So since Clinton was involved with equal opp that he was responsible for the bubble.
==================
Democrats are responsible. Not just Clinton.
have always suggested that bubbles come from leverage, not from equal opp housing initiatives. The reason housing came crashing down in dramatic fashion was not due to equal opp lending, rather loose lending practices across all demographics and monster leveraging.
==============================
The "leverage" was caused by government policies.
Loose lending practices, were encouraged by government policies.
This is all documented in the links I provided you.
You have an emotional attachment to the idea that these mortgage lenders/brokers all just acted improperly in a vacuum.
So since Clinton was involved with equal opp that he was responsible for the bubble.
==================
Democrats are responsible. Not just Clinton.
have always suggested that bubbles come from leverage, not from equal opp housing initiatives. The reason housing came crashing down in dramatic fashion was not due to equal opp lending, rather loose lending practices across all demographics and monster leveraging.
==============================
The "leverage" was caused by government policies.
Loose lending practices, were encouraged by government policies.
This is all documented in the links I provided you.
You have an emotional attachment to the idea that these mortgage lenders/brokers all just acted improperly in a vacuum.
If what you suggest was true then the upper end of the price range which were not equal opp lenders would have survived, that is the exact opposite and still is the case here. This market has bounced off the lows nicely but the high end price point has actually not participated as the demand curve is not as active as the lower price point (which was my contention back when we discussed this before).
==============================
So in other words, you're pretending that in an economy that is stagnant with 8+ % unemployment, that limited demand of high price homes means that government encouraged sub prime loans weren't a problem.
Or something.
Note, you make these crazy assertions time & again, and I respond with actual data and links to news articles refuting every thing you say.
You simply can't bring yourself to understand the government created this mess. You need to blame Bush.
If what you suggest was true then the upper end of the price range which were not equal opp lenders would have survived, that is the exact opposite and still is the case here. This market has bounced off the lows nicely but the high end price point has actually not participated as the demand curve is not as active as the lower price point (which was my contention back when we discussed this before).
==============================
So in other words, you're pretending that in an economy that is stagnant with 8+ % unemployment, that limited demand of high price homes means that government encouraged sub prime loans weren't a problem.
Or something.
Note, you make these crazy assertions time & again, and I respond with actual data and links to news articles refuting every thing you say.
You simply can't bring yourself to understand the government created this mess. You need to blame Bush.
You arent linking articles or data that refute anything, you find opinions that support your contention and you run with it.
I disagree with your contentions and your need to always make personal jabs while you do it.
To post 51..you are excusing the actions of lenders and corporations, that since the government wasnt forcing them to act a certain way then of course they have to do the opposite, right?
If you go and get approved for a 1 million dollar credit card and you make 50k a year, that some bank was stupid enough to give you this line of credit, does that mean you MUST go and spend it, that since it is there you are forced to run that line of credit up?
That way of thinking is hilarious at best..that if corporations are not being forced into certain behavior that the excuse for bad behavior is the government.
It does fit your reply style though, that the government is to blame for any and all woes, especially if a democrat happens to be involved or even remotely in the area.
You arent linking articles or data that refute anything, you find opinions that support your contention and you run with it.
I disagree with your contentions and your need to always make personal jabs while you do it.
To post 51..you are excusing the actions of lenders and corporations, that since the government wasnt forcing them to act a certain way then of course they have to do the opposite, right?
If you go and get approved for a 1 million dollar credit card and you make 50k a year, that some bank was stupid enough to give you this line of credit, does that mean you MUST go and spend it, that since it is there you are forced to run that line of credit up?
That way of thinking is hilarious at best..that if corporations are not being forced into certain behavior that the excuse for bad behavior is the government.
It does fit your reply style though, that the government is to blame for any and all woes, especially if a democrat happens to be involved or even remotely in the area.
I owned a house through both of the presidents in question and I dont recall seeing a doubling of housing prices where I lived during the middle to late 90s, nor into the early 2000s.
=================
Ok, assume for a minute this is true (note your ancedot isn't data).
Um, housing prices were increasing all throughout the 1990's.
For example, here is a chart detailing by state the % increase of median home prices between 1999 & 2000.
Since you said "Bush created this mess" why is the Washington Post & Village Voice writing articles about the Clinton years?
Are those liberal publications misinformed? What facts or data do you have to demonstrate they are misinformed?
Further, what policy or policies did Bush implement that caused "this mess"?
I'd also like to note that to this point you have asserted that Bush misled people on Iraq WMD (Clinton spent 8 years telling America Iraq had WMD) and Iraq had no WMD.
Both assertions are false. Don't you think it would be worth while to take a time out and assess your other premises?
I owned a house through both of the presidents in question and I dont recall seeing a doubling of housing prices where I lived during the middle to late 90s, nor into the early 2000s.
=================
Ok, assume for a minute this is true (note your ancedot isn't data).
Um, housing prices were increasing all throughout the 1990's.
For example, here is a chart detailing by state the % increase of median home prices between 1999 & 2000.
Since you said "Bush created this mess" why is the Washington Post & Village Voice writing articles about the Clinton years?
Are those liberal publications misinformed? What facts or data do you have to demonstrate they are misinformed?
Further, what policy or policies did Bush implement that caused "this mess"?
I'd also like to note that to this point you have asserted that Bush misled people on Iraq WMD (Clinton spent 8 years telling America Iraq had WMD) and Iraq had no WMD.
Both assertions are false. Don't you think it would be worth while to take a time out and assess your other premises?
Operation Desert Fox certainly was serious. And Clinton claimed he launched Operation Desert Fox to stop the proliferation of Iraq's WMD programs. So your point is, what now?
So now you're reduced to basically saying Clinton didn't believe Iraq really had any weapons, or if they did, they would never use them.
Note, your claim that Bush "fed intentionally wrong information" has no validity, or basis in fact.
Was Operation Desert Fox an invasion of Iraq?
I dont think so
Were there WMD's found in Iraq after the invasion? To any extent of potential harm to this country?
Operation Desert Fox certainly was serious. And Clinton claimed he launched Operation Desert Fox to stop the proliferation of Iraq's WMD programs. So your point is, what now?
So now you're reduced to basically saying Clinton didn't believe Iraq really had any weapons, or if they did, they would never use them.
Note, your claim that Bush "fed intentionally wrong information" has no validity, or basis in fact.
Was Operation Desert Fox an invasion of Iraq?
I dont think so
Were there WMD's found in Iraq after the invasion? To any extent of potential harm to this country?
You arent linking articles or data that refute anything, you find opinions that support your contention and you run with it.
I disagree with your contentions and your need to always make personal jabs while you do it.
To post 51..you are excusing the actions of lenders and corporations, that since the government wasnt forcing them to act a certain way then of course they have to do the opposite, right?
If you go and get approved for a 1 million dollar credit card and you make 50k a year, that some bank was stupid enough to give you this line of credit, does that mean you MUST go and spend it, that since it is there you are forced to run that line of credit up?
That way of thinking is hilarious at best..that if corporations are not being forced into certain behavior that the excuse for bad behavior is the government.
It does fit your reply style though, that the government is to blame for any and all woes, especially if a democrat happens to be involved or even remotely in the area.
Um, it wasn't my "opinion" that Iraq had WMD, it is a fact.
It wasn't my "opinion" that Clinton said Iraq had WMD, it is a fact.
Otherwise, your analogy regarding the credit card leaves out the government as an actor. If the governmetnt was buying your $1 CC balance from the lendor, that would change things, wouldn't it?
You arent linking articles or data that refute anything, you find opinions that support your contention and you run with it.
I disagree with your contentions and your need to always make personal jabs while you do it.
To post 51..you are excusing the actions of lenders and corporations, that since the government wasnt forcing them to act a certain way then of course they have to do the opposite, right?
If you go and get approved for a 1 million dollar credit card and you make 50k a year, that some bank was stupid enough to give you this line of credit, does that mean you MUST go and spend it, that since it is there you are forced to run that line of credit up?
That way of thinking is hilarious at best..that if corporations are not being forced into certain behavior that the excuse for bad behavior is the government.
It does fit your reply style though, that the government is to blame for any and all woes, especially if a democrat happens to be involved or even remotely in the area.
Um, it wasn't my "opinion" that Iraq had WMD, it is a fact.
It wasn't my "opinion" that Clinton said Iraq had WMD, it is a fact.
Otherwise, your analogy regarding the credit card leaves out the government as an actor. If the governmetnt was buying your $1 CC balance from the lendor, that would change things, wouldn't it?
Which had motive and outside reasons for invading Iraq?
Which president crafted intelligence that misled congress to enable the invasion to occur?
Which president tied in 9-11 to Iraq to forward the support for the invasion?
I've said many times that the bubble inflated and exploded on Bush's watch, you are incorrectly equating price increase with a bubble and that is erroneous. A bubble is excessive inflation that cannot be sustained and controlled, this it pops and destroyed the housing sector. Housing price increases over a 10 year period of time without a massive bubble does not equate to what we experienced under Bush's watch.
All this comes from your desire to blame Obama and Clinton for everything, I've positioned that the actions of Obama will not be seen probably until he is gone and maybe not at all since the destruction created before him will probably be continuing another 5-7 years.
Which had motive and outside reasons for invading Iraq?
Which president crafted intelligence that misled congress to enable the invasion to occur?
Which president tied in 9-11 to Iraq to forward the support for the invasion?
I've said many times that the bubble inflated and exploded on Bush's watch, you are incorrectly equating price increase with a bubble and that is erroneous. A bubble is excessive inflation that cannot be sustained and controlled, this it pops and destroyed the housing sector. Housing price increases over a 10 year period of time without a massive bubble does not equate to what we experienced under Bush's watch.
All this comes from your desire to blame Obama and Clinton for everything, I've positioned that the actions of Obama will not be seen probably until he is gone and maybe not at all since the destruction created before him will probably be continuing another 5-7 years.
Um, it wasn't my "opinion" that Iraq had WMD, it is a fact.
It wasn't my "opinion" that Clinton said Iraq had WMD, it is a fact.
Otherwise, your analogy regarding the credit card leaves out the government as an actor. If the governmetnt was buying your $1 CC balance from the lendor, that would change things, wouldn't it?
That wouldnt change a single thing, Fannie and Freddie were not full government entities, nor were they originators of all mortgages, that came from the private sector.
Again..if the company gave you a million dollar credit line, are you forced to go and spend it all knowing you will never be able to justify repaying it?
Um, it wasn't my "opinion" that Iraq had WMD, it is a fact.
It wasn't my "opinion" that Clinton said Iraq had WMD, it is a fact.
Otherwise, your analogy regarding the credit card leaves out the government as an actor. If the governmetnt was buying your $1 CC balance from the lendor, that would change things, wouldn't it?
That wouldnt change a single thing, Fannie and Freddie were not full government entities, nor were they originators of all mortgages, that came from the private sector.
Again..if the company gave you a million dollar credit line, are you forced to go and spend it all knowing you will never be able to justify repaying it?
..that if corporations are not being forced into certain behavior that the excuse for bad behavior is the government.
==============================
Corporatons faced litigation under the CRA for lending practices.
Again, this is all documented.
Ahhh...so after the corporation makes billions in profits and creates a massive bubble which they get bailed out on then they are facing litigation for their bad behavior.
So where again is this the fault of the government?
Countrywide deceives auditors and regulators and consumers, destroys millions of people and sucks in billions of profits from this deception and your rational is that they might be sued for a minor percentage of their deceptive profits?
..that if corporations are not being forced into certain behavior that the excuse for bad behavior is the government.
==============================
Corporatons faced litigation under the CRA for lending practices.
Again, this is all documented.
Ahhh...so after the corporation makes billions in profits and creates a massive bubble which they get bailed out on then they are facing litigation for their bad behavior.
So where again is this the fault of the government?
Countrywide deceives auditors and regulators and consumers, destroys millions of people and sucks in billions of profits from this deception and your rational is that they might be sued for a minor percentage of their deceptive profits?
By Samantha L. Quigley American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
By Samantha L. Quigley American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
That wouldnt change a single thing, Fannie and Freddie were not full government entities, nor were they originators of all mortgages, that came from the private sector.
Again..if the company gave you a million dollar credit line, are you forced to go and spend it all knowing you will never be able to justify repaying it?
Er, nobody said Fannie & Freddie originated all mortgages.
Why do you think you can't respond to the point I made?
That wouldnt change a single thing, Fannie and Freddie were not full government entities, nor were they originators of all mortgages, that came from the private sector.
Again..if the company gave you a million dollar credit line, are you forced to go and spend it all knowing you will never be able to justify repaying it?
Er, nobody said Fannie & Freddie originated all mortgages.
Why do you think you can't respond to the point I made?
Ahhh...so after the corporation makes billions in profits and creates a massive bubble which they get bailed out on then they are facing litigation for their bad behavior.
So where again is this the fault of the government?
Countrywide deceives auditors and regulators and consumers, destroys millions of people and sucks in billions of profits from this deception and your rational is that they might be sued for a minor percentage of their deceptive profits?
Note you don't understand this issue at all.
Lenders were being sued and threatened to be sued for not lending to minorities.
All of which has nothing to do with what you said.
Ahhh...so after the corporation makes billions in profits and creates a massive bubble which they get bailed out on then they are facing litigation for their bad behavior.
So where again is this the fault of the government?
Countrywide deceives auditors and regulators and consumers, destroys millions of people and sucks in billions of profits from this deception and your rational is that they might be sued for a minor percentage of their deceptive profits?
Note you don't understand this issue at all.
Lenders were being sued and threatened to be sued for not lending to minorities.
All of which has nothing to do with what you said.
Note: when I pointed out that was a lie, I also said this: Your response to them will now be that what was found was not Bush said there was.
My measure of a WMD is not the technical definition created to salvage the dignity of the administration.
I will ask again..are unused uranium and mustard gasses considered current threats to the US worthy of invading a country over?
If the answer is yes then why were we invading a doormat when there are several other much larger targets that far exceed the weak definition used to salvage face as in this case.
Note: when I pointed out that was a lie, I also said this: Your response to them will now be that what was found was not Bush said there was.
My measure of a WMD is not the technical definition created to salvage the dignity of the administration.
I will ask again..are unused uranium and mustard gasses considered current threats to the US worthy of invading a country over?
If the answer is yes then why were we invading a doormat when there are several other much larger targets that far exceed the weak definition used to salvage face as in this case.
Er, nobody said Fannie & Freddie originated all mortgages.
Why do you think you can't respond to the point I made?
Want to guess why that is?
Responding to what? Ive responded to all you have asked. The govenment was not buying loans as per your contention in the reply I made. Fannie and Freddie were backing mortgages and buying some mortgages of the market, that is not equal to the government buying from the lender.
Er, nobody said Fannie & Freddie originated all mortgages.
Why do you think you can't respond to the point I made?
Want to guess why that is?
Responding to what? Ive responded to all you have asked. The govenment was not buying loans as per your contention in the reply I made. Fannie and Freddie were backing mortgages and buying some mortgages of the market, that is not equal to the government buying from the lender.
Lenders were being sued and threatened to be sued for not lending to minorities.
All of which has nothing to do with what you said.
You are again stuck on the equal opp issue, which I disagree caused the housing meltdown that we experienced. If the equal opp/lending initiative was the cause of the meltdown then the upper end of the curve would not have been effected and the lower and slightly middle end of the housing curve would have been the only area damaged.
Banks extended loans to all demographics in an illegal and deceptive way, across the board.
I have a friend who is currently a broker and was a broker during the bubble and the stories she tells me about bank underwriting and the push from above to clear any and all loans irregardless of credit worthiness is shocking.
Of course she hasnt really told me that all of the people getting loans were low income minorities either.
Lenders were being sued and threatened to be sued for not lending to minorities.
All of which has nothing to do with what you said.
You are again stuck on the equal opp issue, which I disagree caused the housing meltdown that we experienced. If the equal opp/lending initiative was the cause of the meltdown then the upper end of the curve would not have been effected and the lower and slightly middle end of the housing curve would have been the only area damaged.
Banks extended loans to all demographics in an illegal and deceptive way, across the board.
I have a friend who is currently a broker and was a broker during the bubble and the stories she tells me about bank underwriting and the push from above to clear any and all loans irregardless of credit worthiness is shocking.
Of course she hasnt really told me that all of the people getting loans were low income minorities either.
This was absolutely not what was sold to congress as a means to invade.
=================
How would you know?
Seriously, you really have shown that you're not too well informed on these matters. Have you read the AUMF for Iraq? What did is say on WMD?
How would I know? Are you needing to be spoon fed everything from the conservative media as confirmation of the obvious?
Are you suggesting that the 9-11 attacks (which were of what percentage Iraqi citizens?) were not the ramp used to further the cause of invading Iraq?
Of course the administration used 9-11 and the public anger to go after Iraq, what exact part did Saddam play in the attacks on 9-11?
What attack had Saddam made on US soil to warrant an invasion?
Is the measure of invasion that any foreign country has Uranium unused and has local chemical weapons in their possession?
If that is the measure to warrant an invasion, then why did we invade Iraq when the real threats and current threats have more weapons and potential for harming the US than Iraq ever had?
This was absolutely not what was sold to congress as a means to invade.
=================
How would you know?
Seriously, you really have shown that you're not too well informed on these matters. Have you read the AUMF for Iraq? What did is say on WMD?
How would I know? Are you needing to be spoon fed everything from the conservative media as confirmation of the obvious?
Are you suggesting that the 9-11 attacks (which were of what percentage Iraqi citizens?) were not the ramp used to further the cause of invading Iraq?
Of course the administration used 9-11 and the public anger to go after Iraq, what exact part did Saddam play in the attacks on 9-11?
What attack had Saddam made on US soil to warrant an invasion?
Is the measure of invasion that any foreign country has Uranium unused and has local chemical weapons in their possession?
If that is the measure to warrant an invasion, then why did we invade Iraq when the real threats and current threats have more weapons and potential for harming the US than Iraq ever had?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.