[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The mortgage crisis was the cause of the breakdown in the economy. Pointing out that there were more categories than the subprime category does not change the point really. Bush had nothing to do with the causes of the mortgage crisis.

huh? your exact quote was 1)Did the subprime mortgage crisis cause the economic crash?, and the answer (as i correctly pointed out) is no, subprime mortgages" were not the cause, overleveraging was the cause.

please try to at least be consistent in your approach.

Now, I see nothing in the idea of an ownership society that we can blame for the mortgage crisis. Bush nor any other conservative said that we should give houses to persons who can't afford them.

there is no obligation, there is not a single law or regulation in america, that says a lender must give a loan "to persons who can't afford them".

to make like conservatives were immune from the lending binge is not only inaccurate it is dishonest.

If you want to research the policies of providing housing mortgages to persons who can't afford them and who could not obtain them under the usual rules of credit qualifications, then your research will take you back to Bill Clinton. The changes to assure mortgages were changes instituted from the top in that time period with Freddie and Fannie Mac buying the bad paper in a form of guarantee.

again, there is no law, no regulation, either during bill clinton's term or beyond, that requires a lender to give a loan to an borrower 'who can't afford them".

the lebders gave loans because they made money doing such. lenders approved a borrower on their own volition. period.

Bush and McCain both warned of the impending crisis and a Dem Congress ignored them...

but bush approved the policies that allowed the leverging to exceed its limits,

Is Bush at fault for not doing more in regards to the running of Freddie and Fannie Mac? I won't argue with you if you make that stance.

But, it is disgusting how the people than ran Freddie and Fannie left with millions in bonuses (not subject to the AIG 90 percent tax rate on bonuses) and joined up on Obama's Cabinet/staff/etc. throughout his administration.

such as...just who are you referring to?

The ideal of providing houses to persons who could not generally get them was a Democrat party push and creation.

The idea of an ownership society is not an idea of the government giving people ownership that they can't afford...

the idea of the mortgages being handed out like candy to anybody who wanted one is neither a democrat or republican policy, it is the policy of the lenders who made the loans.

again, there is no law, no regulation of any kind, that forced a lender to fund a loan to a person who is unqualified and cannot repay that loan.

the reason the lenders made the loans is twofold: first, they made barrells of money doing it, and second because the mbs were inadequately regulated and underwritten, the lender making the loan didn't own it when it went south.

I have several problems with this statement...

1)an overstimulated economy????
You think that an overstimulated economy caused a market breakdown due to altered valuations in products/goods/etc???

Bush's tax cuts came in response to 911 economic contraction, the later crash/contraction of the spring of 2002, and the later difficulties associated with high oil prices...

There was no over stimulation. That is a crazy idea.

go look at when the bush tax cuts were proposed, it was not in reaction to the above. the tax cuts were mentioned in his first state of the union address.

they had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with high oil prices.

you seem to have a problem with history.

2)But, if we follow your logic and accept it, then you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are calling the stimulus package an increase in money supply. Again this is flawed logic, but I will follow with you a minute. If the stimulus package is an increase in money supply, then it will "over stimulate". Same logic for which you assailed Bush...

again, you fail to have a grasp of history.

the bush tax cuts were given in an economic situation that has no, absolutely NO, analogy to what the usa faces today.

why is it "flawed logic" that the money supply has increased 30% over the last 24 mos? it's reality.

the affect of the increased m1 can be a problem if not resolved in the irght way. as recovery (please, please may we have recovery soon..) is seen in employment and production increases, the fed needs to react. if they don't, we'lll see the return of inflation.

3)Now, the stimulus bill is not an increase in money supply. Most of it is scheduled to be released gradually over time. Most of it hits in 2010 to 2011. That is funny since the optimists in the system think we will out of the recession by then.

funny, there isn't the phrase "stimulus bill" in my response. why do you interject it now? nice try.

It is also not an increase in the money supply to print money and the Fed admitted they were printing a new one trillion dollars. That is a false increase in money supply which spells "over stimulation" (to use your logic) and produces inflation eventually if not sooner.

It is not an increase in money supply to borrow money and spend it. That doesn't work in your own home economics and it does not work anywhere else either.

The only entities that create true new money/wealth are industry and enterprise in the market.

are you serious? wow, I had no idea you knew so little about economics.

money supply does not equate to wealth. completely different. in fact, they can be in opposition. too much money in circulation erodes wealth. it lessens the value of the currency.

yes, the fed has increased the money supply in order for it to put all the $ out they have committed to spend. it IS an increase in the money supply when the fed prints new currency, after all who the heck do you think the fed would "borrow money and spend it" from? the answer is themselves!

money supply data