I know a lot of drastic changes happen to the Stock Market (like de-regulations) during George W. Bush's presidency that allow banks to make investments in the stock market that they couldn't under Clinton that would make banks a lot of money in the stock market off of foreclosures of their own houses, so I made this Thread for people to talk about it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6298082n

Like... as in the Global Financial Crisis?

I mean, outside that... housing laws didn't particularly change that much.

Generally his big issues were NOT changing things as far as I can tell.

He continued on the path of "Do everything the government can to improve home ownership." and wouldn't compromise when he could of made a deal to regulate Fannie and Freddie more. (One of the few cases he wanted more regulations.)

That and putting someone in charge of keeping track of the whole thing who didn't really know what they were doing. (A persistent theme for him it seems.)

Here's a pretty good article on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/business/worldbusiness/20iht-prexy.4.16321064.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

It was more just his willingess to roll along with the "good times" ignore the consquences type of policy that made everyone better off in the short term with no focus on the long term.   (Again focusing on the positives without looking at consquences is another theme of his presidency.)

So do you have an opinion or what? At least provide background.

He didn't say he wanted to talk about it. He just made this thread for people who do want to. It's called being considerate!

Thanks for contributing.

I hope more people join in the conversation.

I agree about the always trying to get the most in the short term, without worrying about what would happen in exchange to the people beneath them back then. The banks and/or others in the US, seem like they where definitely doing that as well.

Actually it was quite the opposite.

Clinton and Bush were thinking about the people "beneth" them.  The reasons the rules were bent were specifically so the poor could buy and own their own homes.  Home ownership went up for the poor, general well being was up and general wealth was up.

However they didn't look into how banks could afford these inherently riskier loans while mitigating the risk and how a shock would cause such owners to default.

Short term well meaning attempts to get the poor to do better and own their own homes ultimatly led to the GFC, and homeownership dropping hard, espiecally for the poor.

It's a pretty simple case of doing something in attempt to help without understanding the underlying issues.

Well, I watched 60 minutes and it basically showed that the banks fully understood what they where doing and what would happen, but they wanted the most money as soon as possible. The 60 minutes report also showed people who where working at the banks at the time, and they said the heads at the bank (their bosses at the time) knew exactly what they where doing, and wanted to have as many people go thru foreclosures as possible because the banks wanted to make a lot of money as soon as possible, and the best way to set up a system that would cause as many foreclosures as possible which would make the banks a lot of profits as ooh as possible, and all these changes where allow to happen under Bush, but never allowed under Clinton.

Well that's what 60 minutes reported on, and they interview former bank employees who did the dirty work to cause as many foreclosures as possible. And they also interview a different guy who made the right investments after the particular changes that happen under George W. bush, to make a lot of money out if an uocoming hiusing crashed, that would later on happen in 2007, which is how this one nobody white guy with an Asian wife made a lot of money to buy himself a mansion when he use to be very lower middle class his whole life.

Again... that's not really what it shows though. Look at the above article.

If you want to suggest the banks changed what they did, that's one thing... that they were never allowed to do it under Clinton? That's is a lie. Stated Income loans had always been legal until Dodd Frank.

Clinton, and later Bush, distorted the market so that employees would be seen as valuable based on the quantity of the mortgages they signed, rather then the quality, as banks now essentially had "quotas" for people of lower income levels and minorities. Banks took this, and increased subprime loans and stated income loans and the crazier default credit swaps that led to issues. (Which mostly failed because all housing markets in the US collapsed at once, something that wasn't even accomplished during the Great Depression.)

Need more home loans for specific groups but nobody fits federal guidelines? Offer the ability to just state your income more widely rather then demand proof. All kinds of people will be willing to lie assuming they can keep up with the payments.


As for the people "Working for the big guys" it's worth noting... these were very specifically the people who were writing "Liar Loans" in the first place. Banks likely knew there was something fishy, but they were pushed into the quantities game and had to keep up... and generally felt secure in the knowledge that real estate pretty much has never bottomed out everywhere at the same time.

.Suggesting that banks knew the GFC would happen and didn't care is silly because they had more to gain over a medium period of time by not causing the GFC... and these people were already rich so it's not like they needed a get rich quick scheme.

Well 60 minutes & Anderson Cooper 360 have said in their own seperate programs that there was a lot of regulations on the housing market on Bill CLinton that George W. Bush de-regulated. The news also said that there was a lot of regulations on e stock market too that george W. Bush also de-regulated, which allowed for such risky transactions to ever be legal when it use to be illegal under Clinton.

You say this.  Yet can't actually provide any of those regulations.

I can't help but feel you misunderstood soomething they said.   To give an example,  Mother Jones, is basically one of the most liberal websites on the net... and one that wouldn't give George W Bush credit for just about anything....

Check out their timeline.  Keep in mind President Bush started in 2001.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/07/where-credit-due-timeline-mortgage-crisis

You'll note...  No regulations removed or gutted, outside of specific state regulations.  The only federal regulation mentioned is the Responsible Lending Act... which was never passed.  Only introduced... and mentioned to highlight that politicians special involvement/have something in the Bush years.

They only blame Bush for inaction.