- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 284
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
"GSE's held or guaranteed a total of 19.2 million Sub-Prime Loans loans, out of the 27 Million total sub-prime loans in existence.
"
LOL
SOURCE?
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Obama Repeats the Policies of Clinton' Sub-Prime Push..
- Thread starter Fenton
- Start date
"GSE's held or guaranteed a total of 19.2 million Sub-Prime Loans loans, out of the 27 Million total sub-prime loans in existence.
"
LOL
SOURCE?
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 284
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
"Fannie only bought " conforming loans " ???? LOL !!! YES, YOU KNOW A GOV'T GUARANTEE? A GSE BACKING? GET IT? DIFFERENT THAN BUYING MBS'S
"Then why in the hell Lib are they suing banks for their portfolio of crappy securities ? Here's a list of THEIR Securities from THEIR laws suite...."
OH RIGHT, THE $440 BILLION IN MBS'S THAT BUSH REQUIRED THEM TO BUY TO MEET HIS 'AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS'
LOL
"(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, the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."
http://www.prmia.org/pdf/Case_Studie..._090911_v2.pdf
EVER honest?
Fenton
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2012
- Messages
- 29,771
- Reaction score
- 12,231
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
LOL !!!!
You personally telling me what Clinton "meant to say" is hilarious. How friken desperate are you ? For ONCE he was being honest.
Personally, I like to post relevant content when it comes to contradicting fiction like yours.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clintons CRA changes allowed groups like ACORN to shake down banks...
The CRA is 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."
A man named Bruce Marks became quite notorious during the last decade for pressuring banks to earmark literally billions of dollars to his organization, the "Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America." He once boasted to the New York Times that he had "won" loan commitments totaling $3.8 billion from Bank of America, First Union Corporation, and the Fleet Financial Group. And that is just one "community group" operating in one city – Boston."
Marks, head of NACA has signed agreements with the four largest U.S. mortgage lenders -- Bank of America, Wells Fargo WFC & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. JPM +0.43% and Citigroup Inc. -- in which they agree to work with his counselors on a regular basis to try to arrange lower payments for struggling borrowers. NACA has made powerful political friends, such as House majority whip James Clyburn of South Carolina, and it receives federal money to counsel homeowners."
"We have the opportunity to change how lending gets done in this country," says Mr. Marks, whose group is itself a mortgage broker and has 40 offices staffed with housing counselors."
Activist Financier 'Terrorizes' Bankers in Foreclosure Fight - WSJ.com
----------------------------------------------------
ACORN article in The 1995 Chicago Sun Times read..........'‘You’ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.”
Hmmmm...yea, lending standards dropped during Bush's Presidency....LOL !!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuomo was appointed by Clinton to run HUD, which had regulatory authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Oh, and so was Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick...
In 1998 he made a little speech in reference to HUDs "Discrimination Complaint with ACU-BANK"
CUOMO: To take a greater risk on these mortgages, yes. To give families mortgages that they would not have given otherwise, yes.
Q: [unintellible] … that they would not have given the loans at all?
CUOMO: They would not have qualified but for this affirmative action on the part of the bank, yes.
Q: Are minorities represented in that low and moderate income group?
CUOMO: It is by income, and is it also by minorities? Yes.
CUOMO: With the 2.1 billion, lending that amount in mortgages — which will be a higher risk, and I’m sure there will be a higher default rate on those mortgages than on the rest of the portfolio …
------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some "lies" .....Ooops, I mean actual HUD ( threats )instructions that were sent out to banks from the Clinton era.
"HUD is authorized to direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to undertake various remedial actions, including suspension, probation, reprimand or settlement, against lenders found to have engaged in discriminatory lending practices,"
"Applying different lending standards to applicants who are members of a protected class is permissible," it said. "In addition, providing different treatment to applicants to address past discrimination would be permissible.
HUD instructed Lenders to "make changes in marketing strategy or loan products to better serve minority segments of the market." They were also advised to "change commission structures" to encourage brokers and loan officers to "lend in minority and low-income neighborhoods"
"Lenders should ensure that their loan processors and underwriters are aware of the provisions of the secondary market guidelines that provide various alternative and flexible means by which applicants may demonstrate their ability and willingness to repay their loans,"
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac not infrequently purchase mortgages exceeding the suggested ratios" of monthly housing expense to income (28%) and total obligations to income (36%)
HUD warned lenders who rejected minority applicants with high debt ratios and low credit scores to "be prepared" to prove to federal regulators and prosecutors they weren't racist. "The Department of Justice is authorized to use the full range of its enforcement authority."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What other nonsense do you have to add ? The McClatkey article ???? LOL !!
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 284
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
"You personally telling me what Clinton "meant to say" is hilarious. How friken desperate are you ? For ONCE he was being honest."
MORE RIGHT WING GARBAGE. I'M SHOCKED. NO I ACTUALLY GAVE THE FULL QUOTE, NOT WHAT HE 'MEANT TO SAY' BUT ACTUALLY SAID!!!
"Clintons CRA changes allowed groups like ACORN to shake down banks..."
MORE CONservative garbage. I'm shocked
Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law
Community Reinvestment Act, blamed for home market crash, didn't apply to the banks that did the most lending.
Bob Davis, executive vice president of the American Bankers Association, which lobbies Congress to streamline community reinvestment rules, said "it just isn't credible" to blame the law CRA for the crisis.
"Institutions that are subject to CRA - that is, banks and savings asociations - were largely not involved in subprime lending," Davis said. "The bulk of the loans came through a channel that was not subject to CRA."
Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law | loans, subprime, banks - Business - The Orange County Register
BUUUSSSSHHHH CHANGED HUD GOALS REMEMBER? LOL
ANYTHING on that? crickets!
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 284
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
How George Bush and the Private Mortgage Market Created The Perfect Storm
From 2003 to 2006 GSEs and FHA new market share went down significantly while private mortgage company’s market share on sub-prime, high risk loans went up significantly.
MBS are packages of mortgages (sort of like mutual funds) that are bought and sold on in the stock market. They are mortgages bought from private companies and bundled into packages by huge trading firms (you know the ones we bailed out) and sold on the stock exchange.
In 1997 the GSEs owned about 12% of the total market share of these securities. In 2001 the GSEs owned about 15% of the total market share of these securities. In 2008 this percentage had grown dramatically to 40%.
In intervening years it was much more. President Bush directed his HUD director to pressure the GSEs into buying massive amounts these MBS on the open market. This created huge market for these securities and encouraged more and more risky private sector mortgages so they could be bought, bundled and sold on the open market largely to Fannie and Freddie.
From 2003 to 2006 GSEs and FHA new market share went down significantly while private mortgage company’s market share on sub-prime, high risk loans went up significantly.
MBS are packages of mortgages (sort of like mutual funds) that are bought and sold on in the stock market. They are mortgages bought from private companies and bundled into packages by huge trading firms (you know the ones we bailed out) and sold on the stock exchange.
In 1997 the GSEs owned about 12% of the total market share of these securities. In 2001 the GSEs owned about 15% of the total market share of these securities. In 2008 this percentage had grown dramatically to 40%.
In intervening years it was much more. President Bush directed his HUD director to pressure the GSEs into buying massive amounts these MBS on the open market. This created huge market for these securities and encouraged more and more risky private sector mortgages so they could be bought, bundled and sold on the open market largely to Fannie and Freddie.
Conclusion: Even though Fannie, Freddie and FHA had much less to do with new loans in the Bush administration they bought huge amounts of MBS in those years to meet President Bush’s 56% housing requirement.
Additionally, the President encouraged the GSEs to “focus” their “core housing mission” “with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers” in the following statement from the White House,
The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs’ commitment to low-income homebuyers.[xix]
Conclusion: President Bush had directed HUD to require the GSEs to meet the 56% low income housing requirement. This pressured the GSEs to buy massive MBS. This created a massive market for junk mortgages.
How George Bush and the Private Mortgage Market Created The Perfect Storm | Musings
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 284
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
FROM YOUR LINK:
Mr. Marks says 3.67% of loans NACA originated were 90 days or more overdue as of March 31. The industry average was 3.49%, according to LPS Applied Analytics, a data firm. According to Mr. Marks, 0.68% of the NACA loans were in foreclosure. The industry average was 2.45%, says LPS.
Bank of America says home loans originated by NACA "are equal to and in some cases are performing better than our prime book of business." A bank spokesman added, "There are few organizations that can bring a buyer to the table who has been through such extensive pre-buying counseling."
OOPS
Activist Financier 'Terrorizes' Bankers in Foreclosure Fight - WSJ.com
WANT TO TRY AGAIN? lol
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 284
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
"Cuomo was appointed by Clinton to run HUD, which had regulatory authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"
I THOUGHT YOU SAID IT WAS "OFHEO" LOL
RIGHT, UNDER HUD. WHO HAD REGULATORY CONTROL UNDER BUSH AGAIN? WAS IT CUOMO?
When the Fannie and Freddie bought huge amounts of MBS, pressured by the Bush administration, the market for credit default swaps went astronomical. This is ultimately what broke them and resulted in tax payers having to bail them out
President Bush had directed HUD to require the GSEs to meet the 56% low income housing requirement. This pressured the GSEs to buy massive MBS. This created a massive market for junk mortgages.
"(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, the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."
http://www.prmia.org/pdf/Case_Studie..._090911_v2.pdf
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 284
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
TRY to use reason and logic:
George Bush, proud parent of the mortgage crisis
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008
2002: Bush Launched Housing Crisis w/Bully Pulpit
Bush's words, key points transcribed
We will Create American Dream Down Payment Fund using taxpayer money
A tax credit to developers to build low income housing
Simplify paperwork
Mel and Alfonso Jackson, will make closing easier
Federal government has to play an important role.
2004 nomination acceptance speech, Bush said:
Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.
Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."
He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.
Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.
And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down
(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.
Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004
DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!
Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.
FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times
Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html?pagewanted=all
"(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, the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."
http://www.prmia.org/pdf/Case_Studie..._090911_v2.pdf
Lower lending standards started in late 2004 which caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 284
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
"Yup. Last time it took the bubble a number of years to build (like 20?)"
OR MUCH SHORTER
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008
"Won't be the same players, but will be the same ideology of common sense and fact, of that I'm certain."
Right-wingers want to erase how George Bush's "Homeowner Society" helped cause the economic collapse
2004 Republican Convention:
Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...
Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.
(APPLAUSE)
Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."
The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence
William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis
Conservatives Can’t Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis
The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.
Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed
This tendency to shift blame to minorities and poor people for the financial crisis soon developed into a well-honed narrative on the right.
Politics Most Blatant | Center for American Progress
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 284
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom: The first thing to point out is that the both the subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market, especially the private label securitization channel (PLS) market. The Government-Sponsored Entities (GSEs, or Fannie and Freddie) were not behind them. The fly-by-night lending boom, slicing and dicing mortgage bonds, derivatives and CDOs, and all the other shadiness of the mortgage market in the 2000s were Wall Street creations, and they drove all those risky mortgages.
Here’s some data to back that up: “More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions… Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.”
The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.
A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative
Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture
Scott Stern, CEO of Lenders One
The truth is that many of us in the industry were deeply distressed by the growing practice of pushing high risk loans on borrowers who had no reasonable expectation of being able to repay the mortgage. Disclosures were often less than adequate, and faced with a bewildering array of loan terms, borrowers tended to trust their mortgage banker or broker. The broken trust that resulted has damaged borrower confidence in the mortgage industry. I liken the situation to that of a doctor and patient dealing with a medical procedure. The patient bears some reasonable risk. But they don't bear the risk of malpractice by the doctor. In our industry, we have frankly seen too much mortgage malpractice.
Mark Zandi, Chief Economist, Moody's Analytics
"Even after mortgage loans started going bad en masse, the confusing mix of federal and state agencies that made up the nation's regulatory structure had difficulty responding. After regulators finally began to speak up about subprime and the other types of mortgage loans that had spun out of control, such lending was already on its way to extinction. What regulators had to say was all but irrelevant. Yet even the combination of a flawed financial system, cash-flush global investors and lax regulators could not, by itself, have created the subprime financial shock. The essential final ingredient was hubris: a belief that the ordinary rules of economics and finance no longer applied."
- See more at: What Caused the Financial Crisis? Quotes From Bankers
Here’s some data to back that up: “More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions… Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.”
The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.
A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative
Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture
Scott Stern, CEO of Lenders One
The truth is that many of us in the industry were deeply distressed by the growing practice of pushing high risk loans on borrowers who had no reasonable expectation of being able to repay the mortgage. Disclosures were often less than adequate, and faced with a bewildering array of loan terms, borrowers tended to trust their mortgage banker or broker. The broken trust that resulted has damaged borrower confidence in the mortgage industry. I liken the situation to that of a doctor and patient dealing with a medical procedure. The patient bears some reasonable risk. But they don't bear the risk of malpractice by the doctor. In our industry, we have frankly seen too much mortgage malpractice.
Mark Zandi, Chief Economist, Moody's Analytics
"Even after mortgage loans started going bad en masse, the confusing mix of federal and state agencies that made up the nation's regulatory structure had difficulty responding. After regulators finally began to speak up about subprime and the other types of mortgage loans that had spun out of control, such lending was already on its way to extinction. What regulators had to say was all but irrelevant. Yet even the combination of a flawed financial system, cash-flush global investors and lax regulators could not, by itself, have created the subprime financial shock. The essential final ingredient was hubris: a belief that the ordinary rules of economics and finance no longer applied."
- See more at: What Caused the Financial Crisis? Quotes From Bankers
Fenton
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2012
- Messages
- 29,771
- Reaction score
- 12,231
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
LOL !!
I thought you said there were NO Sub-Prime Loans made before 2004 and that only Bush lowered Standards. Did you Lie ?? Yup, you did.
By the way, Freddie Mac bought 19 BILLION dollars in Sub-prime loans right after that rule change was made. Fannie Mae ? They elected not to disclose the amount of Sub-Prime loans they purchased after the "rule change"
Here, ANOTHER HUD statement from 2001, you know before "Bush lowered lending standards"...
"Given the very high concentration of these loans in low-income and African American neighborhoods, the growth in subprime lending and resulting very high levels of foreclosure is a real cause for concern,"
So much for your BS about lower lending standards only applying to the Bush years Huh ?
From 2004-2006, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought a total of 434 BILLION dollars in Securities. It was right around the time Democrats lied about the GSEs fiscal health, and fought off Regulatory reform.
You DO realize the Democrats at Fannie and Freddie LIED don't you ?? Falsified reports, failed to disclose massive amounts of Sub-Prime debt.
SEC Charges Former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Executives with Securities Fraud; Release No. 2011-267; December 16, 2011
Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2011 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged six former top executives of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) with securities fraud, alleging they knew and approved of misleading statements claiming the companies had minimal holdings of higher-risk mortgage loans, including subprime loans.
Keep it up, I like to expose the liberal ignorance and the Liberal lies with actual HUD statements that absolutely contradict your attempt at revisionism.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 284
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
YOUTUBE? Oh right, Barney Frank MINORITY member of the GOP House where simple majority rules, had super powers to make Bush/GOP CONGRESS (UNTIL 2007) DO HIS BIDDING? He was talking about F/F ACCOUNTING SCANDALS of 2003-2004!
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008
In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 284
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
TYPICAL RIGHT WING LIAR. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.
GSE's had VERY FEW subprime loans pre 2005, when the BUSH ADMIN allowed F/F to lower their standards, up to that point it was ONLY for affordable housing goals (until Bush, a very small amount of the market
EVERYTHING else you posit is right wing noise. Zero honesty
"From 2004-2006, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought a total of 434 BILLION dollars in Securities."
RIGHT, TO MEET BUSH'S $44O BILLION GOAL REMEMBER? LOL
Dems fought regulatory reform? Weird, here I thought Bush threatened a veto and stopped it twice?
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.
George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005
Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers"
George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005
The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley (R), now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.”
“What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 284
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
You mean the GSE's, BOTH PRIVATE Corps, had people lying and the SEC charged them? SHOCKING.
What's that got to do with Bush FORCING F/F to buy $440 billion in MBS's TO MEET HIS 'GOALS'?
Born Free
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2011
- Messages
- 9,161
- Reaction score
- 2,142
- Location
- Sonny and Nice
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
TYPICAL RIGHT WING LIAR. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.
GSE's had VERY FEW subprime loans pre 2005, when the BUSH ADMIN allowed F/F to lower their standards, up to that point it was ONLY for affordable housing goals (until Bush, a very small amount of the market
EVERYTHING else you posit is right wing noise. Zero honesty
"From 2004-2006, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought a total of 434 BILLION dollars in Securities."
RIGHT, TO MEET BUSH'S $44O BILLION GOAL REMEMBER? LOL
Dems fought regulatory reform? Weird, here I thought Bush threatened a veto and stopped it twice?
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.
George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005
Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers"
George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005
The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley (R), now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.”
“What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”
I think you need to bone up on history.
FYI, it was Bush and McCain who tried to reform Fannie and Freddie as they knew they were over leveraged.
Bush and McCain each tried to reform Fannie Mae. Democrats Blocked them both times. | American Elephants
Bush, McCain Tried To Reform Freddie Mac | Sweetness & Light
McCain’s attempt to fix Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2005; Update: Obama can’t get AIG right « Hot Air
Now you have Barnie Frank stating all is good with Fannie and Freddie financially, only to have them need billions in a bailout a month latter.
What They Said About Fan and Fred - WSJ.com
Barney Frank flees the scene of his fiscal crimes | Washington Times Communities
Barney Frank on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003 | Tax Foundation
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 284
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
NOW it's McCain who fought those rascally Dems? lol
McCain did indeed co-sponsor the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, a bill that would have enhanced oversight of Freddie and Fannie. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., introduced the bill in January 2005 and immediately garnered co-sponsorship from two other Republican senators.
McCain signed on in May 2006 after a damning federal report on accounting practices at Fannie Mae was released. "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole," he said in a statement .
THAT was the EXTENT of McCain's 'actions' signing onto a bill AFTER it died in the Senate, SIXTEEN MONTHS AFTER THE BILL WAS INTRODUCED!!!
Speaking for 5 minutes on the floor is what again?
Fannie, Freddie and John, at odds in 2006 | PolitiFact
Does McCain's support for that bill amount to fighting to rein in Freddie and Fannie? Sort of. Others had been fighting for Fannie-and-Freddie reform for more than a decade, and McCain signed onto the bill a year-and-a-half after it was introduced. And he reportedly didn't do too much for the bill beyond co-sponsoring it and issuing a statement.
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate familiar with the legislation and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac say that speech was the only action by Mr. McCain they recall on the issue. Mr. McCain “never took on the role that some other Republicans did” to try to limit the companies, said a former Freddie Mac executive who later lobbied for the company until its failure.
“I remember working against a number of amendments, and they were always introduced by Hagel and Sununu,” said the former executive. “John McCain was never anywhere to be found.”
Senators Hagel, Sununu and Dole were all on the Banking Committee at the time. Mr. McCain never was.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/u...=1&sq=checkpoint fannie freddie mccain&st=cse
NOW ABOUT BUSH FORCING F/F TO BUY $440 BILLION IN MBS'S? lol
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.
George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005
Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers"
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 284
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
BARNEY FRANK? Minority member of the GOP majority HOUSE where simple majority rules? PLEASE tell me the super, duper powers he had?
What Barney said in 2003-2004 about ACCOUNTING SCANDALS? Shocking
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008
Oh, I guess context matters?
HERE IS WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT BUSH'S FORCING F/F TO BUY $440 BILLION IN MBS'S TO MEET HIS 'AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS;
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.
So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush
http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf
Fenton
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2012
- Messages
- 29,771
- Reaction score
- 12,231
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Private Corporations that were saddled with Clinton appointments and protected by Democrat politicians....and political hacks.
William C Apgar Jr, HUD Secretary under Clinton regreted allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to count Sub-Prime Mortages and Securities towards their housing goals.....( Clintons CRA changes allowed this practice )
" I regret it" , he said. " In hindsite, I would have done it differently ".
Hey, didn't you say Bush lowered lending Standards ?? Got caught in a hack lie didn't you.
And Fannie and Freddie hold over 5.4 TRILLION dollars in securities and loans backed by Sub-Prime loans now. They hold 1.7 TRILLION in CRA loans alone. So wait, your'e saying that 400 Billion collpased the economy ?
Never mind the fact that Fannie and Freddie were buying these trash loans when Bush and the Republicans were sound the alarm and asking for a Third Party Regulator.
Democrats wanted none of that did they ?
Your making less and less sense aren't you ?
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 284
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
THIS IS BUSH 'REFORMING F/F
June 17, 2004
(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.
The National Association of Home Builders, along with the National Association of Realtors and the Mortgage Bankers Association, are drafting a letter to Alphonso Jackson, secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), arguing that middle-income home buyers are the ones that will get hurt by the proposed plan, the NAHB told CNN/Money.
In April, the HUD proposed new rules that would raise the percentage of loans bought by the two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that finance borrowers whose incomes are at or below the median for their area, according to the Wall Street Journal .
But the groups will warn in the letter that the proposed rules requiring the two GSEs to finance more "affordable housing" may have "unintended consequences," hurting some poor and middle-income people struggling to afford houses, the Journal said.
Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004
Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble
He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.
Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.
And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down
DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!
Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 284
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
SOME honesty one of these days? PLEASE?
"(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, the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."
http://www.prmia.org/pdf/Case_Studie..._090911_v2.pd
" Fannie and Freddie hold over 5.4 TRILLION dollars in securities and loans backed by Sub-Prime loans now. They hold 1.7 TRILLION in CRA loans alone."
FOR THE THIRD TIME
SOURCE? PLEASE tell me you have a link? PLEASE tell me it's Ed Pinto/Peter Wallison and AEI made up garbage, it's SOOOOO much easier to destroy!!!
" Democrats wanted none of that did they ?"
WEIRD HOW THE BIPARTISAN BILL THAT PASSED THE GOP HOUSE IN 2005, HR 1461, BUSH OPPOSED RIGHT? lol
Born Free
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2011
- Messages
- 9,161
- Reaction score
- 2,142
- Location
- Sonny and Nice
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Again it was Bush that wanted to reform F&F as they knew they were over leveraged.
I notice you never came to Barnie Franks (a liberal democrat) rescue, as it was he that said F&F were financially sound, yet a month latter they needed billions to bail them out.
Spin you're liberal BS and distort the facts all you want, but history is cast in stone. Nice Try though.
Fenton
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2012
- Messages
- 29,771
- Reaction score
- 12,231
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Its hard to regulate a GSE that refuses to disclose its massive amount of trash debt, isn't it ?
It's why they're under SEC investigation right now.
And Barney Frank recieved documents from the OFHEO in 2004 stating that the GSEs were under capitalized, and were going to claim a 9 BILLION dollar loss.
Do I need to produce them ? Would it even scratch the surface of your delusional Bush blame ?
Where were the Democrat calls for regulatory reform. For full financial disclosure ??
Maybe you can name ONE.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 284
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
SERIOUSLY? BUSH 'WANTED REFORM'? Why because he said so? He opposed the ONLY bill to make it out of the GOP House (simple majority NO Dems could block it!) , it was HR 1461 in 2005. BUT you saying Bush 'wanted' reform? lol
THEY WERE OVER LEVERAGED? WHY? Oh right BUSH POLICY
"(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, the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."
http://www.prmia.org/pdf/Case_Studie..._090911_v2.pd
Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.
Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004
BUSH FORCED F/F TO BUY $440 BILLION IN MBS'S FROM 2004-2007! Was that someone 'worried' about leverage? lol
2004 Republican Convention:
Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...
Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.
(APPLAUSE)
Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative
The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence
William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 284
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
RIGHT WING NONSENSE. Is this you Glenn Beck? Maybe Sara Palin?
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008
YOU DO UNDERSTAND BUSH APPOINTED F/F HEADS RIGHT? HUD? REGULATORS? ETC? lol
ALL you have is right wing garbage that ONLY the low info GOP voters could stomach. Zero honest, reasoning person buys into your mess!
Born Free
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2011
- Messages
- 9,161
- Reaction score
- 2,142
- Location
- Sonny and Nice
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I see you are hell bent in denial that you would say Obamacare is the best new legislation in US history and operating at 110% and getting more than expected sigh ups. Denial of the facts seems to be your MO.