Quote:Why am I not surprised that you copied and pasted the parts that make your argument, and delete the parts that shoot down your argument?  No wonder you couldn't hack it at a University.  You'd fail all your classes with the way you do research.

 

As I said, the sub-prime crises happened under Bush for a reason.  Just because sub-prime lending began under Clinton, doesn't mean that Clinton is responsible for it.  There are plenty of programs that are dangerous if not regulated properly...  

 

It was not sub-prime lending that caused the crises -  it was the deregulation of how banks supplied these loans and how they were able to handle and repackage these loans that caused the crises!!  The deregulation occurred under Bush.  

 

But you know that.  You just decided to delete out this key factor in order to make your INCORRECT point.  I'm on to you, JIB.  After you did this same thing to one of my quotes, it became apparent.  You provide half truths or facts that are misleading, or just plain leave out key facts to make your points.

 

It's intellectually dishonest.  But, par for the course.  

 

Best........  TA

 

So what you are saying is that you didn't even bother reading the paper that I posted a link to.  You are upset because I quoted a couple of excerpts from the paper and answered your question "Which democratic policies, exactly from the 1990's lead to the sub prime crises?".  I would think that a free thinker like you being university indoctrinated educated and all could figure that out.

 

Regarding the part in bold, yes it was.  Under pressure from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, banks were forced to issue loans that were bad.  They in turn sold those loans (mortgages) to Fannie and Freddy as a direct result of pressure from the Clinton Administration.

 

What that created was so-called "mortgage institutions" that got in on the business (think Countrywide Home Loans).  All they had to do was write the mortgage, then sell it off to Fannie or Freddie.  It didn't matter that the borrower didn't have a good credit history.  It didn't matter that the borrower couldn't put any money down.  The borrower's income wasn't even a factor because it was all backed by the government.

 

Where it got worse was when banks started buying the mortgages and packaging up a bunch of them and selling them as securities.  That had nothing to do with deregulation.  It was considered a "safe" investment because the mortgages were backed by Fannie and Freddy.  These securities were bought and sold on the stock market just like a regular stock or bond.

 

There were a couple of huge flaws in this program.  First, home prices were going up artificially because of the numbers of mortgages.  Second, many of the "no money down" loans were made with a variable interest rate.  Eventually, when interest rates were adjusted many people started defaulting on these loans.

 

There is a whole lot more to the story, but you are very much wrong.

 

Please show where deregulation of banks under President Bush caused the crisis.  That's simply not the case.

---