Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
equalizer
ParticipantIn addition to the outright BRIBES from lobbyists (can we seize their funds first?) we have another reason for the policies. Greenspan in his last book says he was very worried about income inequality and stopping potential seeds of populist revolt.
Greenspan says he believes looser mortgage terms for “subprime” borrowers — those with spotty credit histories or low incomes — raised financial risks. However, he said, the benefit of expanded home ownership in the United States was worth the risk.
At his re-confirmation hearing before the US Senate Banking Committee in 1996, he said that he did not want to discriminate against individuals who were not wealthy and therefore needed to borrow in order to play the stock market (sic). As he well knew, the traders buying stocks on margin were mainly not poor and needy but professional traders out for a free lunch, which Greenspan well knew. Interesting, however, was that that was precisely the argument Greenspan would repeat for justifying his advocacy of lending to sub-prime poor credit persons, to let the poorer get in on the home ownership bonanza his policies after 2001 had created.
ParticipantIn addition to the outright BRIBES from lobbyists (can we seize their funds first?) we have another reason for the policies. Greenspan in his last book says he was very worried about income inequality and stopping potential seeds of populist revolt.
Greenspan says he believes looser mortgage terms for “subprime” borrowers — those with spotty credit histories or low incomes — raised financial risks. However, he said, the benefit of expanded home ownership in the United States was worth the risk.
At his re-confirmation hearing before the US Senate Banking Committee in 1996, he said that he did not want to discriminate against individuals who were not wealthy and therefore needed to borrow in order to play the stock market (sic). As he well knew, the traders buying stocks on margin were mainly not poor and needy but professional traders out for a free lunch, which Greenspan well knew. Interesting, however, was that that was precisely the argument Greenspan would repeat for justifying his advocacy of lending to sub-prime poor credit persons, to let the poorer get in on the home ownership bonanza his policies after 2001 had created.
ParticipantIn addition to the outright BRIBES from lobbyists (can we seize their funds first?) we have another reason for the policies. Greenspan in his last book says he was very worried about income inequality and stopping potential seeds of populist revolt.
Greenspan says he believes looser mortgage terms for “subprime” borrowers — those with spotty credit histories or low incomes — raised financial risks. However, he said, the benefit of expanded home ownership in the United States was worth the risk.
At his re-confirmation hearing before the US Senate Banking Committee in 1996, he said that he did not want to discriminate against individuals who were not wealthy and therefore needed to borrow in order to play the stock market (sic). As he well knew, the traders buying stocks on margin were mainly not poor and needy but professional traders out for a free lunch, which Greenspan well knew. Interesting, however, was that that was precisely the argument Greenspan would repeat for justifying his advocacy of lending to sub-prime poor credit persons, to let the poorer get in on the home ownership bonanza his policies after 2001 had created.
ParticipantIn addition to the outright BRIBES from lobbyists (can we seize their funds first?) we have another reason for the policies. Greenspan in his last book says he was very worried about income inequality and stopping potential seeds of populist revolt.
Greenspan says he believes looser mortgage terms for “subprime” borrowers — those with spotty credit histories or low incomes — raised financial risks. However, he said, the benefit of expanded home ownership in the United States was worth the risk.
At his re-confirmation hearing before the US Senate Banking Committee in 1996, he said that he did not want to discriminate against individuals who were not wealthy and therefore needed to borrow in order to play the stock market (sic). As he well knew, the traders buying stocks on margin were mainly not poor and needy but professional traders out for a free lunch, which Greenspan well knew. Interesting, however, was that that was precisely the argument Greenspan would repeat for justifying his advocacy of lending to sub-prime poor credit persons, to let the poorer get in on the home ownership bonanza his policies after 2001 had created.
ParticipantIn addition to the outright BRIBES from lobbyists (can we seize their funds first?) we have another reason for the policies. Greenspan in his last book says he was very worried about income inequality and stopping potential seeds of populist revolt.
Greenspan says he believes looser mortgage terms for “subprime” borrowers — those with spotty credit histories or low incomes — raised financial risks. However, he said, the benefit of expanded home ownership in the United States was worth the risk.
At his re-confirmation hearing before the US Senate Banking Committee in 1996, he said that he did not want to discriminate against individuals who were not wealthy and therefore needed to borrow in order to play the stock market (sic). As he well knew, the traders buying stocks on margin were mainly not poor and needy but professional traders out for a free lunch, which Greenspan well knew. Interesting, however, was that that was precisely the argument Greenspan would repeat for justifying his advocacy of lending to sub-prime poor credit persons, to let the poorer get in on the home ownership bonanza his policies after 2001 had created.
Participantjficquette,
OK, I agree with your last post.
—-
Greenspan did say in an interview that he was concerned with income inequality and believed that home ownership would help bridge that gap. That philosophy prevented him from acting to stop spread of the toxic disease.Was going to mention that HUD act of 2005, but as the other person mentioned the subprime loans were 85% outside HUD,etc.
Participantjficquette,
OK, I agree with your last post.
—-
Greenspan did say in an interview that he was concerned with income inequality and believed that home ownership would help bridge that gap. That philosophy prevented him from acting to stop spread of the toxic disease.Was going to mention that HUD act of 2005, but as the other person mentioned the subprime loans were 85% outside HUD,etc.
Participantjficquette,
OK, I agree with your last post.
—-
Greenspan did say in an interview that he was concerned with income inequality and believed that home ownership would help bridge that gap. That philosophy prevented him from acting to stop spread of the toxic disease.Was going to mention that HUD act of 2005, but as the other person mentioned the subprime loans were 85% outside HUD,etc.
Participantjficquette,
OK, I agree with your last post.
—-
Greenspan did say in an interview that he was concerned with income inequality and believed that home ownership would help bridge that gap. That philosophy prevented him from acting to stop spread of the toxic disease.Was going to mention that HUD act of 2005, but as the other person mentioned the subprime loans were 85% outside HUD,etc.
Participantjficquette,
OK, I agree with your last post.
—-
Greenspan did say in an interview that he was concerned with income inequality and believed that home ownership would help bridge that gap. That philosophy prevented him from acting to stop spread of the toxic disease.Was going to mention that HUD act of 2005, but as the other person mentioned the subprime loans were 85% outside HUD,etc.
ParticipantKeep it up. Just sent several notes.
gotta love this from Sen. Jim DeMint, (R-S.C.):
“It’s a sad fact, but Americans can no longer trust the economic information they are getting from this Administration. And any Republican or Democrat who shares these concerns cannot in good conscience vote for this bailout and pretend to care about protecting the taxpayer….Now they want us to trust them to spend nearly a trillion dollars on more government bailouts. It’s completely irresponsible Reduce…
Secretary Paulson’s market predictions have been consistently wrong in the last year. The Administration said the bailout of Bear Stearns would stop the bleeding and solve the problem, but they were wrong. They said $150 billion in new government spending using rebate checks would solve the problem, but they were wrong again. They said new authority to bailout Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would solve the problem without being used, but they were wrong again.”
ParticipantKeep it up. Just sent several notes.
gotta love this from Sen. Jim DeMint, (R-S.C.):
“It’s a sad fact, but Americans can no longer trust the economic information they are getting from this Administration. And any Republican or Democrat who shares these concerns cannot in good conscience vote for this bailout and pretend to care about protecting the taxpayer….Now they want us to trust them to spend nearly a trillion dollars on more government bailouts. It’s completely irresponsible Reduce…
Secretary Paulson’s market predictions have been consistently wrong in the last year. The Administration said the bailout of Bear Stearns would stop the bleeding and solve the problem, but they were wrong. They said $150 billion in new government spending using rebate checks would solve the problem, but they were wrong again. They said new authority to bailout Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would solve the problem without being used, but they were wrong again.”
ParticipantKeep it up. Just sent several notes.
gotta love this from Sen. Jim DeMint, (R-S.C.):
“It’s a sad fact, but Americans can no longer trust the economic information they are getting from this Administration. And any Republican or Democrat who shares these concerns cannot in good conscience vote for this bailout and pretend to care about protecting the taxpayer….Now they want us to trust them to spend nearly a trillion dollars on more government bailouts. It’s completely irresponsible Reduce…
Secretary Paulson’s market predictions have been consistently wrong in the last year. The Administration said the bailout of Bear Stearns would stop the bleeding and solve the problem, but they were wrong. They said $150 billion in new government spending using rebate checks would solve the problem, but they were wrong again. They said new authority to bailout Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would solve the problem without being used, but they were wrong again.”
ParticipantKeep it up. Just sent several notes.
gotta love this from Sen. Jim DeMint, (R-S.C.):
“It’s a sad fact, but Americans can no longer trust the economic information they are getting from this Administration. And any Republican or Democrat who shares these concerns cannot in good conscience vote for this bailout and pretend to care about protecting the taxpayer….Now they want us to trust them to spend nearly a trillion dollars on more government bailouts. It’s completely irresponsible Reduce…
Secretary Paulson’s market predictions have been consistently wrong in the last year. The Administration said the bailout of Bear Stearns would stop the bleeding and solve the problem, but they were wrong. They said $150 billion in new government spending using rebate checks would solve the problem, but they were wrong again. They said new authority to bailout Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would solve the problem without being used, but they were wrong again.”
-
AuthorPosts
