What one is since conceived, isn't the same thing as who one claims to socially become after birth. Character role playing on world stage doesn't honor one's natural ancestral position when adapting forward in plain sight.Skans » 14 May 2025, 6:57 am » wrote: ↑ Those "bi-partisan" **** were mostly kicked out of Congress by real Republicans. Except the two liberal women Republicans. They sure-as-**** aren't Republicans, just like Manchin was never really a Democrat.
So it wasn't Bush's RHETORIC that crashed the economy, but Bush's POLICIES.Skans » 14 May 2025, 6:38 am » wrote: ↑ No. I just know WTF I'm talking about. I know exactly what the policies were and what was going on in the early 2000's, and who made it possible.
- Bush spoke of Downpayment Assistance - I'm familiar with those programs. They had nothing to do with the crash.
- Bush spoke about programs for "minorities" to get them into houses - Most of these were through HUD Rural Development loans, which remained in-house.
- Bush talked about Freddie and Fanny making more loans. But, they didn't actually make more loans to minorities. What they did was make loans to speculative investors buying 3-5 houses to "rent" in new developments. That is what caused the crash.
Only one of Bush's policies. Making it possible for Freddie and Fannie to buy 1st mortgages on the secondary market which also had no-doc 2nd "stacked" loans on them as well. The rest were Clinton-Carter policies, combined with developers conspiring with appraisers to gin-up the price of new homes.Cannonpointer » 14 May 2025, 7:52 am » wrote: ↑ So it wasn't Bush's RHETORIC that crashed the economy, but Bush's POLICIES.
Wow. Who would ever have thought of that? Thanks so much for that brilliant confession.
Oh, I am VERY well aware that the crash was bipartisan. I just know what the **** I'm talking about.Skans » 14 May 2025, 6:38 am » wrote: ↑
Now, one other thing that did strain the banks and mortgaged backed securities were (mainly) existing home owners taking out 2nd loans on houses which had little equity and their financials would show they were only 2 payments away from filing for bankruptcy. Stated loans or "no-doc" loans. But, Freddie and Fannie weren't int he business of buying 2nd mortgages. So, where this piled on the bigger problem caused by Clinton-Carter's CRA, was lenders doing "piggy-back" loans. This is where some people would get a 1st and a 2nd mortgage to buy a house. These were mostly investors, not ******. ****** had access to other programs; whites did not. And, even though Freddie and Fannie didn't buy these **** 2nd mortgages, when people realized they bought and financed a pig-in-a-poke, they simply walked away from those investment houses and those loans.
So the repukes - well, Bush, anyway, all by his *** little lonesome - were SLIGHTLY involved, in a tiny and secondary sort of way. But it was MOSTLY those demon democ rats, while the Repukes strove DILIGENTLY to save Murka, but were effeminately incompetent?Skans » 14 May 2025, 7:56 am » wrote: ↑ Only one of Bush's policies. Making it possible for Freddie and Fannie to buy 1st mortgages on the secondary market which also had no-doc 2nd "stacked" loans on them as well. The rest were Clinton-Carter policies, combined with developers conspiring with appraisers to gin-up the price of new homes.
Dream act was an Obama thing.Cannonpointer » 14 May 2025, 7:57 am » wrote: ↑ Oh, I am VERY well aware that the crash was bipartisan. I just know what the **** I'm talking about.
Let's be super **** clear. I am not the one who is gaily and homosexually pretending that one party did it while the other struggled heroically to prevent them from doing it, medicare part-D-breath.
The Repukes created ENTIRE NEW ENTITLEMENTS when they got control of the check book - including the American Dream Act which you just defended and Medicare Part D.
then stop obfuscating, hood speak....
No.
**** you, **** ******...Blackvegetable » 13 May 2025, 6:40 pm » wrote: ↑ JuCo,
The evidence supporting my comment was provided...
That you are too stupid to understand it is not my problem.
I suggest you spend some time reading about nber...
Nice "male" package you got going on there, brown...no wonder **** ****** fits so well...
They aren't "projections", steaming pile of *******.ROG62 » 14 May 2025, 8:37 am » wrote: ↑ **** you, **** ******...
now post the real data confirming your projections...
then post the ACTUAL data...Blackvegetable » 14 May 2025, 8:44 am » wrote: ↑ They aren't "projections", steaming pile of *******.
After you acknowledge that the evidence you demanded was provided, and that you are ashamed for having doubted me.
brown, STFU and post the ACTUAL data...or is this all it's gonna be...Blackvegetable » 15 May 2025, 5:22 am » wrote: ↑ After you acknowledge that the evidence you demanded was provided, and that you are ashamed for having doubted me.
Then go to the citation and do it yourself.ROG62 » 15 May 2025, 5:46 am » wrote: ↑ brown, STFU and post the ACTUAL data...or is this all it's gonna be...
You're always looking for a wart on a beautiful Republican girl's *** and then claim she's just like a 400 lb, nose-ring wearing, purple haired, Democrat Tranny....the differences are stark, admit it.Cannonpointer » 14 May 2025, 7:58 am » wrote: ↑ So the repukes - well, Bush, anyway, all by his *** little lonesome - were SLIGHTLY involved, in a tiny and secondary sort of way. But it was MOSTLY those demon democ rats, while the Repukes strove DILIGENTLY to save Murka, but were effeminately incompetent?
Final answer?
Is that your excuse today?RebelGator » 15 May 2025, 6:53 am » wrote: ↑ You're always looking for a wart on a beautiful Republican girl's *** and then claim she's just like a 400 lb, nose-ring wearing, purple haired, Democrat Tranny....the differences are stark, admit it.
They are projections and a chart is not data. A chart REFERENCES data - DISPLAYS data.Blackvegetable » 15 May 2025, 5:22 am » wrote: ↑ After you acknowledge that the evidence you demanded was provided, and that you are ashamed for having doubted me.