- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 66,558
- Reaction score
- 50,445
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I could rip your arguments to tiny pieces, so don't tempt me
something tells me eohrn doesnt' to discuss anything. He wants to post a link and run away. Again I've posted the facts that
Snow told barney there was nothing wrong with F&F.
Snow said the reform would help enforce the F&F housing goals (the ones bush raised even more than Clinton)
Bush stopped reform even though there was "broad consensus"
2003 reform had nothing to do with subprime
Bush reversed the Clinton Rule that restricted F&F 's purchases of abusive subprime loans
Testimony from W’s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation’ of the GSE’s
“
“
Mr. Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?
Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it. “
- THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES
Now I've posted this link several times in this thread. Since I posted it before you little "link rampage" by your own standards, you have to read it.
The fact that Bush warned congress a number of times that F&F are going cause a problem, and that his administration proposed legislation to regulate F&F, and the Democrats in congress killed it, disproves that it's 100% Bush's fault.
lets review the falsehoods you've posted in that statement.
Democrats did not kill reform. Bush did.
Lets review the falsehoods "implied" by that statement
2003 reform would have prevented the Bush Mortgage Bubble
2003 reform had something to do with subprime
Lets review the facts you continue to ignore to cling to those falsehoods
Bush stopped reform
Bush reversed the Clinton rule that restricted F&F's purchases of abusive subprime loans
Bush increased F&F low income goals even more than Clinton.
Bush "encouraged" F&F to buy 400 billion in minority mortgages in the secondary market
so please, lets discuss it.
lets review the falsehoods you've posted in that statement.
Democrats did not kill reform. Bush did.
Lets review the falsehoods "implied" by that statement
2003 reform would have prevented the Bush Mortgage Bubble
2003 reform had something to do with subprime
Lets review the facts you continue to ignore to cling to those falsehoods
Bush stopped reform
Bush reversed the Clinton rule that restricted F&F's purchases of abusive subprime loans
Bush increased F&F low income goals even more than Clinton.
Bush "encouraged" F&F to buy 400 billion in minority mortgages in the secondary market
so please, lets discuss it.
VERN, Democrat James Johnson in 1994 committed the GSEs to 1 TRILLION in "affordabld ld lending " purchases.
Andrew Cuomo in 2000, committed thd GSEs to 2.4 TRILLION in affordable lending purcassse.
How does 3.6 TRILLION in Sub-Prime committments from two Democrats get overlooked by you ?
My position isn't that Bush is blameless in the matter. Never has been.
My position is that Bush isn't 100% at fault as there were many actors making many decisions and taking many actions in a complex system, and that each of the actors rightfully deserves a porting of the blame.
Prove to me that none of the other actors in the complex system, that none of their decisions and actions, had any contribution to the bubble and the collapse. Prove to me this, and you will have proven your position that Bush is 100% responsible for the bubble and collapse.
good, you are now smarter than 99% of republicans who think Barney Frank caused it and Bush tried to stop it.
and there is your "many actors" rhetoric again.
well first you have to acknowledge the crisis started because of the "dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007." I just get the feeling that you've have not accepted that fact yet. The key word is "dramatic". And "dramatic" refers to the fact that banks literally stopped checking people's income. And what Bush's Working Group leaves out after stating "that 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." is that it quickly spread to all mortgages. It is referred to as a "subprime bubble" because the subprime MBS market collapsed first.
"In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."
Now you've finally posted some 'factual" events but you've not explained how they relate to banks "dramatically" lowering their lending standards in late 2004 and Bush's regulators cheering them on. You've posted "something something Clinton something something subprime something something Freddie and Fannie". Okay, lets deal with that. You posted this.
"•2001: Fannie and Freddie purchased $15B in sub-prime mortgages."
first off, I assume that's true. Second, their were 1.4 trillion in conforming loans in 2001. That's just "conforming".
In 2001, banks originated $1.433 trillion in conforming mortgage loans and issued $1.087 trillion in mortgage-backed securities secured by those mortgages,
http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr318.pdf
So I just don't see that the connection between 1% of all loans in 2001 (when Bush was president) and banks no longer checking people's income late 2004 and Bush's regulators letting them. I do see the connection between Bush's preemption of all state laws against predatory lending (to name just one of his toxic policies) and banks not checking people's income. And not checking people's ability to repay the mortgage was the only thing that the OCC defined as predatory. .
Now don't post your "many actors" rhetoric again, simply acknowledge and respond to the facts I've posted.
The 'many actors' isn't rhetoric it's the truth. There were many actors that contributed to the bubble which caused the collapse.
I consider this factual.
Hard to imagine that leading congressional Democrats receiving large amounts of money from F&F leaders would want to change the regulation controlling how F&F operated. Especially when their man, their corrupt appointee, Raines earns $100 million in bonuses, and kicks a bunch back at them.We can see exactly how dedicated to reforming F&F the Democrats were, which is to say not at all.
The GovTrack entry appears that the bill died in committee by the end of the congressional session when all uncompleted bills and proposals are cleared from the books. All I ask is who exactly was in charge of the committee when the bill was introduced at Jan 26, 2005, and reported by committee on Jul 28, 2005. By the end of 2005, it had died in committee.
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.
If there are as many "actors" as keep claiming, how come you simply cannot point to anything factual or relevant to Banks DRAMATICALLY LOWERING THEIR LENDING STANDARDS LATE 2004 and bush's regulators letting them? In spite of the dozens of posts you've posted, you've not posted one thing that would allow banks to DRAMATICALLY LOWER THEIR LENDING STANDARDS in late 2004 and you've not posted one thing that would prevent Bush's regulators from doing their jobs.
er uh eohrn, as you say "Proposing a hypothetical as a means to underpin and strengthen an already weak argument is hardly going to help strengthen your position. " I don't have to imagine whether congressional democrats wanted to change F&F regulation or not because REPUBLICANS controlled congress and Bush killed reform.
Of course you have to imagine that
F&F caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble
Bush didn't kill reform
republicans didn't control congress
reform had something to do with subprime
Bush didn't reverse the Clinton rule that restricted F&F's purchases of abusive subprime loans.
"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
Which essentially means, that Bush might not have changed anything for the worse. Of course he was in charge, when the second wave of Greenspan money hit the fan. The rates were much too low world wide after the Clinton pop in 2001 The market was awash in cash beyond BRICS capacities and ratings and the money needed investment opportunities. But that is something that most non-economist non-markets people do not like to understand. Had Bush done, what was necessary to prevent the second wave bubble popping, the economy would have been Volkered.
Maybe that would have been the way to go, but there would have been the same squealing and finger pointing you are demonstrating here. Just admit it: You don't like the man. But that is a poor reason to talk nonsense and miss use documents to hide behind.
Let's look at the toxic subprime mortgage supply chain for a moment.
blah blah blah eohrn. Now you have to resort to massive amounts of empty false rhetoric. Just get to the part where all of a sudden (think DRAMATICALLY) banks stop checking people's income in late 2004 and bush's regulators not only don't stop them they actually cheer the banks on. Yea, you once again seem to skip over that part. I'm not really seeing that as part of the "ecosystem". Seriously, according to your logic, we should blame the invention of mortgages.
....
Bush preempted all state laws against predatory lending 2004
Bush reversed the Clinton rule that restricted F&F's purchases of abusive subprime loans 2004
To name just two policies that show Bush did in fact change things for the worse. mmmm, and look at the date of those policies. notice anything familiar about 2004?
I'm sorry jog, I have definitely given you way too much credit. I really expected something better from you. I mean "you hate bush" is a pretty standard device to try to explain away what I've posted but "miss use documents to hide behind" really comes off as desperate. See now I have to ask you how I "miss use documents" by making a clear straight forward point and then backing it up with the appropriate blurb from a solid factual link? Be specific, where have I "miss use documents".
Excuse me, it's not just rhetoric. This is in fact the toxic mortgage supply chain from origination to infection of the world financial system.
Do you deny that shady mortgage originators issued no doc mortgages?
Bush’s regulators had the authority to stop the toxic mortgages[/B]
This would seem to be unsupported by evidence. Got any?
Bush preempted all state laws against predatory lending
Again, what's your evidence?
ah questions. notice how you have to ask questions as if you are making point. Not only do you have to ignore the facts I've posted to ask your questions, you also ignore the questions I've asked you.
But no biggie, I know cons can only ask questions so my posts are not dependent on you answering them.
But even more hypocritical than you demanding I answer when you provide none yourself is that when I answer your questions you pretend I didn't answer them.
You have to ignore them because I prove every point I make.
Lets look at first silly question you pose instead of having an honest and intelligent discussion.
On a quick side note, look how you assure us your empty factless rhetoric is not just rhetoric. too funny. Yes eohrn, shady originators issued No Doc loans. Non shady mortgage originators and federally regulated banks also issued No Doc mortgages. And federally regulated banks bought No Doc mortgages from the shady and non shady mortgage originators. so at least you are on the right trail with your new found concern for No Doc mortgages. And when did these No Doc loans start to become a majority of mortgage loans? yep, that's right late 2004. (see you're catching on)
mmmmm, what could explain the massive jump in No Doc loans starting late 2004? mmmmm, I know Bush reversed the Clinton rule restricted F&F's buying of abusive predatory loans that did not account for the borrower's ability to repay the mortgage. Bush also preempted all state laws against predatory lending. And loans that did not account for the borrower's ability to repay was the only rule the OCC had against predatory lending. So not only did Bush's regulators not do their job, they stopped state regulators from doing their's. Seems rather important if someone was really trying to have an honest discussion of the Bush Mortgage Bubble that started late 2004. But then, you asked before about preemption and Bush's regulators then cowardly ran away from the answer.
Do you really think that that was an important issue?
just more imagination on your part. The bill made it out of committee but republican senate leader Frist refused to allow a vote on it. Yea, "reported by committee" means it passed committee. Hey, now that you know about GovTrack, look up the house version of S190, HR 1461. its the only GSE reform bill to pass any chamber of the republican congress. It passed 331-90. quite the bipartisan bill I might add. This is what Bush thought about the only GSE reform bill to pass any chamber of the republican congress.
George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005
Wow, looks like Bush was against GSE reform again. say it AGAIN. He was worried about the GSE commitment to low income home buyers not the mortgage bubble that was now raging across America. Remember when you thought "bush tried to warn us" or "bush tried to stop it". too funny. anyhoo,if you want to blame republican senate leader Frist for stopping S190 go right ahead but please explain what GSE reform would have done 1 year after banks DRAMATICALLY LOWERED THEIR LENDING STANDARDS and Bush's regulators were cheering them on.
Lets add S190 to the list of things you eagerly wanted to discuss but will quickly change subjects now that I posted the facts.
Indeed. Yes, there is a point to the questions. The point is the one that you continuously dance around, as it invalidates the position that Bush the younger is 100% to blame for the mortgage bubble and collapse. So it's really no surprise that you dance around, avoid this point, and resume your mindless mantra of 'it's 100% Bush's fault'.
HR1461 Gave the GSEs a new Slush fund for "affordable housing." ( Thank you B.Frank )
It didnt address the corrupt relationship between Fannie and Freddie and Community action groups like ACORN.
It put off third party regulatory reform for another year and allowed the GSEs to purchase Jumbo loans in excess of 700 k.
You left all of that out for some reason VERN.
I suspect it was your general lack of honesty that led you to omit all of that info.
oh eohrn, your silly 'questions' are as empty and factless as your rhetoric. And when ever I respond directy to your posts, you simply post over and over "wah wah there were many actors." and dance to your next delusion. You've yet to post one of these many 'actors'. When you finally post something that has basis in fact, you just can't make the connection to banks DRAMATICALLY LOWERING THEIR LENDING STANDARDS late 2004 and you can't make the connection to Bush's regulators letting them.
For example, you demanded proof that Bush preempted all state laws against predatory lending and you demanded proof bush's regulators could have stopped the Bush Mortgage Bubble. I provided that proof. Show me where you responded to that proof with anything other than "wah wah there are many actors".
It's a well known fact that a large number of people and a large number of corporations had their hands in the mortgage bubble. Strange that you demand proof for the blatantly obvious.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?