Obama Repeats the Policies of Clinton' Sub-Prime Push..

eohrnberger said:

Fair enough.

Click to expand...

how is that fair? I've backed up every point I've made. On a side note, I find it funny that fenton runs to the moderators for help.

I guess you could say he's repeating it, but I'd say he's just doing what he's always done. This was his mission with ACORN, threatening lendors to make loans that could never be repaid but I will admit the lendors should have fought back harder - but ultimately they were given great profits to go ahead - so why not?

Fenton said:

Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit - Washington Post

" The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place.

President Obama’s economic advisers and outside experts say the nation’s much-celebrated housing rebound is leaving too many people behind, including young people looking to buy their first homes and individuals with credit records weakened by the recession.

In response, administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default."

Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

“I think the ability of newly formed households, which are more likely to have lower incomes or weaker credit scores, to access the mortgage market will make a big difference in the shape of the recovery,” Duke said last month. “Economic improvement will cause household formation to increase, but if credit is hard to get, these will be rental rather than owner-occupied households.”"

Ridiculous.

Before Obama became a State Senator, he shook down banks for " discriminatory practices". In 1995 he was plaintiffs attorney for “Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank.” and was listed as the lead attorney for several of the plaintiffs.


Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory IllinoisCase Summary

"Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed."

Many of the plaintiffs came away with "coupons" and small cash disbursements.

But whats alarming was the addition Obama's administration made to the massive bailout that was the Federal Government taking Fannie and Freddie into Conervatorhip in 2008. Together they held over 5 and half TRILLION dollars in loans and securities, many low quality traSh loans and securities they purchased in an effort to hide the massive corruption that was taking place at the two GSE's, Corruption that led to a SEC investigation in 2004 and a SEC investigation in 2011 for massive securities fraud.


" The Obama Administration used the 2009 Christmas media lull for several key mortgage-market agenda items, on top of the its Congressional health care legislation.

1) On Christmas Eve the Obama Administration issued executive orders to change the amount – from $400 billion to unlimited — that the US federal government would commit to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the event those agencies/companies could no longer service the mortgages it held/guaranteed. It also deregulated the total amount of mortgages that Fannie and Freddie can own or guarantee, enabling the GSEs to fully return to the lower-quality, higher-risk segments of the mortgage market. Fannie and Freddie currently finance roughly three-quarters of all new mortgages. The order empowers the Obama Administration’s Treasury Department to pressure the GSEs to hold more subprime/non-performing mortgages, instead of clearing the risk off their balance sheets.


2) The Obama “Pay Czar” made public statements supporting multi-million-dollar incentive-based compensation packages for senior Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives…despite exactly that structure having been singled out by regulators as a primary cause of the GSE violations that enabled the housing/financial crisis. The Obama Administration is incentivizing Fannie’s and Freddie’s CEOs with up to $6 million per year, and senior executives can also receive hefty cash payouts under a similar target-based structure as existed during the bubble. Both companies/agencies currently operate under taxpayer-funded bailout. The Pay Czar cited the unique stresses of the jobs, despite the fact that they can now make roughly 12-times more than the President of the United States."


On top of this, Obama's wants to appoint a Democrat Politician, Mel Watt, to run Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is truly a case of the" Fox guarding the hen house" as Mel Watt is a member of the House Congressional Black Caucus which supports the same policies that almost bankrupted the banking sector and helped created millions of home foreclosures and has zero regulatory experience.

His appointment would virtually guarantee a return to the corruption that allowed Fannie and Freddie's massive debt to be added to our Country's already exploding debt.

Click to expand...

I have some good news, I think.

Despite the push, that has increased prices almost 70%, the prices are still normal enough and they seem to be flattening. My house was $225K in 2005, $63K in 2009 (when I bought it), went to a low of $40K in 2010 and today its back to $63K which is a fair and affordable price.

If I see it go to $100K, I'll be worried. I'll probably sell it - but I really doubt it will go to more than $70K no matter how much the standards are lowered. Why? Because we were in an insanity bubble in 2005 and it's too soon for people to go full retard again - yet.

This post is politically neutral. Just my (small time landlord) analysis of the market I watch closely.

Just got this from my RE agent. My info above was for a townhouse, not single family and the chart is only - a chart. But for anyone interested, here ya go:

eohrnberger said:

Fair enough.

Click to expand...

I started researching the Sub-Prime Collapse a couple of years ago, and have posted a couple of detailed explanations that trace it's beginnings all the way back to the early 90's.

On this forum and a couple of others. The typical Liberal response is an obscure and disorganized mitigation that blames the banks and Bush exclusively, but they usually extend their explanation back to at least the late 90's.

VERN is the only poster on any forum that's offered up this ridiculous explanation that starts the bubble in 2004 and ends it in 2008, and he blames Bush exclusively.


According to him Clinton's housing initiative, which included his 1995 Home Owners Strategy ( a long list of executive orders ) produced a boom in housing and that it was done responsibly with PRIME LOANS being issued to credit worthy applicants. Even though Clinton from 1993 to 1998 appointed his Democrat cronies to Fannie and Freddie's executive positions and to their board of directors. Franklin Raines, a Clinton Appointee and the CEO of Fannie Mae was the focus of a 2004 SEC investigation that found he misreported nearly 10 BILLION dollars in income that never existed.

He ignores the changes in the CRA rules that Clintons's 1995 National Home Owners Strategy mandated, including increasing the quota of Low quality loans purchased by Fannie and Freddie to 40% and then to 50 % in 2000, and then 56 % by 2007.

He ignores the fact that The National Homeowners Strategy allowed kick backs to Community Organizer Action groups like ACORN.

The CRA was enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA "protest" is issued by a "community group." This can cost banks great sums of money, and the "community groups" understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give them millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities


He ignores the fact that Clinton's 1995 Homeowners Strategy lowered capital requirements for loans purchased by the GSE's from 10% to 3 %, and it allowed Fannie and Freddie to count Sub-Prime loans and Securities backed by Sub Prime loans as part of their HUD housing goals.

He ignores the fact that Freddie Mac helped First Union Capital Markets and Bear Stearns & Co launch the first publicly available securitization of CRA loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. All carried a Freddie Mac guarantee as to timely interest and principal. First Union was not a subprime lender.

He ignores Andrew Cuomo's housing initiative that included commitments of over 2 TRILLION dollars for the purchase of "affordable loans " by Fannie and Freddie. Cuomo also issued new "rules" that removed reporting requirements for the two largest GSE's Fannie and Freddie.

He ignores the 2004 SEC investigation into Fannie and Freddie's corruption, and the 2011 SEC investigation into Fannie and Freddie's corruption.

He ignores the Riegle Neal Act of 1994, that tied a banks ability to enter into new mergers directly to their CRA score.

Citibank, in April 1998, sought federal approval for a merger with Travelers Group, it only got OK from the Clinton administration progressives after it promised in May to provide $115 billion for anti-redlining loans. Anti-redlining promises made by other financial institutions added up to $600 billion between 1993 and 1998, according to a 2000 Treasury Department report

He ignores Clinton's push to build a massive false narrative of "discrimination in lending" and Janet Reno's multiple DOJ actions against banks simply because they were applying lending standards that they had used for decades and HUD's settlements with Banks that included a 2.1 BILLION dollar settlement against ACUBANK in 1998.

If banks were actually "discriminating " against people, not loaning them money based solely on the color of their skin, WHY then, did they have to lower lending standards to combat this so called discrimination ?

He ignores the existence of " Fair Lending Master Agreements " that were HUD issued contracts to originators like Country Wide. Warnings to essentially play ball. He ignores the Political corruption and sweet heart loans that Politicians like Chris Dodd received from Country Wide as Chris Dodd helped the Democrats fight off any new regulatory action that would have exposed the massive corruption at Fannie and Freddie year before the collapse.

CONT...

eohrnberger said:

Fair enough.

Click to expand...

He ignores the fact that the Fannie and Freddie foundation bragged that Country Wide was one of their primary originators BECAUSE of their willingness to use " flexible underwriting methods.

He ignores the recorded statements of multiple Democrats from the House Financial Services Committee that began debate on September 11, 2003 and held multiple hearings over the next several weeks.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D, NY): “And my worry is that we’re using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie’s mission.”

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): “nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn’t broke… In fact, the GSEs (Fannie, Freddie) have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission – a mission that has seen innovation flourish, from desktop underwriting (no formal analysis) to 100% loans (no collateral).”

Rep. Maxine Waters (D, CA), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez: “Secretary Martinez, if it ain’t broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs ever missed their housing goals?”


Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): “I don’t want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) and OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision). I want to load the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.”

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): “I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.”

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY): To OFHEO head, Armando Falcon, “The question that represents is the confidence that your agency has with regard to regulating these GSEs… Why should I have confidence; why should anyone have confidence in you as a regulator at this point?”

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY): “I’m just pissed of at OFHEO (the regulator), because if it wasn’t for you I don’t think that we’d be here in the first place…you’ve given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they’ve done a tremendous job.

Barney Frank (D-MA): “I worry about increasing the capital requirements…I’d like to get Fannie and Freddie more deeply into helping low income housing and possibly moving into something that’s more explicitly a subsidy (taxpayer money used as principle in subprime mortgages). My concern is that this would not what would be a regulator’s or Treasury’s idea of what would be the best way of promoting safety and soundness… “

He ignores the fact that Fannie Mae was the primary consumer of Privately created mortgage backed securities owning 40% of the market share by 2004. This was right around the time their regulator warned them and Congress that the two GSE gaints were heading for insolvency.

When Bush's White House was pushing for a third party regulatory body to regain control of the two Democrat run and highly corrupted GSE, 72 Democrats signed a letter warning him NOT impose regulatory actions on the GSE's.

This Document to VERN doesn't exist...http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/files/2010/09/economic-reality.pdf

Hell, he'll ignore the 2003 New York Times Article that commented on Bush's iniative to further regulate and control the out of control GSE's


THE NY Times 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

Dmocrat's rejected...

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said."

And I could go on and on with one example of Democrat complicity and corruption after another, but according to VERN, it all started in 2004 and stopped in 2008, and there was NO Sub-Prime loans or securities being passed around prior to that. He's just a troll.

Originally this thread was about Obama's policies and his appointee, but he won't say a word about that.

Fenton said:

VERN is the only poster on any forum that's offered up this ridiculous explanation that starts the bubble in 2004 and ends it in 2008, and he blames Bush exclusively.

Click to expand...

On a side note Fenton, did you report yourself to the moderators for attempting to derail this thread? You do make me laugh fenton. Anyhoo, I posted Bush’s Working Group on Financial Markets. The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets is the only group whose job it is to study market crashes. And they said “lower lending standards starting late 2004” caused the problems. You don’t have to agree with them but to call me ridiculous for posting what they said is ridiculous.

But unlike Fenton who clings to any phrase or sentence fragment that he wants to believe, I’ve posted the actual data to show exactly what the Working Group said. The first link I posted in this thread was a graph of home prices in the 4 bubble states. A bubble is defined by rapid appreciation and rapid depreciation. It sure looks like a classic bubble to me. the rapid appreciation starts 2004 and the rapid depreciation starts 2006. But just like the Bush Working Group link I post, fenton cant respond to it so he wails and flails at it. and now we know he runs to the moderators.

Hey look, the federal reserve says the same thing as Bush’s Working group. It has the bonus of discrediting the conservative editorials that try to blame the CRA

“Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

Vern said:

On a side note Fenton, did you report yourself to the moderators for attempting to derail this thread? You do make me laugh fenton. Anyhoo, I posted Bush’s Working Group on Financial Markets. The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets is the only group whose job it is to study market crashes. And they said “lower lending standards starting late 2004” caused the problems. You don’t have to agree with them but to call me ridiculous for posting what they said is ridiculous.

But unlike Fenton who clings to any phrase or sentence fragment that he wants to believe, I’ve posted the actual data to show exactly what the Working Group said. The first link I posted in this thread was a graph of home prices in the 4 bubble states. A bubble is defined by rapid appreciation and rapid depreciation. It sure looks like a classic bubble to me. the rapid appreciation starts 2004 and the rapid depreciation starts 2006. But just like the Bush Working Group link I post, fenton cant respond to it so he wails and flails at it. and now we know he runs to the moderators.

Hey look, the federal reserve says the same thing as Bush’s Working group. It has the bonus of discrediting the conservative editorials that try to blame the CRA

“Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

Click to expand...

And you still haven't responded to the OP VERN. You know, the title ? What's wrong ? Does the subject matter exceed your abilities ?

Your'e still embarrassing yourself and posting your nonsense. I mean look at your ridiculous post.

You took the 2008 opinion of two guys at the Federal Reserve. An opinion that was made IMMEDIATELY after the collapse and used it to perpetuate your desperate Bush obsession.

Its 2013 VERN, and allot of evidence has emerged over the last few years that DIRECTLY ties the 1995 Clinton CRA changes to the Sub-prime Collapse, hell I just posted some of it, including the changes that allowed Fannie and Freddie to count Securities backed by Sub-Prime Loans towards their HUD housing goals.

Including the changes that allowed Community Action Groups like ACORN to harass, extort and threaten banks if their CRA scores dropped below "acceptable" levels.

Your last post is a great example of your general dishonesty and lack of integrity VERN.

You cut and copy a section of someone else's opinion and post it as irrefutable evidence. You scour the Web for bits and pieces regardless of context, paste them into your irrelevant post and claim victory.

Its why your'e a troll VERN and you can't stick to the topic discussion. You couldn't do it in the Cuomo thread and you can't do it in this thread.

Fenton said:

And you still haven't responded to the OP VERN. You know, the title ? What's wrong ? Does the subject matter exceed your abilities ?

Click to expand...

But fenton I did respond. Your entire thread is based on the false premise that we are returning to the Clinton policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble. It can’t be Clinton’s policies if the problems started late 2004. Clinton increased homeownership safely and profitably. Bush didn’t. That’s why the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004 when banks stopped checking people’s income.

And don’t worry fenton, we can’t have another Bush Mortgage Bubble because every regulatory effort since the Bush Mortgage Bubble has been to insure banks verify the borrower’s ability to repay. In addition to Dodd Frank (regulation Z) and Federal Reserve rules, numerous states also passed laws regarding banks checking the borrower’s ability to repay. How funny is that, laws had to be passed to make sure banks check if borrowers could repay a loan. Isn’t that Banking 101?

Your last post is a great example of your general dishonesty and lack of integrity VERN.

You cut and copy a section of someone else's opinion and post it as irrefutable evidence. You scour the Web for bits and pieces regardless of context, paste them into your irrelevant post and claim victory.

Click to expand...

Fenton, I posted statements from several experts, the federal reserve and the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets as well as links from several reserve banks. And the above link and the Working Group were from 2 years after the bubble popped. And I didn’t just post their statements. I’ve posted the actual mortgage data showing the massive spike of No Doc loans, Fannie’s mae’s mortgage portfolio showing the bad loans started 2005, the spike in defaults for 2005 and 2006 mortgages in addition to Bush’s toxic housing policies he implemented in 2004 and the collapse of the subprime MBS market. And don’t forget that amazing graph of housing prices in the 4 bubble states I posted.

Its why your'e a troll VERN and you can't stick to the topic discussion. You couldn't do it in the Cuomo thread and you can't do it in this thread.

Click to expand...

oh fenton, you are posting about the Bush Mortgage Bubble. You putting “Cuomo” or “Clinton” in the thread title doesn’t magically prevent me from posting the actual facts about the Bush Mortgage Bubble. Since you cant respond to the facts you whine and cry and run to the moderators for help

Vern said:

But fenton I did respond. Your entire thread is based on the false premise that we are returning to the Clinton policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble. It can’t be Clinton’s policies if the problems started late 2004. Clinton increased homeownership safely and profitably. Bush didn’t. That’s why the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004 when banks stopped checking people’s income.

And don’t worry fenton, we can’t have another Bush Mortgage Bubble because every regulatory effort since the Bush Mortgage Bubble has been to insure banks verify the borrower’s ability to repay. In addition to Dodd Frank (regulation Z) and Federal Reserve rules, numerous states also passed laws regarding banks checking the borrower’s ability to repay. How funny is that, laws had to be passed to make sure banks check if borrowers could repay a loan. Isn’t that Banking 101?



Fenton, I posted statements from several experts, the federal reserve and the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets as well as links from several reserve banks. And the above link and the Working Group were from 2 years after the bubble popped. And I didn’t just post their statements. I’ve posted the actual mortgage data showing the massive spike of No Doc loans, Fannie’s mae’s mortgage portfolio showing the bad loans started 2005, the spike in defaults for 2005 and 2006 mortgages in addition to Bush’s toxic housing policies he implemented in 2004 and the collapse of the subprime MBS market. And don’t forget that amazing graph of housing prices in the 4 bubble states I posted.



oh fenton, you are posting about the Bush Mortgage Bubble. You putting “Cuomo” or “Clinton” in the thread title doesn’t magically prevent me from posting the actual facts about the Bush Mortgage Bubble. Since you cant respond to the facts you whine and cry and run to the moderators for help

Click to expand...

STOP LYING VERN...

November 1998: Freddie Mac helped First Union Capital Markets and Bear Stearns & Co launch the first publicly available securitization of CRA loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. All carried a Freddie Mac guarantee as to timely interest and principal. First Union was not a subprime lender.

Hey, check it out, the Democrats were running Fannie Mae like ENRON in the 90's VERN.

" Fannie Mae employees falsified signatures on accounting transactions that helped the company meet earnings targets for 1998, a "manipulation" that triggered multimillion-dollar bonuses for top executives, a federal regulator said yesterday.

Armando Falcon Jr., director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, said the entries were related to the movement of $200 million in expenses from 1998 to later periods. The result of the changes was an increase in Fannie Mae's 1998 earnings per share and the release of a $27.1 million bonus pool for senior executives.

Fannie Mae reported paying the following executive bonuses in 1998: chairman and chief executive James A. Johnson received $1.932 million; Franklin D. Raines, chairman-designate, received $1.11 million; Chief Operating Officer Lawrence M. Small received $1.108 million; Vice Chairman Jamie S. Gorelick received $779,625; Chief Financial Officer J. Timothy Howard received $493,750; and Robert J. Levin, an executive vice president, received $493,750."

False Signatures Aided Fannie Mae Bonuses, Falcon Says

Fenton said:

" Fannie Mae employees falsified signatures on accounting transactions that helped the company meet earnings targets for 1998, a "manipulation" that triggered multimillion-dollar bonuses for top executives, a federal regulator said yesterday.

Click to expand...

Fenton, just so you know, I don’t ignore what you post. Its just that whenever I’ve asked you what you’ve posted has to do with the Bush Mortgage Bubble you don’t answer. Just like you claimed you could “refute anything” so I asked to refute something all you did was post some silly youtube video. Or when you post some fantastical ‘claim’ and I ask you to back it, you don’t. But because of the holiday season (and in the true spirit of Christmas) I should always be willing to help those less fortunate like youself, so I’ll give you another chance

what is the relationship between Fannie mae inflating earnings in 1998 and the Bush Mortgage Bubble that started in late 2004? remembering of course all of the links I’ve posted? try to use actual sentences.

Fenton said:

STOP LYING VERN...

Click to expand...

Now fenton, I'm going to have to ask you to cut and paste exactly what I've said that you call a lie and explain why its a lie. (dont paraphrase something, cut and paste it). I think when you say something like that you at least owe me the courtesy of being clear and specific. dont worry I wont go running and crying to moderators at the first sign of a fight like some posters here.

Its just that whenever I’ve asked you what you’ve posted has to do with the Bush Mortgage Bubble you don’t answer.

Click to expand...

The problem is you assigned the blame to bush when in fact it had been building way before that. the mortgage collapse had a lot to do with how freddie and fannie
where opperating. Bush tried New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - NYTimes.com
to reform both organizations because they were running into some really questionable accounting practices.

Dem's in congress stopped it every time.

Freddie and fannie were leveraged 40:1 which is insane.

Vern said:

Fenton, just so you know, I don’t ignore what you post. Its just that whenever I’ve asked you what you’ve posted has to do with the Bush Mortgage Bubble you don’t answer. Just like you claimed you could “refute anything” so I asked to refute something all you did was post some silly youtube video. Or when you post some fantastical ‘claim’ and I ask you to back it, you don’t. But because of the holiday season (and in the true spirit of Christmas) I should always be willing to help those less fortunate like youself, so I’ll give you another chance

what is the relationship between Fannie mae inflating earnings in 1998 and the Bush Mortgage Bubble that started in late 2004? remembering of course all of the links I’ve posted? try to use actual sentences.



Now fenton, I'm going to have to ask you to cut and paste exactly what I've said that you call a lie and explain why its a lie. (dont paraphrase something, cut and paste it). I think when you say something like that you at least owe me the courtesy of being clear and specific. dont worry I wont go running and crying to moderators at the first sign of a fight like some posters here.

Click to expand...

If you would stop making a complete fool out of yourself and stop trolling through threads that you do not understand then I wouldn't have the opportunity to expose your LIES.

You only have yourself to blame VERN. So, keep posting your three link and I'll keep posting the truth.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.” – Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL) , September 30, 2008

Fenton said:

If you would stop making a complete fool out of yourself and stop trolling through threads that you do not understand then I wouldn't have the opportunity to expose your LIES.

You only have yourself to blame VERN. So, keep posting your three link and I'll keep posting the truth.

Click to expand...

You did it again. I cant say I'm surprised because you've done it every time I've requested you to back up anything or explain anything you've posted. You deflect and whine and then make it about me. And not so amazingly you done nothing to back up calling me a liar. So again I ask fenton how have you "exposed my lies"?

You seem to redefine 'lie' as simply not agreeing with your false narratives. mmmm, maybe you need help understanding what a lie is and your latest post serves as an excellent example. It also serves an excellent example how cons will stick to chants and slogans instead of the facts. Let's begin. You've once again posted your "chant" that I only post 3 links. In this thread alone I've posted 9 solid factual links ( I include that amazing chart of home prices in the 4 bubble states as a link). Fenton, see how your silly chant is just a blatant falsehood.

Another example of a lack of integrity is to routinely post that "Clinton raised the housing goals on the GSEs". You have to ignore that Bush raised them more. Here's an even better example of how your narrative seems to lack integrity. you said this

Fenton said:

besides, Clinton's 1995 change to the CRA law allowed Fannie and Freddie to count sub-prime securities and loans as credit towards their housing goals. That one change allowed the Sub-Prime Collapse to spread through our and international asset markets in 2008 and turned a small bubble into a near systemic collapse.

Click to expand...

what was subprime in 1995? about 5 % of the total mortgage market. But fenton, the Clinton admin started seeing abuses in that segment so they reversed that rule in 2000. Lets say subprime was 9% of the market. Seems like a good call right? If you think it was a bad call in 1995 then surely you could praise the move in 2000.

"(In 2000) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

In 2004, subprime loans were about 20% of the market. What did Bush do? oh yea, he lifted the restrictions that Clinton placed on Freddie and Fannie

"In 2004, the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."
http://www.prmia.org/pdf/Case_Studies/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf

HOLY SMOKES?!?! If you thought it was bad in 1995 when subprimes were 5% then you must be furious that Bush did it in 2004 when subprime loans were 20%. Strangely no. And its not like you don't know about it because I've posted it dozens of times in response to your false narrative about the Bush Mortgage Bubble. So fenton unless you can produce something showing you are under the care of a psychiatrist how can we believe its anything other than dishonesty on your part? And guess what, 2004 is the same year the Bush Mortgage Bubble started.

(now that make 11 links in this thread alone that you simply pretend do not exist. Maybe you could send a note to the moderators that your doctor recommends that Vern stop posting facts)

Vern said:

You did it again. I cant say I'm surprised because you've done it every time I've
requested you to back up anything or explain anything you've posted. You deflect and whine and then make it about me. And not so amazingly you done nothing to back up calling me a liar. So again I ask fenton how have you "exposed my lies"?

You seem to redefine 'lie' as simply not agreeing with your false narratives. mmmm, maybe you need help understanding what a lie is and your latest post serves as an excellent example. It also serves an excellent example how cons will stick to chants and slogans instead of the facts. Let's begin. You've once again posted your "chant" that I only post 3 links. In this thread alone I've posted 9 solid factual links ( I include that amazing chart of home prices in the 4 bubble states as a link). Fenton, see how your silly chant is just a blatant falsehood.

Another example of a lack of integrity is to routinely post that "Clinton raised the housing goals on the GSEs". You have to ignore that Bush raised them more. Here's an even better example of how your narrative seems to lack integrity. you said this



what was subprime in 1995? about 5 % of the total mortgage market. But fenton, the Clinton admin started seeing abuses in that segment so they reversed that rule in 2000. Lets say subprime was 9% of the market. Seems like a good call right? If you think it was a bad call in 1995 then surely you could praise the move in 2000.

"(In 2000) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

In 2004, subprime loans were about 20% of the market. What did Bush do? oh yea, he lifted the restrictions that Clinton placed on Freddie and Fannie

"In 2004, the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."
http://www.prmia.org/pdf/Case_Studies/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf

HOLY SMOKES?!?! If you thought it was bad in 1995 when subprimes were 5% then you must be furious that Bush did it in 2004 when subprime loans were 20%. Strangely no. And its not like you don't know about it because I've posted it dozens of times in response to your false narrative about the Bush Mortgage Bubble. So fenton unless you can produce something showing you are under the care of a psychiatrist how can we believe its anything other than dishonesty on your part? And guess what, 2004 is the same year the Bush Mortgage Bubble started.

(now that make 11 links in this thread alone that you simply pretend do not exist. Maybe you could send a note to the moderators that your doctor recommends that Vern stop posting facts)

Click to expand...

LOL !!

Housing under Bush increased from Clinton's 67.5 % a whole 1.7% VERN.

So your fiction of an explosion of loans simply doesn't wash with reality.

Oh wait, you count CRA as prime don't you VERN.

You equate loans made with 3% or less down and with "flexible underwritings standards " as responsible investments.

Anyway, with out Clintons changes, that allowed the corrupt Democrat run Fannie and Freddie to count Sub-Prime loans and securities towards their HUD housing goals, there wouldn't have been a market for Sub-Prime backed securities in the first place.

Without Clinton appointing a Corrupt and Criminal Democrat buddy to run Fannie Mae and to illegally manipulate the value of their investments and collateral the value of those securities wouldn't have been in demand.

Without Fannie and Freddie hiding hundreds of millions of dollars in worthless securities, the investment banks wouldn't have been interested in dis . itibuting those securities.

But of-course as you already know, any attempt to bring those bastions of Democrat coruption under control were stymied by the same party that started the mess.

So post some more nonsense, post the Bush's working group again.

Fenton, I responded to your post. You whine when you pretend I don't respond. And I asked you a question about your post and I asked you to back up calling me a liar. But you cut and run. You always do.

Hey fenton, did you like how I used your own words to prove you will post anything no matter how false to push your agenda? well I enjoyed it.

Vern said:

Fenton, I responded to your post. You whine when you pretend I don't respond. And I asked you a question about your post and I asked you to back up calling me a liar. But you cut and run. You always do.

Hey fenton, did you like how I used your own words to prove you will post anything no matter how false to push your agenda? well I enjoyed it.

Click to expand...

http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/749/specialreport122003.pdf

Uh huh....hey, here's the 2003 OFHEO report regarding Freddie Mac's Corruption.

You know, Democrats apparently robbed the American people out of Billions and caused a massive housing bubble built on worthless loans...

Fenton said:

Uh huh....hey, here's the 2003 OFHEO report regarding Freddie Mac's Corruption.

You know, Democrats apparently robbed the American people out of Billions and caused a massive housing bubble built on worthless loans...

Click to expand...

congratulations fenton, you've once again proven that Freddie mac inflated earnings. Whats the connection to banks lowering their lending standards in late 2004 and Bush's regulators letting them? It seems important to your narrative so surely you explain it.

Vern said:

congratulat
ions fenton, you've once again proven that Freddie mac inflated earnings. Whats the connection to banks lowering their lending standards in late 2004 and Bush's regulators letting them? It seems important to your narrative so surely you explain it.

Click to expand...

I've once again exposed the twisted delusions of a Bush Obsessed Lib, who with 3 links has made it his life purpose to blame Bush.

The Democrats ran Fannie and Freddie and they defended Fannie and Freddie.

Documents prove Barney Frank KNEW that those two GSEs were corrupt to the core before 2004.

Fannie and Freddie held the majority of all Sub-Prime loans and Securities backed by Sub-Prime loans.

And the Democrats ran them into the ground, but in 1998 Freddie Mac guaranteed nearly 400 million in Securities backed by CRA loans......but yea, " it all started after 2004 "......LOL !!

So your saying those CRA loans, that had up to 3% down and were made using " flexible underwriting " techniques and that were guaranteed back in 1998 were made after 2004 ??

LOLOL !! Hey, does the " Presidents Working Group " say anything about CRA Loans that were turned into Securities in 1998, and then guaranteed by Freddie Mac but were actually MADE AFTER 2004 ???

Are you friken serious VERN ?


Hey, you libs get in over your heads all the time, you just have to have the humility to admit you never knew what you were talking about.


NOT make stuff up. Children act like that VERN. Continue to lie when they've been caught red handed.

Fenton said:

I've once again exposed the twisted delusions of a Bush Obsessed Lib, who with 3 links has made it his life purpose to blame Bush.

..........
NOT make stuff up. Children act like that VERN. Continue to lie when they've been caught red handed.

Click to expand...

Oh fenton, really? still with the "3 links" lie. You should realize that your determination to "get back" at me for making you look foolish only undermines your credibility. Not that you have any. I really don't understand why you are even allowed to post here. Its a debate forum. Not a "post every lie spin and delusion that pops into your head" forum. You continually post falsehoods about me. You continually post falsehoods about the Bush Mortgage Bubble. You continually ignore the actual facts that caused the Bush mortgage bubble. You refuse to explain how the few facts you actually post relate to the Bush Mortgage Bubble. Humor me fenton, post the "Documents prove Barney Frank KNEW that those two GSEs were corrupt to the core before 2004."

don't post about me
don't post more out of context and unrelated quotes
don't post more imaginary facts
don't run and cry to the moderators
just back up that point

Vern said:

Oh fenton, really? still with the "3 links" lie. You should realize that your determination to "get back" at me for making you look foolish only undermines your credibility. Not that you have any. I really don't understand why you are even allowed to post here. Its a debate forum. Not a "post every lie spin and delusion that pops into your head" forum. You continually post falsehoods about me. You continually post falsehoods about the Bush Mortgage Bubble. You continually ignore the actual facts that caused the Bush mortgage bubble. You refuse to explain how the few facts you actually post relate to the Bush Mortgage Bubble. Humor me fenton, post the "Documents prove Barney Frank KNEW that those two GSEs were corrupt to the core before 2004."

don't post about me
don't post more out of context and unrelated quotes
don't post more imaginary facts
don't run and cry to the moderators
just back up that point

Click to expand...

Sure,
http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2009/FHFA_fanniefreddie_rel9_2_2009.pdf

I know you hate to read and these documents don't have ANY pictures in them so I'll post some of the relevant content.

A FHFA letter Dated December 3, 2004 sent to Barney Frank...

"On November 15, 2004 Fannie Mae filed a Form 12b-25 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Fannie Mae indicated that its external auditors could not complete their reviews of its financial statements and noted the possibility of up to a $9 billion loss dating back to 2001. As a result, OHFEO has determined it will not provide a monthly capital classification at this time."

But Barney and the Rest of the Democrats covered up the mass corruption didn't they VERN ? Lied for years as they conspired keep Republicans out of Fannie and Freddies Business, so they could continue to rip off the American public and your'e one of their easily convinced supporters who sits back and defends them by making stuff up about Bush.

And then 4 years later in July 2008, then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson says he called Frank and told him the government would need to spend “billions of taxpayer dollars to backstop the institutions from catastrophic failure.” Frank, despite that conversation, appeared on national television two days later and said the companies were “fundamentally sound, not in danger of going under.” Less than two months later, the government seized Fannie and Freddie and the bailout began.

Fenton said:

Sure,
http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2009/FHFA_fanniefreddie_rel9_2_2009.pdf

I know you hate to read and these documents don't have ANY pictures in them so I'll post some of the relevant content.

A FHFA letter Dated December 3, 2004 sent to Barney Frank...

"On November 15, 2004 Fannie Mae filed a Form 12b-25 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Fannie Mae indicated that its external auditors could not complete their reviews of its financial statements and noted the possibility of up to a $9 billion loss dating back to 2001. As a result, OHFEO has determined it will not provide a monthly capital classification at this time."

But Barney and the Rest of the Democrats covered up the mass corruption didn't they VERN ? Lied for years as they conspired keep Republicans out of Fannie and Freddies Business, so they could continue to rip off the American public and your'e one of their easily convinced supporters who sits back and defends them by making stuff up about Bush.

And then 4 years later in July 2008, then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson says he called Frank and told him the government would need to spend “billions of taxpayer dollars to backstop the institutions from catastrophic failure.” Frank, despite that conversation, appeared on national television two days later and said the companies were “fundamentally sound, not in danger of going under.” Less than two months later, the government seized Fannie and Freddie and the bailout began.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry fenton, where's the part that proves "Barney Frank KNEW that those two GSEs were corrupt to the core before 2004"? Are you doing that thing where you post a bunch of things to pretend you backed up your claim? So cut and paste the part you think backs up your claim.

anyhoo, I do remember when Barney warned in 2004 that Bush's toxic policies would be bad for the GSEs.

""Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says"

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies. "

http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf

see how it says what I said it would say. See how I posted the actual link? How come you cant do that? And weren't you supposed to add that to your parade of quotes.

Vern said:

I'm sorry fenton, where's the part that proves "Barney Frank KNEW that those two GSEs were corrupt to the core before 2004"? Are you doing that thing where you post a bunch of things to pretend you backed up your claim? So cut and paste the part you think backs up your claim.

anyhoo, I do remember when Barney warned in 2004 that Bush's toxic policies would be bad for the GSEs.

""Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says"

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies. "

http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf

see how it says what I said it would say. See how I posted the actual link? How come you cant do that? And weren't you supposed to add that to your parade of quotes.

Click to expand...

LOL!

Aren't you tired of being used by a bunch of corrupt Democrats ??

http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2009/FHFA_fanniefreddie_rel7_2_2009.pdf

A Letter from Barney Frank to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Steve Preston and the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency follows...

It was dated November 18 2008...VERN, page 36

But true allot of words in it so I'll paraphrase.

It's Barney Frank arguing that "affordable home mortgages are essential " in this housing market collapse and that Fannie and Freddie shouldn't lower their maximum allowable loan amounts.


So after he was instrumental in bankrupting the two largest GSE's he now wants them to continue making "affordable loans" at a maximum rate of 729,750.00 dollars ??

Fenton said:

A Letter from Barney Frank to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Steve Preston and the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency follows...

It was dated November 18 2008...VERN, page 36

But true allot of words in it so I'll paraphrase.

It's Barney Frank arguing that "affordable home mortgages are essential " in this housing market collapse and that Fannie and Freddie shouldn't lower their maximum allowable loan amounts.

So after he was instrumental in bankrupting the two largest GSE's he now wants them to continue making "affordable loans" at a maximum rate of 729,750.00 dollars ??

Click to expand...

HOLY COW FENTON?!?!?! I never seen you actually 'paraphrase' something correctly. Congratulations. I cant help but feel a little responsible for this New Fenton. However, there are still parts of the old Fenton we need to deal with. For instance, how does that letter from Nov 2008 in any prove your original point that "Documents prove Barney Frank KNEW that those two GSEs were corrupt to the core before 2004."

Yea, the old fenton routinely posted irrelevant things and claimed it backed up his point.

Vern said:

HOLY COW FENTON?!?!?! I never seen you actually 'paraphrase' something correctly. Congratulations. I cant help but feel a little responsible for this New Fenton. However, there are still parts of the old Fenton we need to deal with. For instance, how does that letter from Nov 2008 in any prove your original point that "Documents prove Barney Frank KNEW that those two GSEs were corrupt to the core before 2004."

Yea, the old fenton routinely posted irrelevant things and claimed it backed up his point.

Click to expand...

I posted those documents, they were wordy, and I suspect all off the words scared you away.

It was a monthly Capital Classification Document sent from Fannies Regulator and it was signed by Armando Falcon. Barney Frank received one of those every month from Fannies Regulator.

On December 3 2004 he received a letter from Freddies Regulator stating that due to SEC action and a possible 9 BILLION loss, no Capital Classifications for Fannie Mae could be given for that month.

Of-course he knew how corrupt the GSE's were, he agreed with their executives ripping off the American tax payer. For the next 4 years after receiving that letter stating that Fannie Mae would report a 9 BILLION loss, he repeatedly said they were " healthy ".

Does the "Presidents Working Group " say anything about that document VERN ? Here is it again....http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2009/FHFA_fanniefreddie_rel9_2_2009.pdf

Page 91