Presidents don't control loan decisions by banks or other loan institutions. They decided on their own, to give out unsupported loans.

just because you say something is fact, doesn't make it a fact... i provided a link that shows you how wrong you are, but yet nothing to prove you're right on your end...


the true liberal presentation, you're right because you say so...

Uh... The President DOES have indirect influence on Federal loan policies.





Let me know if you need more Canadian clarification on your country eh?

The housing bubble in 2008 was Bushs fault.


Lots of money was made all the way up that crisis

even more on the way down

actually not!
He tried to stem it,but was assured by the Chair of Fanny-Mae and Freddie Mac that all was well!

You clearly either didn't read, or didn't understand your own link.

Please stop your simple nay saying and name-calling, and ACTUALLY present your evidence.

Show us exactly where it says in your link, or anywhere else, that the President of the United States is empowered to tell banks to give out loans against over-valued properties.

EXACTLY. Because that is what you have claimed.

Since I am saying the link doesn't say that, it's not up to me to prove anything. I simply say, go back and look yourself.

"Uh," no, you don't know what you are talking about. Literally.

Appointing members of the Fed has nothing whatsoever to do with approving loans.

The head of the Federal Reserve ALSO has no power to tell lenders who they can lend to.

Nope, you're wrong too. Bush was there when the bubble burst, and his administration's policies of reducing tax revenues while simultaneously jacking up government spending on unnecessary war, certainly made things vastly worse.

But the reason the bubble grew, was because BOTH parties chose to ignore the problem as it came about.

... Clinton did it, and that's that...

the federal policy of increasing "home Ownership" started at the top, how banks manipulated, personalized and interpreted this policy is up for debate, how it eased the requirements needed was 19th century safeguards in the 20th century, basically Feds trusted the banking industry to govern themselves responsibly... Huge mistake! Sometimes big mistakes are engineered that way

Appointing Federal reserve governors, chairman and VP indeed sets the lending policies on a macro-level mate.

it was clintons EO that changed it... all anyone has to do is any simple google search on it...

AGAIN: show us ACTUAL PROOF that Clinton directly ordered loan institutions to falsify the value of the properties they made loans for.

Show us the proof.

i already have... just google it

The bolded part: correct. Saying the same thing more honestly: the loan institutions decided to cheat, lie, and act irresponsibly, and pretended that it was in the name of pleasing the "top."

THEY WERE NEVER TOLD TO DO ANY OF THAT.





Again. the Fed controls PRIME INTEREST RATES.

They do NOT control detailed lending policies of loan institutions directly, or even indirectly.

Any and all regulation of that is done by Congress. Or not, in this case.

Edited for off-topic.
Kindly refrain from personal attacks.

soufie
Site Modertor

LOL @ Federal Reserve only controls "Prime interest rates"

https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/directors/pdf/roles_responsibilities_FINALweb013013.pdf

Johnnn: your posted link doesn't work. Can you supply one that does please? thank you.

Okay, I got it to work now.

A fifty two page report about the Fed.

And AGAIN, it says absolutely NOTHING to indicate that the Federal Reserve system plays any part whatsoever in deciding what loans anyone makes.

Still zero support for the Republican inspired myth that the housing bubble was entirely Clinton's fault, because he suggested in a speech that more people owning homes was a good thing.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-bill-clintons-balanced-budget-destroyed-the-economy-2012-9

I have never claimed that Clinton did everything right. However, this very biased report is curious, since it includes charts which directly contradict it's claims, and makes claims which it does not supply proof of.

Specifically, it claims that Clinton is responsible for directing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to buy the growing incompetently made loans that the private sector were making. No evidence is provided to support that claim.

And then the charts: the ones showing the explosion of debt by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, show that explosion as happening AFTER 2000.

In case you don't remember, President Bush was in charge then.

Now. I can see that the writer of that report has it in for Clinton, and some criticisms might be valid. However, since the facts on the many charts don't match the claims he makes, it's a bit silly.

One more subtle thing I noted as well, is that this writer doesn't realize that economics of wealth is not a closed system. He thinks that there's a set amount of wealth, and that if relative deficits go on too long, that the money will run out. That's not capitalism. I don't know what it's called, but it certainly isn't capitalism.

Still lacking: proof that Clinton directly ordered loan institutions to make bad loans, and then hide them inside derivatives. That is the claim made in this thread, and is STILL not supported by any facts at all.