. Everybody could suddenly afford more, those that did not want to move up took equity line loans. I called it a fake economy at the time because it was built by debt and could not figure out how so many could afford to pay so much. The whole thing was stupid and I stayed out of it. The new less fake economy is inflation and the holding of equity. Watch what happens when the USA dollar drops from being the currency of international trade, it's going to be interesting.
It's chicken or egg for me. These guys point to people not paying off their loans thus tanking the economy by cutting down on consumer spending. What they fail to mention is that the mass exodus of jobs out of the country due to cheap labor (mainly China) was likely a huge contributor to the massive defaults. Rome burned and we all lit the match.
Originally posted by ray b: interesting ... the executive short version it was the NUT CON'S DOGMA of MARKETS KNOW BEST and DEREGULATION +greed ... the very points I have been making here for years
The very points you have been wrong about for years. As I have told you for years, the Dumbs wanted everybody to be able to own a home and banks were pressured to give risky loans. Whether in the ghettos or just low income areas. The Fair Credit Act allowed all to take risky loans. You do have the greed part right. The Dumbs allowed the deregulation, had to allow it, so lenders could bundle risky loans with good one to minimize risk. It was the Dumbs who think they knew best.
Among the many problems, A effects B and B changes C. The getto loans with no equity caused super inflation in housing prices across the board up to the million dollar homes. Everybody could suddenly afford more, those that did not want to move up took equity line loans. I called it a fake economy at the time because it was built by debt and could not figure out how so many could afford to pay so much. The whole thing was stupid and I stayed out of it. The new less fake economy is inflation and the holding of equity. Watch what happens when the USA dollar drops from being the currency of international trade, it's going to be interesting.
Only thing I would fix here is that people couldn't "afford more"... that didn't change. People were able to get really low interest-only loans, or adjustable rate loans, so their payments were totally irrespective of the actual value of the home. The neighbor behind me is a perfect example. They bought the house for $580,000. The husband was a junk man, literally drove a 1982 Ford F-150 and would collect scrap metal. I'm assuming he didn't have a degree because he was unable to even sign his name (based on what I looked up at BCPA). His name looked like a 4 year old signed it... not cursive, and barely legible. The wife was a public middle school teacher. There were three teenaged kids living there. The house foreclosed after what felt like only 6 months. For the next year or so... the house lay abandoned, with them squatting in it. Then suddenly, they got to keep the house again, and the bank forgave $200,000 of the loan...not sure how that happened, but it did (again, research on BCPA). Then, almost immediately after, they foreclosed again and the house lay abandoned for the next two years... with them randomly squatting here and there. Finally, someone bought it 4-5 months ago, and they had to get the Broward County Sheriff's Department to forcibly kick them out of the house... (apparently there was a lot of drama, but I missed it).
The house was bought up by an investor, they totally renovated it, and they're currently renting it out for $2,750.
It's chicken or egg for me. These guys point to people not paying off their loans thus tanking the economy by cutting down on consumer spending. What they fail to mention is that the mass exodus of jobs out of the country due to cheap labor (mainly China) was likely a huge contributor to the massive defaults. Rome burned and we all lit the match.
That was definitely a driving factor, but at it's core, it was the housing bubble. Cheap money made prices inflate faster than normal. Bad loans increased the rate of default. As defaults increased, without increasing sales, there was nothing to support the bubble, and prices crashed. It could have happened this way regardless of outsourcing, but outsourcing certainly weakened the economy (which the cheap money and easy loans were supposed to help "fix").
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Only thing I would fix here is that people couldn't "afford more"... that didn't change. People were able to get really low interest-only loans, or adjustable rate loans, so their payments were totally irrespective of the actual value of the home. The neighbor behind me is a perfect example. They bought the house for $580,000. The husband was a junk man, literally drove a 1982 Ford F-150 and would collect scrap metal. I'm assuming he didn't have a degree because he was unable to even sign his name (based on what I looked up at BCPA). His name looked like a 4 year old signed it... not cursive, and barely legible. The wife was a public middle school teacher. There were three teenaged kids living there. The house foreclosed after what felt like only 6 months. For the next year or so... the house lay abandoned, with them squatting in it. Then suddenly, they got to keep the house again, and the bank forgave $200,000 of the loan...not sure how that happened, but it did (again, research on BCPA). Then, almost immediately after, they foreclosed again and the house lay abandoned for the next two years... with them randomly squatting here and there. Finally, someone bought it 4-5 months ago, and they had to get the Broward County Sheriff's Department to forcibly kick them out of the house... (apparently there was a lot of drama, but I missed it).
The house was bought up by an investor, they totally renovated it, and they're currently renting it out for $2,750.
Sounds like they made the "smart" play. For nearly 4 years they were able to live in a $580,000 house for next to nothing. When the smart play become the irresponsible one - this sort of thing happens more and more. Those who took loans for what they could afford and saw their house values drop were told to pound sand - no loan forgiveness for you because you're not in default.
These are the lessons of today's economy. Being responsible with your money will be punished, and being irresponsible will be forgiven and you'll get all manner of assistance.
The very points you have been wrong about for years. As I have told you for years, the Dumbs wanted everybody to be able to own a home and banks were pressured to give risky loans. Whether in the ghettos or just low income areas. The Fair Credit Act allowed all to take risky loans. You do have the greed part right. The Dumbs allowed the deregulation, had to allow it, so lenders could bundle risky loans with good one to minimize risk. It was the Dumbs who think they knew best.
NO as an other poster said on an other board
''Why did lenders suddenly shower less-creditworthy borrowers with trillions of dollars of credit? Mian and Sufi demonstrate this was enabled by the securitization of home mortgages by investment banks that did not seek federal guarantees from Fannie and Freddie—so called private-label securities, made possible by financial deregulation and the glut of cash in world markets in the wake of the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s. That private-label mortgage-backed securities were at the core of the housing meltdown is no longer in doubt''
NOTE THIS PART ''this was enabled by the securitization of home mortgages by investment banks that did not seek federal guarantees from Fannie and Freddie—so called private-label securities, made possible by financial deregulation and the glut of cash in world markets''
it was NOT the FEDS or their REGULATIONS IT WAS THE MARKETS and DEREG or the EXACT OPPOSITE OF YOUR FALSE CLAIM AND BLAME GAME
IT WAS NOT FORCED LOANS BY THE FEDS MOST OF THE DEFAULTS WERE NOT FED REGULATED LOANS OR IN REDLINED AREAS OR TO PEOPLE OF COLOR OR TO UNQUALIFIED PEOPLE THE LOANS WERE TO WHITE SUBURBANITES
YOUR NUT-CON TALKING HEAD'S LIED TO YOU AND YOU DID NOT FACT CHECK
IN FACT MANY HERE ARE REPEATING THE SOS LIES PLEASE STOP SPINNING AND CHECK THE FACTS NOW THE TRUTH IS OUT
Sounds like they made the "smart" play. For nearly 4 years they were able to live in a $580,000 house for next to nothing. When the smart play become the irresponsible one - this sort of thing happens more and more. Those who took loans for what they could afford and saw their house values drop were told to pound sand - no loan forgiveness for you because you're not in default.
These are the lessons of today's economy. Being responsible with your money will be punished, and being irresponsible will be forgiven and you'll get all manner of assistance.
You are ABSOLUTELY right! There was only a very short period of time when we were "underwater"... maybe not even ever, but that's only because we bought in 2003. We bought a house in the neighborhood that needed a lot of work. We were basically buying in a neighborhood that was out of our price range, but we got a really good deal on a house that needed significant TLC. Anyway, when the market really tanked... we were around ~$5,000 underwater... if even that. We recovered pretty quickly since we paid at least that much principal during that year... but when the government started issuing loans for people who were underwater, they wouldn't allow us because we weren't in default. It was actually at this time that my wife started to change her views as a Democrat and begin to think conservatively. She came to me one day and said... do we have to stop making payments before the bank would be willing to let us refinance?
''Why did lenders suddenly shower less-creditworthy borrowers with trillions of dollars of credit?
BECAUSE of the changes Barney Frank made to the Equal Housing Lender act through support of the Fair Lending Act. This was made possible by Democrats because of the deregulation that was passed. The deregulation wouldn't have been a bad thing, except the Democrats in all their infinite wisdom decided to abuse it. I will say it again... it FORCED banks to give subprime loans. The banks were basically NO LONGER ALLOWED to offer secured prime loans without a certain percentage of their loans going to subprime borrowers.
FORCED RayB, FORCED... I can't think of any other way to say this. You're grasping at straws here.
They were laws that were well intentioned, but like most Democrat laws, they end up exacerbating problems, rather than fixing them.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: BECAUSE of the changes Barney Frank made to the Equal Housing Lender act through support of the Fair Lending Act. This was made possible by Democrats because of the deregulation that was passed. The deregulation wouldn't have been a bad thing, except the Democrats in all their infinite wisdom decided to abuse it. I will say it again... it FORCED banks to give subprime loans. The banks were basically NO LONGER ALLOWED to offer secured prime loans without a certain percentage of their loans going to subprime borrowers.
FORCED RayB, FORCED... I can't think of any other way to say this. You're grasping at straws here.
They were laws that were well intentioned, but like most Democrat laws, they end up exacerbating problems, rather than fixing them.
SORRY DUDE CHECK THE facts your are just parroting nut con lies that fit your dogma
again check the facts YOU ARE WRONG
LIKE YOUR HERO ST RON OF RAYGUN SAID SO MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE THINGS THAT JUST ARE NOT TRUE
hint BANKS DID NOT MAKE MANY SUB-PRIME LOANS BY FAR MOST WERE MORTGAGE CORPS NOT BANKS IN THE SUB-PRIME MARKETS MORTGAGE CORPS DID NOT HAVE THE REGS BANKS DID THEY WERE NOT FORCED TO LOAN ANYTHING TO ANYBODY [EXCEPT BY GREED]
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 05-24-2014).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: BECAUSE of the changes Barney Frank made to the Equal Housing Lender act through support of the Fair Lending Act. This was made possible by Democrats because of the deregulation that was passed. The deregulation wouldn't have been a bad thing, except the Democrats in all their infinite wisdom decided to abuse it. I will say it again... it FORCED banks to give subprime loans. The banks were basically NO LONGER ALLOWED to offer secured prime loans without a certain percentage of their loans going to subprime borrowers.
FORCED RayB, FORCED... I can't think of any other way to say this. You're grasping at straws here.
They were laws that were well intentioned, but like most Democrat laws, they end up exacerbating problems, rather than fixing them.
He made those changes at the time when his lover was running a gay prostituting business out of Barney's home and Barney would strong arm the local cops to dismiss charges and parking fines.
Barney Frank was a bad dude and he is partially to blame for the housing bubble, so you are right about that.
He made those changes at the time when his lover was running a gay prostituting business out of Barney's home and Barney would strong arm the local cops to dismiss charges and parking fines.
Barney Frank was a bad dude and he is partially to blame for the housing bubble, so you are right about that.
AGAIN THIS BS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MORTGAGE CORPS WHO MADE MOST SUB-PRIME LOANS
AGAIN THIS BS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MORTGAGE CORPS WHO MADE MOST SUB-PRIME LOANS
Other than one opinion piece from the Washington post, which was reposted by Media Matters, almost every article from investment, business and unbiased news sources points Barney Franks role to force Banks under the CRA to loosen credit requirements for Democratic Party constituents and to force Fannie and Freddy to accept a mandated percentage of ghetto loans, bills that he wrote, championed and passed with Democratic Party was one of the major causes of the mortgage crisis.
It was a combination of things, but no doubt that Barney Frank had a role in the cause.
Sorry dude. This isn't about nut con stuff. To say that the amended CRA and even the original CRA passed by Carter had no role in the mortgage crisis is an absolute lie to tenth degree.
There is some legitimate things and events to blame it all on Bush and Nut Cons, but Dems and Liberal central planning command economic policies as having nothing but rainbow utopia positive results and beliving and worst is defending that insane belief makes you more of a quack than bible thumping neo cons.
The CRAs that have been passed through the years and especially Barney Franks version was BAD policy that lead to detrimental outcomes.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: BECAUSE of the changes Barney Frank made to the Equal Housing Lender act through support of the Fair Lending Act. This was made possible by Democrats because of the deregulation that was passed. The deregulation wouldn't have been a bad thing, except the Democrats in all their infinite wisdom decided to abuse it. I will say it again... it FORCED banks to give subprime loans. The banks were basically NO LONGER ALLOWED to offer secured prime loans without a certain percentage of their loans going to subprime borrowers.
FORCED RayB, FORCED... I can't think of any other way to say this. You're grasping at straws here.
They were laws that were well intentioned, but like most Democrat laws, they end up exacerbating problems, rather than fixing them.
I was working in banking and spoke to many of the upper people and they were very concerned with the new rules because they knew the people were very high risk of default.
He made those changes at the time when his lover was running a gay prostituting business out of Barney's home and Barney would strong arm the local cops to dismiss charges and parking fines.
Barney Frank was a bad dude and he is partially to blame for the housing bubble, so you are right about that.
Wasn't one of his close fag buddies a higher up in one of the clearing houses of Freddie or Fannie? you know the one he was part of the oversight committee that kept saying there was no problem?
Are you mentally challenged? Serious question. If you are, I am sorry.
NO but I do feel many nut-con's are or at minimum brain washed
why can't you understand bank rules doNOT APPLY TO MORTGAGE corps there are 3 sets of rules one for banks another for savings and loans and TOTALLY DIFFERENT RULES FOR CORPS THAT JUST WRITE MORTGAGES [WITHOUT PUBLIC DEPOSITS]
AND THE SUB-PRIME LOANS WERE MOSTLY FROM MORTGAGE CORPS NOT BANKS OR S&Ls and b frank had nothing to do with the mortgage CORPs
Wasn't one of his close fag buddies a higher up in one of the clearing houses of Freddie or Fannie? you know the one he was part of the oversight committee that kept saying there was no problem?
yes and freddie and fannie did not deal with MORTGAGE CORPS ONE DEALT WITH BANKS THE OTHER THE S&Ls
so what did frank do to the sub-prime loans made not by banks or S&Ls ? answer NOTHING
CRA HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SUB-PROME LOANS MADE BY MORTGAGE CORPs
CRA was created by Carter Admin and used as a billy club by Clinton Admin to force increased ("equal") lending to "underserved" areas - low income, credit poor populations.
Bush Admin warned of issues years before the bubble burst - rebuffed by Frank (as posted by Old Lar)
Freddie and Fannie enabled predators to bundle bad loans as a package, often purchasing them themselves, and left holding the bag in most cases.
It's Bush's fault for not issuing an Executive Order stating that Frank was (and is, still) an idiot, and that Fannie and Freddie needed closer oversight.
CRA was created by Carter Admin and used as a billy club by Clinton Admin to force increased ("equal") lending to "underserved" areas - low income, credit poor populations.
Bush Admin warned of issues years before the bubble burst - rebuffed by Frank (as posted by Old Lar)
Freddie and Fannie enabled predators to bundle bad loans as a package, often purchasing them themselves, and left holding the bag in most cases.
It's Bush's fault for not issuing an Executive Order stating that Frank was (and is, still) an idiot, and that Fannie and Freddie needed closer oversight.
Stop trying to spin this for the LIBTARDS, ray.
NOT CRA OR FRANK OR FANNIE OR FREDIE or any other nut-con's fears or things [lies] rush or fox news told you
READ THE DAM,M LINK [and stop spouting nut con BS DOGMA]
SUB-PRIME LOANS BY MORTGAGE CORPS ie NOT BANKS NO CRA mostly MADE BY unregulated CORPs AND HOME EQUITY LOANS = LINES OF CREDIT by = REFI OF EXISTING OR SECOND MORTGAGES and were resold NOT TO FREDDIE or FANNIE
The financial crisis was 100% caused by the democrat black caucus subprime lending fiasco starting in 2002
Prez Bush fought this ,"screams of Racism", then Cheney fought it "screams of racist"stock Guru & bank Gurus ranted about the subprime Fiasco the racist scream shut them all up there is no other
Now every Financial institution that deals with home loans is blamed!! they tried to make money It is not politically Correct to blame blacks in the black caucus,,bull crapola I was still heavy into stocks when this happen & this was identified as a disaster & Fiasco from day one our present situation was caused 100% by the black caucus sub prime,,you are an idiot if you believe different!! but no one prominent can speak because they are called RACIST..Political Correctness destroyed some of the biggest financial house,s in the country,Obumbles rescued 100,s of his contributors,, to help his largest contributor ,Obumbles coerced BOA prez ken Lewis,,sold countrywide to bank of America & then pilloried bank of America president Ken Lewis,had him drawn & quartered verbaly & if Obumbles had the Kings power ,,they would drag Lewis thru town on a wheel ,then while he was still alive ,have him castrated & enviserated while he was forced to watch as BRAVE HEART knight William Wallace was..
[This message has been edited by uhlanstan (edited 05-25-2014).]
The financial crisis was 100% caused by the democrat black caucus subprime lending fiasco starting in 2002
Prez Bush fought this ,"screams of Racism", then Cheney fought it "screams of racist"stock Guru & bank Gurus ranted about the subprime Fiasco the racist scream shut them all up there is no other
Now every Financial institution that deals with home loans is blamed!! they tried to make money It is not politically Correct to blame blacks in the black caucus,,bull crapola I was still heavy into stocks when this happen & this was identified as a disaster & Fiasco from day one our present situation was caused 100% by the black caucus sub prime,,you are an idiot if you believe different!! but no one prominent can speak because they are called RACIST..Political Correctness destroyed some of the biggest financial house,s in the country,Obumbles rescued 100,s of his contributors,, to help his largest contributor ,Obumbles coerced BOA prez ken Lewis,,sold countrywide to bank of America & then pilloried bank of America president Ken Lewis,had him drawn & quartered verbaly & if Obumbles had the Kings power ,,they would drag Lewis thru town on a wheel ,then while he was still alive ,have him castrated & enviserated while he was forced to watch as BRAVE HEART knight William Wallace was..
YES STAN WE KNOW YOU HAVE BRAIN DAMAGE AND BELIEVE EVERY LIE THE NUT CON'S TELL
BUT DID YOU READ THE LINK ? DO YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR POST IS BS 100% SPIN AND LIES 000% TRUTH ? DOES TRUTH MATTER TO YOU
Ray, do you really believe the BS you write about? You need to stop reading then believing the democratic propaganda. You must have been dropped on your head then bounced along the road on your head to be so mentally deficient. If you want to see nut cons, look in the mirror.
Ray, do you really believe the BS you write about? You need to stop reading then believing the democratic propaganda. You must have been dropped on your head then bounced along the road on your head to be so mentally deficient. If you want to see nut cons, look in the mirror.
believe is not the correct word as it is far to tied to BELIEF IN THINGS THAT DONOT EXIST by faith LIKE GODS OR HEAVEN that I note many of the rightwing believers are also god-fearers so you already believe in things that do not exist like religions so you also swallow whole the rightwing DOGMA JUST AS YOU ''BELIEVE CHRISTIAN DOGMAS in fact the two dogmas overlap and intertwine
UNDERSTAND is a better word as you can't understand things that do not exist no belief or faith is needed to understand but many who have faith in belief seam to be incapable of understanding anything that contradicts the dogmas dogmas are not facts facts disprove dogmas but the faithful are incapable on understanding facts
so our nut con's remain talking about b frank and CRA WHEN THE FACTS SAY NO SOMETHING ELSE WAS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT
BUT the nut-con's go on and on about their dogma said feds are evil and markets are good and dismiss the facts even when the truth is known they still cling to their dogma even after the dogma is the known cause of the falures [dereg]
ray b telling anyone they have brain damage is like John Kerry calling Mitt Romney the 1%.
I thought that it was Kerry's wife that had the money. I would have to research it but I don't think he has squat. Comparatively. I do remember something about him fudging the registration on his yacht to get out of paying taxes, but maybe that was his wife's too.
no bank was forced to loan anything. the could only NOT deny a loan based on Zip Code. Thats it. income, property value, and any other factors still applied, and the banks CHOSE to give these "ghetto loans". and, all these loans had collateral, which the bank accepted as OK. we claiming banks dont know what they are doing?
I fully agree with the theory above of the easy loans pumped up the housing prices. is this a bad thing? is this not what "free market" is all about? and, I would like to see come actual numbers. how much money was actually loaned out to these ghetto loans? I have a hard time believing these "ghetto loans" could actually add up to "great recession" numbers. that would imply "the ghetto" is a major force of the economy. is that really what we are claiming?
anyways, in the end - I do feel the whole concept of "loans" to be a tool of evil, and should not really play a part in any economy. but, since our entire monetary system is based on loans - never gonna happen. there will NEVER be a day when the USA is debt free. at least using the system we currently have.
no bank was forced to loan anything. the could only NOT deny a loan based on Zip Code. Thats it. income, property value, and any other factors still applied, and the banks CHOSE to give these "ghetto loans". and, all these loans had collateral, which the bank accepted as OK. we claiming banks dont know what they are doing?
Talk about first world problems - we define someone who gives you hundreds of thousands of dollars based on nothing more than your promise to pay it back a "predator."
That's not really an accurate description of a predatory loan.
While I agree that the people getting a loan should have read the fine print, a predatory loan typically had hidden clauses in it making it nearly impossible to ever pay off, the interest rates could suddenly skyrocket without warning among other things. It wasn't just people getting a loan they couldn't afford. It was people getting a loan they couldn't afford, that the bank told them they could afford because of some magic preformed on the loan, and they believed it. In this case the banks took advantage of the customer, by pushing loans that were impossible to pay off because the banks then got some sort of bonus from whoever for doing it.
no bank was forced to loan anything. the could only NOT deny a loan based on Zip Code. Thats it. income, property value, and any other factors still applied, and the banks CHOSE to give these "ghetto loans". and, all these loans had collateral, which the bank accepted as OK. we claiming banks dont know what they are doing?
I fully agree with the theory above of the easy loans pumped up the housing prices. is this a bad thing? is this not what "free market" is all about? and, I would like to see come actual numbers. how much money was actually loaned out to these ghetto loans? I have a hard time believing these "ghetto loans" could actually add up to "great recession" numbers. that would imply "the ghetto" is a major force of the economy. is that really what we are claiming?
anyways, in the end - I do feel the whole concept of "loans" to be a tool of evil, and should not really play a part in any economy. but, since our entire monetary system is based on loans - never gonna happen. there will NEVER be a day when the USA is debt free. at least using the system we currently have.
A quota will establish a required blind eye to qualifications. See what happened at University of California Berkeley to many year to unqualified minorities. The built up debt to go to school and eventually flunked out with no degree. The same think happened to home loans. With the manipulation by the outside forces to provide to the unqualified, the limited supply is consumed and prices are driven up. This applies to both the home loan industry and school loans. Both manipulate the available slots for the qualified.
I am claiming that the unqualified caused a domino effect that lessened the further away from the price point of the unqualified. I think if you check the 800K + markets, there was much less % bounce in the "indicated value".
Originally posted by FriendGregory: A quota will establish a required blind eye to qualifications. See what happened at University of California Berkeley to many year to unqualified minorities. The built up debt to go to school and eventually flunked out with no degree. The same think happened to home loans. With the manipulation by the outside forces to provide to the unqualified, the limited supply is consumed and prices are driven up. This applies to both the home loan industry and school loans. Both manipulate the available slots for the qualified.
I am claiming that the unqualified caused a domino effect that lessened the further away from the price point of the unqualified. I think if you check the 800K + markets, there was much less % bounce in the "indicated value".
so, you are claiming the banks didnt know what they were doing? or did it intentionally? or did not care, because they knew they would not be held accountable? there was no "forcing" going on. not a bit. banks were EAGER to loan money - even to the unqualified. heck, they even advertised that bankruptcy was no problem. I agree with what you are saying - but - your wording seems to imply that you think there was some sort of "affirmative action" thing, which is not true.
I believe that many people made reasonable, rational decisions about taking on housing debt with no intention of ever paying off the principal.
I know my barber (at the time) and his wife were able to “buy” a very nice home with payments less than they were paying in rent. Of course there was a balloon payment due in a few years but they intended to pocket the money they were saving in rent and walk away from the house when the balloon payment came due. The reasoning was that the bank would get the house back and resell it for an appreciated amount so they had no guilt concerning their intent.
A clerk where I worked purchased a townhouse on her salary which was just a little more than minimum wage. No down payment and low monthly for a year. She lived there until the higher payment kicked in and then walked away.
The system was wide open to massive fraud. I can see why lenders ended up with lots of property and no cash flow.
Originally posted by Pyrthian: there was no "forcing" going on. not a bit. banks were EAGER to loan money - even to the unqualified. heck, they even advertised that bankruptcy was no problem. I agree with what you are saying - but - your wording seems to imply that you think there was some sort of "affirmative action" thing, which is not true.
No, there was no "forcing" going on. The banks however weren't honest about their lending practices, and used peoples lack of knowledge to have people "willingly" sign up for loans that they could not repay.
So yea, they didn't "force" people to sign up for loans the same way my Ex wife didn't "force" me to give her all of my stuff.
Banks, CUs, Mortgage companies and all others, wrote loans on a growing housing pool with very little to worry about. High risk loans were bundled with lower risk notes and sold as a package to investors. Whether Freddie and Fannie, the FDIC, or the FTC, all of this activity was begun under a Democratic President, allowed to happen by a Democratic Congress, and attempts to minimize the damage by a Republican President were rebuffed by Democratic lawmakers who said, effectively, "What, me worry?"
Banks, CUs, Mortgage companies and all others, wrote loans on a growing housing pool with very little to worry about. High risk loans were bundled with lower risk notes and sold as a package to investors. Whether Freddie and Fannie, the FDIC, or the FTC, all of this activity was begun under a Democratic President, allowed to happen by a Democratic Congress, and attempts to minimize the damage by a Republican President were rebuffed by Democratic lawmakers who said, effectively, "What, me worry?"
yet another who spouts the DOGMA
BUT DIDnot read the link
again YES WE KNOW YOUR DOGMA SAID THAT BUT IT IS NOT TRUE
