Home : Blogs : Artur Urbanski : Cimpler Blog

Doesn't he sound like Clinton?

Clinton

"Worst (is) over for U.S. if financial crisis ends" according to Greenspan, Doesn't sound it like "It is going to stay dry if it doesn't rain" or very "Clintonesque" (read: says nothing)? Here is the link to the Reuters news CLIP. I guess now we understand better Greenspan's attitude towards negative ammortization loans when he said "They will help you if they don't hurt you first!" (just joking - he didn't say that. It just feels like he did!)

Posted by Artur Urbanski on 06/14/2008 12:06 AM

Comments (4)

greenspan, financial crisis, negative ammortization, joke, clinton, clintonesque

Post is included in group: Realtors®
Post is included in group: Mortgages
Post is included in group: The Art Of Marketing You
Post is included in group: Running a Brokerage
Post is included in group: Real Estate on the Peninsula

4 Comments on Doesn't he sound like Clinton?

JUN

2008

Maybe he does sound like Clinton. Are you forgetting that when Clinton left the Presidency that we had it all pretty darn good?! No Recesssion until he was up for election? Did you also forget that we actually had a + side on the books instead of the current HUGE Deficient that we have now? I dont remember paying over 4 dollars a gallon for gas when Clinton was in office. Do you?

Yep, we may be A lot better off if a Democract was in office. Just a thought. Gee, Maybe I sound just like Clinton now. Hummmmmmmmm.

Thanks for the comment Sylvie. I didn't criticize Clinton, however. If you like him or not, one thing is quite remarkable about the guy. He was and is "very slippery". Just a master of saying nothing. And Greenspan's saying was very much as Clinton himself was speaking! I guess he had years to observe and learn! Thanks again!

We are in if we are not out. It might be cloudy and rain if the sun isn't out. What goes up, must come down.

If you want to say we had it pretty good under Clinton, look again. A little closer. We were at war and didn't even know it. We had been attacked several times but no one was connecting the dots and no one was even looking...well except up a blue dress.

No gas was not $4.00 a gallon but if you really want to know, it is not the President that can control spending. That is actually Congress. And, in 2006, the Democrats promised us change. We gave them control of the Senate and since then we have seen gas go from $2.19 per gallon to $4.00 per gallon. We have seen consumer confidence drop. We have gone from a housing boom to where 1% of all American Home Owners are in Foreclosure. Yes they promise you change. What they don't tell you is change in what direction.

The surplus everyone talks about from the Clinton years is from cutting our military back so far we have struggled to defend ourselves. Clinton rode in on Reagan's fiscal policy and got lucky that the internet .com era happened while he was chasing skirts in the White House.

Up is down, out is in, Up is Down and right is left.

Thank you very much for your comments Tony. There is a lot of blame to go around, especially as we are in the election year. One thing is certain, the financial crisis is not over. If you think in terms of coming ARM loan adjustments (especially neg ARM) and foreclosures to happen as a result of these adjustments within next 2 to 3 year and financial institution collapsing as a results, it is quite scary. We simply cannot predict how bad things might get. The way I see it, we are barely starting to see the depth of the problem and are quite far from finding a solution. In this context Greenspan's statement is just a part of his effort to distance himself from responsibility for the crisis.

If Steven Krystofiak, the head of the Mortgage Broker Association could outline in his statement in a Federal Reserve hearing what repercussions of negative amortization loans and 100% lending are going to be (click the Inside the Liar's Loan link for details), it is difficult to even imagine that Feds didn’t know about such possibility for quite some time before. So, my “beef” with Greenspan is that instead of keeping the economy away from politics, he sacrificed this important principle.

Leave a response…

Name:

Email:
(optional)

Comment:

What does the graphic say?