Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (436683)	11/25/2008 8:09:02 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574249

The securitization of sub. mort. would not have been a problem if the loans had not been subprime. I can't believe you wrote that. Yes, its true. But so what? Its like saying housefires wouldn't be harmful if fire wasn't so hot. Sheesh. Had normal underwriting procedures been followed the mort. applicants would not have been approved and the loans would not have been made. Duh! The vast majority of the loans were written under Bush. It was during this time that normal and recommended underwriting procedures were suspended. No, normal underwriting procedures were changed and standards lowered back during the time when subprime loans began being securitized. It is correct to say the practices continued under Bush and that over time the number of subprime mortgages grew. Loans made during the Clinton era would be considered 'seasoned' by this time. Once a mortgagee has been paying off a loan for more then a couple of years, they have a vested interest in the property and do everything they can to prevent foreclosure. Usually when it does happen, the economy has soured and they lose their job suddenly and can't make their payments. Yes, 'seasoned' loans go bad too. Particularly when the economy turns down, interest rates reset upward, and real estate prices begin falling. Thats why the subprime mortgage problem that had been building for so long, became a problem that had to be dealt with recently. Pretending that the subprime loans made under one President or another were 'okay' is nothing but projection of partisan spin. The bad loans were written because they knew the Bush administration was not paying any attention and doing none of its fudiciary regulation; that in fact, the Bushies could care less what they were doing. Well, the documented fact that the Bush administration made (unsuccessful) efforts to reform oversight of the mortgage industry show they did care. They simply didn't push hard enough. The White House released this list of attempts by President Bush to reform Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac since he took office in 2001. ... gatewaypundit.blogspot.com Every person, including you, who voted for Bush is directly or indirectly responsible for this mess. Here you show you don't really have an interest in what caused the problem. Its just something to lie about and use politically. I submit thats a destructive way of looking at problems. It was this culture of indifference permeating the Bush White House and the Republican party that allowed this subprime garbage to happen. Anyone can listen to the tapes of this hearing and see who had a culture of indifference to the mortgage problem: youtube.com