By the way. Did any of you notice that it wasn't the tiny loans to low income people which sank us.

It was the HUGE loans to HUGELY overvalued properties, made to upper middle class and wealthy people which did.

Another by-the-way...

by the time Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae did start to enter the subprime market, in the last year of Clinton's Presidency, it was as an attempt to begin to deal with the explosion of subprime lending which the more intelligent economists were already warning would cause trouble.

That huge growth of sub-prime lending was entirely driven by PRIVATE lenders, not by anyone in the Federal Government.

http://www.americanbanker.com/175/freddie-mac-jumps-into-subprime-mortgages-1041664-1.html

no, i did not notice that, because it isn't true... the overvalued properties, yes, but how many 50,000 dollar home are available? the whole point of everything i'm saying is the they gave loans to people that shouldn't have a 300,000 dollar loan... that is Clintons fault, plain and simple...

if i'm making 25,000 dollars a year, how am i going to afford a 300,000 dollar home, electricity, groceries, and a 20,000 dollar car loan? not to mention insurance, for both home and car, gas and incidentals?

the liberal math was never right in the first place...

Yes, we all know that you BELIEVE that it's Clintons fault that all the private loan institutions decided to make bad loans. You repeated that unsupported fantasy repeatedly.

But it's still just another of the MYTHS made up by Republicans to try to rewrite the real history of the US, and avoid all responsibility for the fact that they did at least as much to make the mess we're in, as the Democrats did.

And you still have zero proof for your "belief."

I see a lot of bashing people who were victimized by greedy bankers, but not a lot of blaming the people behind the shady deals.

The issue wasn't that banks could/would loan to people with less-than-stellar credit; the issue was that the banks issued loans they knew would balloon, rendering them completely unaffordable.

I think it's disgusting that anyone would blame people who could afford the monthly payments at the beginning of their loan, but couldn't afford it when it doubled and sometimes tripled. Not many people would be able to afford that.

"They should have read the terms."

Yeah, they should've pulled out their magnifying glass and read something most of them wouldn't have understood anyway, sure.

"They should have hired an [insert related expert's title here]"

Right, because these people have [expert's title] on their speed-dial.

Someone chasing the faux-American-dream, yet here you people are, claiming they are the cause of the collapse, but say nothing of the greed that continues to permeate our banking industry.

You will get yours one day.

Shut your trap, we're ever your from. Wow, an ahole who defends the banks that have screwed our country!. What ever country your from, go **** yourself.

Edited for attacking other members.

soufie
Site Moderator

That's like crack heads getting crack from a crack dealer and blaming the president for making crack legal.

It's not "Clintons fault" for promoting/pushing loans on people that couldn't (or didn't want to) understand the fine print of what they were getting.

At best, banks wanted to take advantage of big institutional investors, and used poor/middle class people as a means to do so.
Regular and poor people took advantage of banks to rise up the socioeconomic ladder.
Clinton took advantage of poor people and banks to get reelected or for a legacy or image, or pork, or just because he's a democrat.

At best it's everyone's "fault."


Theoretically, if you're a free thinking, independent, self reliant, responsible American you see you're making 25k a year and don't try to buy a 300k house and a 20k+ dollar car. Instead you rent, keep your costs as low as possible, while attempting to increase that 25k to 30, 40, 50, 100, until you can afford what you want. Minimize outflow, maximize inflow. You're "making it" if the latter is higher than the former on a daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, and yearly basis.
Very simple equation.


That's part of the problem.
What's the American dream?
Has nothing to do with housing.
It's maximizing potential.
Breaking rocks in a mine but you have a super drawing ability for making turtles on matchbook covers?
Borrow money and go to art school! Freedom of opportunity to pursue what you feel is your potential.
Don't worry, you can pay it back with future earnings!
People earn more with a degree!

That's the problem.
That's inherent to the current system.

Save now, buy later, demand value. That's icky.
Borrow now, demand little value, invest, pay it later, borrow more, demand a little more value, pay it later, borrow more, etc.
Ask forgiveness rather than permission, better to have positive results to prove you did the right thing so you don't have to ask forgiveness, you can then assume you have permission for anything.
No difference.

Banks = mortgage poor people now, they'll find some way to pay it off later, insurance will cover it, income and asset appreciation will offset future losses.

Poor/people = borrow lots now, real estate only goes up, wages only go up, earning potential only goes up, can't lose.

"Clinton" (government) = "wealth effect," give people homes and money and security now, they'll spend more, add to the economy, which means they'll make more, so they'll spend more, and add to the economy, ad infinitum, and that equals forever growth and the rising tide that lifts all boats.

This is just what happens with this system.
It's everyone's fault for perpetuating it.
No one's fault because no one institution (people, business, government) can change it. At best crash it and wreck it enough to warrant replacing it. At worst just pick up the pieces and do it all again in some other fashion.

More Cronyism!
Government's Grubby Fingers redistributing Wealth and in the process mucking everything!

rules, regulations, and laws are put in place for a reason, because stupid people will do stupid things for stupid reasons... when willy boy lowered the standard for prime lending, the stupid people came out in droves to buy houses they can't afford...

there's a reason why you don't let a horse eat as much oats as it wants, because it will eat itself to death... humans aren't much different, because if you give a stupid person a credit card or a way to buy a house they can't afford, they will spend and spend and spend and wind up way worse off than they were before... sorry you people can't see this for what it is, but stupid people need to be told not to be stupid...

That's actually incorrect. People came out to buy houses they could afford with their monthly payments but most were lied to about the ballooning payments.

So, do you blame the person seeking that piece of American pie (working, owning property, thriving) or do you blame the person that KNEW they were selling something the individual wouldn't be able to afford in the future, yet lied to them anyway to turn a quick buck.

There is blame on both sides, but from where I'm sitting, the ones that knew all about those bad loans are the ones that caused this problem.

Anything to make a buck, yeah? I guess that's their American dream.... get rich quick while destroying everyone else.

the balloon is at the end of the loan and can be refinanced, and i never heard of that in housing... but that just shows that stupid people again, anyone who would get a mortgage loan with a balloon...

it was all a scam by the liberals, to buy the millions of foreclosed houses for pennies on the dollar, and to blame the repubs at the same time...

Bawney Fwank was substantial in the first one,yet nothing was changed!

No, the balloon wasn't "at the end," .

80% of the subprime mortgages were what is called 'adjustable-rate'. That means, at any time, the lender (bank) could adjust the interest rate based on the perceived risk of the loan during 'x' market and also the cost of loans to the lender at a later time.

This is designed to place the interest-rate risk from the lender to the borrower.

The problem wasn't one of 'stupidity', but of ignorance and malicious lending practices.

It also wasn't a "scam by the liberals" either. Clinton isn't a liberal - he created a new party but attempted to call it the Democratic party, but it was/is anything but.

The blame for what happened in the mortgage debacle goes all the way back to Reagan and continued on through every President since. They have all pushed for less regulatory control on the market, for banks, and for nearly every large business in the nation (laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work, if you haven't noticed).

Each President since and including Reagan took part in what happened and what will happen.

But also, it's very important to understand that the President cannot be to blame for everything that goes wrong since it is Congress that has more power than the President, and for good reason...but even that is changing.

We have problems in this nation, but those problems are coming from both parties... these problems come from the establishment.

Since you're so stuck on partisan-politics, you're going to fail to see the devastation your beloved conservatives have caused, but I urge you to open that brain of yours and realize the Democrats and Republicans (the establishment ones, and the Tea-baggers) are two sides of the same coin.

Keep dividing the nation by blaming one side and you'll continue seeing these issues continue. Start realizing that we're all here for the same thing (for the most part) and maybe then you will see just how f'd up both parties really are.

thats not part of the "hope and change" we were promised...

You keep repeating your entirely unsupported falsehoods, and so far the ONLY thing you've relied with when challenged to prove that Clinton did as you say, is to post an emoticon.

It's still false.

prove it's false... just because you repeat something over and over doesn't make it true.. this is like the 50th time you've said it, but not one post, article, website, link or anything else to support your position... Hillery is getting her moneys worth with you, huh...

The only statement which I have made that I am required to prove, is that YOU have made an unsupported statement.

And my proof is this ENTIRE THREAD AS IT STANDS.

Enough. I think everyone can see by now that you indeed have no proof.

This whole thread you've been hounding for proof... like what? some official kind of document there was indeed foul play by sitting Presidents?

I'd suggest looking into those private and personal Presidential email servers, you'll find what you're looking for there.

Those who can read between the lines know there was dirty pool playing by upper management