Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: The Coach on September 25, 2008, 06:28:20 PM
-
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Bush Called For Reform of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 17 Times in 2008 Alone... Dems Ignored Warnings
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.
Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
The White House released this list of attempts by President Bush to reform Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac since he took office in 2001.
Unfortunately, Congress did not act on the president's warnings:
** 2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."
** 2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
** 2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)
September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.
September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
** 2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
** 2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
** 2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)
September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.
September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)
** 2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.
January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.
February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
In 2005-- Senator John McCain partnered with three other Senate Republicans to reform the government’s involvement in lending.
Democrats blocked this reform, too.
More... Not only did democrats not act on these warnings but Barack Obama put one of the major Sub-Prime Slime players on his campaign as finance chairperson.
UPDATE: The media is not reporting that the failed financial institutions are big Obama donors.
Hat Tip Larwyn
-
Geez man, atleast summarize it.
-
Coach, you're so smart. Can you please explain how the FDIC has the authority to seize deposits and sell them to other banks?
-
Interesting, the Repubs were in total control 6 of those years.
So it seems like the call was nothing but lip service.
-
Interesting, the Repubs were in total control 6 of those years.
So it seems like the call was nothing but lip service.
You are correct sir.
Bush and repubs had control to do anything they liked for 6 years. They rubber stamped anything Bush wanted. If he wanted reform, he could have had it easily.
-
Case closed hahaha
-
Interesting, the Repubs were in total control 6 of those years.
So it seems like the call was nothing but lip service.
Didn't read the article did ya?
-
Bush is the fucking moron that wanted every poor, low income idiot to be a homeowner.
Bush's plan would be closely tied to some $440 million in minority loan programs offered by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. President Bush commended Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's efforts-signaling the unlikelihood that he would pursue any changes in the government sponsored enterprises' congressional charters.
http://www.allbusiness.com/personal-finance/real-estate/899746-1.html
-
Um, it was Clinton and Barney Frank that started that shit, research.... then post!
I am not giving a pass to Bush for continuing in the direction of socialism and market perversion.
Read the article I just posted you PUSSY! LOL.
-
Um, it was Clinton and Barney Frank that started that shit, research.... then post!
I am not giving a pass to Bush for continuing in the direction of socialism and market perversion.
Barney Frank, or fat, fucking weezing pig as I call him.
-
Someone please kill Barney Frank and Dodd, now.
-
Didn't read the article did ya?
I did.
-
Bush is the fucking moron that wanted every poor, low income idiot to be a homeowner.
Bush's plan would be closely tied to some $440 million in minority loan programs offered by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. President Bush commended Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's efforts-signaling the unlikelihood that he would pursue any changes in the government sponsored enterprises' congressional charters.
http://www.allbusiness.com/personal-finance/real-estate/899746-1.html
ys
Bush???...ur an idiot on magnitude that really can't be expressed in words. This was Clinton's baby all the way. He had his guys change the rules in 1995, to make it easier for minorities to get home and business loans. Basically it forced some banks into bad business practices. Practices that I've seen some of your own Lib posts back up. This is the fault of many people but its origins can be laid at the feet of Clinton.
-
ys
Bush???...ur an idiot on magnitude that really can't be expressed in words. This was Clinton's baby all the way. He had his guys change the rules in 1995, to make it easier for minorities to get home and business loans. Basically it forced some banks into bad business practices. Practices that I've seen some of your own Lib posts back up. This is the fault of many people but its origins can be laid at the feet of Clinton.
And it was allowed to continue for years and years until it was too late in 2008.
-
Surprised? Intellectual Americans aren't.
Little Bush bankrupted every business he owned. Driving the American Economy in the sewer was nothing but a minor step on his way to trying to trash the global system as well.
-
One person not being talked about in this whole mess is that old fag Allen Greenspan. He was in favor of heavy deregulation of the financial industry. Most of the damage was done under his watch as Fed Reserve chairman.
-
One person not being talked about in this whole mess is that old fag Allen Greenspan. He was in favor of heavy deregulation of the financial industry. Most of the damage was done under his watch as Fed Reserve chairman.
Listening to him speak is disgusting. He just dances around every question and no one has the balls to tell him he's full of shit. Jon Stewert came closest.
-
Listening to him speak is disgusting. He just dances around every question and no one has the balls to tell him he's full of shit. Jon Stewert came closest.
Back around 2003-04 Bush was pushing heavily the idea that every American family should own a home and was calling for minority and other types of loan programs.. Then, Repugs controlled congress, and did nothing discourage the idea, in fact, I don't think anyone did.
Greenspan was a heavy supporter of Bush's first tax cuts and financial deregulation. It's too bad that Bernanke will have to take the fall because what he's been doing is what a Federal Reserve chairman ought to do, and that' keeping his nose out of politics and try everything to stimulate the economy. It's just that his efforts failed because not even lowering interest rates or making adjustments to the money supply could fix the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
The whole thing spread like a virus, even to the investments banks who not only bought the shitty loans, but also securitized them and therefor almost doubled the effect.
-
So in 2008, when the damage is already deep, BUSH comes out and calls for reform?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
What a whore.
-
Surprised? Intellectual Americans aren't.
Little Bush bankrupted every business he owned. Driving the American Economy in the sewer was nothing but a minor step on his way to trying to trash the global system as well.
Dude. Seriously? Do you seriously put the blame on Bush for the economic strain that these poorly leveraged banks put on our system? This is what happens when you allow Greenspan and Bill Clinton in the late 90's to drop rates so low that anyone can qualify to buy a home. Do you honestly not see what transpired or are you that much of an idealogue that you refuse to? You people confuse me. And Clinton and Greenspan are not wrong or disingenuous for trying what they did. They took a shot at boosting the economy. And it worked...for a while. Their mistake was banking on the hope that these lower income people would be able to pay off their entire debt, not the just the first 8 years of payments. They lost that bet. You know why? Because their intention was that these people making 30-50K a year would buy 150-200K homes. They didn't buy 150-200K homes. They bought 300-400K homes. This is the consequence. It's really our own fault as Americans who want it all right now and just think that their government will bail them out of their poor decision making abiltities. And now we sit back and blame Congress and our President and make ill founded accusations on the men trying to clean our mess up....sad.
-
Dude. Seriously? Do you seriously put the blame on Bush for the economic strain that these poorly leveraged banks put on our system? This is what happens when you allow Greenspan and Bill Clinton in the late 90's to drop rates so low that anyone can qualify to buy a home. Do you honestly not see what transpired or are you that much of an idealogue that you refuse to? You people confuse me. And Clinton and Greenspan are not wrong or disingenuous for trying what they did. They took a shot at boosting the economy. And it worked...for a while. Their mistake was banking on the hope that these lower income people would be able to pay off their entire debt, not the just the first 8 years of payments. They lost that bet. You know why? Because their intention was that these people making 30-50K a year would buy 150-200K homes. They didn't buy 150-200K homes. They bought 300-400K homes. This is the consequence. It's really our own fault as Americans who want it all right now and just think that their government will bail them out of their poor decision making abiltities. And now we sit back and blame Congress and our President and make ill founded accusations on the men trying to clean our mess up....sad.
To top it all off, people were paying WAAAAAY too much for houses that didn't even appraise. I know that firsthand, as my wife and I went through that, when we bought our home.
-
Dude. Seriously? Do you seriously put the blame on Bush for the economic strain that these poorly leveraged banks put on our system? This is what happens when you allow Greenspan and Bill Clinton in the late 90's to drop rates so low that anyone can qualify to buy a home. Do you honestly not see what transpired or are you that much of an idealogue that you refuse to? You people confuse me. And Clinton and Greenspan are not wrong or disingenuous for trying what they did. They took a shot at boosting the economy. And it worked...for a while. Their mistake was banking on the hope that these lower income people would be able to pay off their entire debt, not the just the first 8 years of payments. They lost that bet. You know why? Because their intention was that these people making 30-50K a year would buy 150-200K homes. They didn't buy 150-200K homes. They bought 300-400K homes. This is the consequence. It's really our own fault as Americans who want it all right now and just think that their government will bail them out of their poor decision making abiltities. And now we sit back and blame Congress and our President and make ill founded accusations on the men trying to clean our mess up....sad.
Actually, much of the deregulation took place after Bush took office. He was the one who pushed the agenda of every American family owning a home more so than anyone else, backed by Greenspan of course. Most of the defaulted loans were made by banks after 2000, and bought by the investment banks as early as 2005-2006, and then securitized, meaning the investment banks issued securities backed by mortgages.
-
Jesus Christ!
Now with the obligatory prayer out of the way...wake up people!
How do you kill a program that helps the lower class get a taste of middle americana(i.e., home ownership) while blaming the democrats, who made that 'dream' possible, as the cause of the housing market collapse?
How head-up-the-ass blind or palin-stupid does one have to be to not understand that this has happened before...at the hands of, you guessed it, republican movers and shakers. Read up on the S & L Scandal from a few years back which, coincidentally, involved Team Bush.
-
Actually, much of the deregulation took place after Bush took office. He was the one who pushed the agenda of every American family owning a home more so than anyone else, backed by Greenspan of course. Most of the defaulted loans were made by banks after 2000, and bought by the investment banks as early as 2005-2006, and then securitized, meaning the investment banks issued securities backed by mortgages.
agreed. however greenspan had already dropped interest rates back in 98 and already had these packages put together when Bush got into office. I graduated college in 99. Thats how i know this. 9 out of 10 of my friends that i graduated with became loan officers out of school. If you had a heartbeat you could get a job as a loan officer in 1999. Thats because these brokerage firms could see the writing on the wall from Congress. They knew they could get lots and lots of volume. So they started hiring anyone who could read. And yes Bush continued with these policies of deregulation because both Dems and Republicans thought it would work. And they got to be able to say that they were letting the poor have housing. It seemed like a win win.
-
Aren't there laws on the books protecting the consumer from predatory lenders (and themselves)?
Uhhh, yeah.
Well, what the fuck happened?
Bush 'deregulated' the anti-predatory lending laws.
Really?
Yup.
So it was the Wild, Wild West of lending practices going on....
(It's good I have someone to talk with)
-
Aren't there laws on the books protecting the consumer from predatory lenders (and themselves)?
Uhhh, yeah.
Well, what the fuck happened?
Bush 'deregulated' the anti-predatory lending laws.
Really?
Yup.
So it was the Wild, Wild West of lending practices going on....
(It's good I have someone to talk with)
G'morning Decker ;D
-
Aren't there laws on the books protecting the consumer from predatory lenders (and themselves)?
Uhhh, yeah.
Well, what the fuck happened?
Bush 'deregulated' the anti-predatory lending laws.
Really?
Yup.
So it was the Wild, Wild West of lending practices going on....
(It's good I have someone to talk with)
wow at least camel jockey can have an intelligent back and forth and knows the history of these policies and who made them. you have a foregone conclusion and are just ranting. let me guess. you vote democrat?
-
G'morning Decker ;D
Good morning Ozmo.
-
wow at least camel jockey can have an intelligent back and forth and knows the history of these policies and who made them. you have a foregone conclusion and are just ranting. let me guess. you vote democrat?
Typical right wing response when trapped in a corner.
Why don't you try refuting his statement instead? Oh right, it's because you can't.
-
wow at least camel jockey can have an intelligent back and forth and knows the history of these policies and who made them. you have a foregone conclusion and are just ranting. let me guess. you vote democrat?
I like camel jockey but don't mistake your 'back and forth' for the truth.
Let's see, you already don't know the name of the democratic party so I'm taking a flier that you're some programmed rightwinger? I could be wrong but I usually nail these types of things.
But I'm a nice guy so I'll let you make your own argument b/c it helps me out: Dude. Seriously? Do you seriously put the blame on Bush for the economic strain that these poorly leveraged banks put on our system? This is what happens when you allow Greenspan and Bill Clinton in the late 90's to drop rates so low that anyone can qualify to buy a home. Do you honestly not see what transpired or are you that much of an idealogue that you refuse to? You people confuse me. And Clinton and Greenspan are not wrong or disingenuous for trying what they did. They took a shot at boosting the economy. And it worked...for a while. Their mistake was banking on the hope that these lower income people would be able to pay off their entire debt, not the just the first 8 years of payments. They lost that bet. You know why?
Because their intention was that these people making 30-50K a year would buy 150-200K homes. They didn't buy 150-200K homes. They bought 300-400K homes. This is the consequence. It's really our own fault as Americans who want it all right now
and just think that their government will bail them out of their poor decision making abiltities. And now we sit back and blame Congress and our President and make ill founded accusations on the men trying to clean our mess up....sad.
_____________________
That's a nice quote. Did you notice the stuff that I put into boldtype print? Do you know what laws keep unqualified people from getting mortgages beyond their ability to pay?
Do you have an idea? It could be the anti-predatory laws of each state in the Union.
Noooo. Yes! It's true.
That was until Bush and his OCC pre-empted all state lending oversight laws with unenforced federal law.
Now is the picture starting to clear up?
You got it half right. Yes, it's common knowledge the american public live beyond their means. We have negative savings rates.
But what would you expect from a citizenry driven to acquisitive success and egged-on by a president to shop more to help the war effort. Such sacrifice.
-
Typical right wing response when trapped in a corner.
Why don't you try refuting his statement instead? Oh right, it's because you can't.
i think my earlier posts speak for themselves. you should try reading them. so let me get this straight. im a right winger now? can i be a right winger when i vote democrat? please tell me. i dont get it. o wait now i do. if i disagree with anyone who tries to blame something on George Bush that makes me a right winger. you guys obviously have not been doing your homework on this issue but choose to scream that fact out to the world on this board. you make me not want to vote at all this election. you are part of the problem. no more comment necessary.
-
Dude. Seriously? Do you seriously put the blame on Bush for the economic strain that these poorly leveraged banks put on our system? This is what happens when you allow Greenspan and Bill Clinton in the late 90's to drop rates so low that anyone can qualify to buy a home. Do you honestly not see what transpired or are you that much of an idealogue that you refuse to? You people confuse me. And Clinton and Greenspan are not wrong or disingenuous for trying what they did. They took a shot at boosting the economy. And it worked...for a while. Their mistake was banking on the hope that these lower income people would be able to pay off their entire debt, not the just the first 8 years of payments. They lost that bet. You know why? Because their intention was that these people making 30-50K a year would buy 150-200K homes. They didn't buy 150-200K homes. They bought 300-400K homes. This is the consequence. It's really our own fault as Americans who want it all right now and just think that their government will bail them out of their poor decision making abiltities. And now we sit back and blame Congress and our President and make ill founded accusations on the men trying to clean our mess up....sad.
Perfectly put.
I never could understand how its the govt fault for us spending to much money.
-
Perfectly put.
I never could understand how its the govt fault for us spending to much money.
They are not in the direct sense.
Who would be at fault if the government made herion and crank legal with zero repercussions? The junkies or the government or both?
-
They are not in the direct sense.
Who would be at fault if the government made herion and crank legal with zero repercussions? The junkies or the government or both?
Great point.
I think this bailout should show that the free market is a pipedream that's used by elitest apologists to rope in starry-eyed suckers with libertarian dreams and it's conveniently discarded by these same people when financial elites find it a hindrance.
Let's see, the bankers still get paid on the bad loans they knowingly made, the little guy still gets his default on the loan and the loss of his home, the tax payer foots the bill and people are looking only at joe lunchbox as the fucking problem?
We've been trained well.
I see the willing stupidity expressed on this board time and again and I've fucking had it. These macho rugged individualists have never cut the cord btn themselves and El Rushbo.
Here's some free advice: Grow a fucking pair and start thinking for yourself.
Just maybe these people might break out of their rugged individual tomb...maybe.
I'm sorry you had to see me like this Ozmo.
-
Great point.
I think this bailout should show that the free market is a pipedream that's used by elitest apologists to rope in starry-eyed suckers with libertarian dreams and it's conveniently discarded by these same people when financial elites find it a hindrance.
Let's see, the bankers still get paid on the bad loans they knowingly made, the little guy still gets his default on the loan and the loss of his home, the tax payer foots the bill and people are looking only at joe lunchbox as the fucking problem?
We've been trained well.
I see the willing stupidity expressed on this board time and again and I've fucking had it. These macho rugged individualists have never cut the cord btn themselves and El Rushbo.
Here's some free advice: Grow a fucking pair and start thinking for yourself.
Just maybe these people might break out of their rugged individual tomb...maybe.
I'm sorry you had to see me like this Ozmo.
No worries bud. Your input, regardless of tone, is always informative if not entertaining at times.
I know you get frustrated at times.
I was listening to this radio show yesterday, and Gene Burns, the host, kept on crediting people for their loyalty to their party in the face of contradicting facts. That's the way it is with some people here on Getbig. They will not even give an inch no matter how ridiculous their stance is. However, many are not that way and will give a more realistic view regardless of their party's ideology.
-
i think my earlier posts speak for themselves. you should try reading them. so let me get this straight. im a right winger now? can i be a right winger when i vote democrat? please tell me. i dont get it. o wait now i do. if i disagree with anyone who tries to blame something on George Bush that makes me a right winger. you guys obviously have not been doing your homework on this issue but choose to scream that fact out to the world on this board. you make me not want to vote at all this election. you are part of the problem. no more comment necessary.
You still avoided the fact that under Bush's administration predatory lending laws were removed. This is what allowed lenders to abuse their powers and push those making the 30-50K to take out hefty loans to pay for the homes they couldn't afford. Also, a lot of the borrowers were kept in the dark about the consequences and were told there were monthly payments plans that they can afford under ARM loans. At the end of the day, it is up to the lending institution to do the proper due diligence to ensure that the borrower can actually afford this loan and not approve it is they cannot. And a big shout out to the Republican administrations for deregulating this industry, thus causing the mess we're witnessing now.
And I do agree with your assessment that you shouldn't vote at this election, as the uninformed shouldn't be doing so.
-
You still avoided the fact that under Bush's administration predatory lending laws were removed. This is what allowed lenders to abuse their powers and push those making the 30-50K to take out hefty loans to pay for the homes they couldn't afford. Also, a lot of the borrowers were kept in the dark about the consequences and were told there were monthly payments plans that they can afford under ARM loans. At the end of the day, it is up to the lending institution to do the proper due diligence to ensure that the borrower can actually afford this loan and not approve it is they cannot. And a big shout out to the Republican administrations for deregulating this industry, thus causing the mess we're witnessing now.
And I do agree with your assessment that you shouldn't vote at this election, as the uninformed shouldn't be doing so.
and you are the informed? my god. your ignorance on this issue is getting downright annoying. both the clinton and bush administrations were responsible for the deregulation of the mortgage industry. how many times do i have to say that for you to understand. i have some homework for you. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. please look it up. It happened in 1999 and was signed by Bill Clinton (he was president at that time). and yes bush furthered these efforts for deregulation during his first four years as well. i am aware of that. the problem is that idealogues like you are trying to play the blame game on the republicans while at the same time trying to completely exonerate the democrats from any responsibility. i happen to vote democrat myself. but that doesnt mean that i purposely turn a blind eye to the truth about the way this country is run. you simply refuse to look at anything objectively. every little fact that you cram your little brain with is only there to further your ridiculous ideology. the sad fact is that you're going to vote for obama and if he gets elected you'll spend the next four years defending every one of his actions no matter what. that my friend is quite pathetic. we dont need people like you voting. ill say it again. you're what is wrong with this country. these politicians and their parties dont care about you son. please dont sell yourself out of the truth while defending them.
-
and you are the informed? my god. your ignorance on this issue is getting downright annoying. both the clinton and bush administrations were responsible for the deregulation of the mortgage industry. how many times do i have to say that for you to understand. i have some homework for you. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. please look it up. It happened in 1999 and was signed by Bill Clinton (he was president at that time). and yes bush furthered these efforts for deregulation during his first four years as well. i am aware of that. the problem is that idealogues like you are trying to play the blame game on the republicans while at the same time trying to completely exonerate the democrats from any responsibility. i happen to vote democrat myself. but that doesnt mean that i purposely turn a blind eye to the truth about the way this country is run. you simply refuse to look at anything objectively. every little fact that you cram your little brain with is only there to further your ridiculous ideology. the sad fact is that you're going to vote for obama and if he gets elected you'll spend the next four years defending every one of his actions no matter what. that my friend is quite pathetic. we dont need people like you voting. ill say it again. you're what is wrong with this country. these politicians and their parties dont care about you son. please dont sell yourself out of the truth while defending them.
meltdown. ;D
-
COACH refer to below.
Have a nice day.
(http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq256/Yourbustedbitch/bullshit.jpg)
-
and you are the informed? my god. your ignorance on this issue is getting downright annoying. both the clinton and bush administrations were responsible for the deregulation of the mortgage industry. how many times do i have to say that for you to understand. i have some homework for you. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. please look it up. It happened in 1999 and was signed by Bill Clinton (he was president at that time). and yes bush furthered these efforts for deregulation during his first four years as well. i am aware of that. the problem is that idealogues like you are trying to play the blame game on the republicans while at the same time trying to completely exonerate the democrats from any responsibility. i happen to vote democrat myself. but that doesnt mean that i purposely turn a blind eye to the truth about the way this country is run. you simply refuse to look at anything objectively. every little fact that you cram your little brain with is only there to further your ridiculous ideology. the sad fact is that you're going to vote for obama and if he gets elected you'll spend the next four years defending every one of his actions no matter what. that my friend is quite pathetic. we dont need people like you voting. ill say it again. you're what is wrong with this country. these politicians and their parties dont care about you son. please dont sell yourself out of the truth while defending them.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allows banks to offer a wide variety of services like investment banking, commercial banking and insurance. It opened up the door for insurance providers, commercial banks and investment banks to merge. Of course you could call it a financial deregulation, but there's a huge difference between giving firms the chance to do different types business, then allowing them to lend without checking a person's employment status, credit history and capacity to put up collateral. ::)
Bush and his administration pushed the idea of every American family owning a home.. I remember it being a strong theme of his speeches in 2002-3. Greenspan was for it, but he didn't push the politically correct ideal, rather he just was in strong favor of run and gun capitalism.
As for the investment banks buying the loans and issuing securities backed by those very loans. It's always been done in the financial industry. Capital One was very famous for it. It's just that this time around the lending practices got so bad, and it's not like they had any idea that the mortgages the commercial banks were selling were garbage. Securitizing receivables and loans has always been done in the financial industry without huge economic repercussions, but not this time around.
-
No one can deny that this crisis is just another black eye for Bush and his administration.
The Iraq war, Afghanistan, Katrina, Alberto Gonzalez, Scooter Libby, Patriot Act and now the economic crisis. This guy is the worst president in American history.
-
Who is Scooter "Levy"?
-
sarah palin ?
hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
NT
-
Bush and his administration pushed the idea of every American family owning a home.. I remember it being a strong theme of his speeches in 2002-3. Greenspan was for it, but he didn't push the politically correct ideal, rather he just was in strong favor of run and gun capitalism.
That program started with Bill Clinton, not that I'm defending Bush., or McCain. (Dislike both)
Pretty much most, (not all) of what's in this video can be verified if you look for articles relating to the claims.
In the end, everyone is pretty much guilty to a degree.
-
and you are the informed? my god. your ignorance on this issue is getting downright annoying. both the clinton and bush administrations were responsible for the deregulation of the mortgage industry. how many times do i have to say that for you to understand. i have some homework for you. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. please look it up. It happened in 1999 and was signed by Bill Clinton (he was president at that time). and yes bush furthered these efforts for deregulation during his first four years as well. i am aware of that. the problem is that idealogues like you are trying to play the blame game on the republicans while at the same time trying to completely exonerate the democrats from any responsibility. i happen to vote democrat myself. but that doesnt mean that i purposely turn a blind eye to the truth about the way this country is run. you simply refuse to look at anything objectively. every little fact that you cram your little brain with is only there to further your ridiculous ideology. the sad fact is that you're going to vote for obama and if he gets elected you'll spend the next four years defending every one of his actions no matter what. that my friend is quite pathetic. we dont need people like you voting. ill say it again. you're what is wrong with this country. these politicians and their parties dont care about you son. please dont sell yourself out of the truth while defending them.
Btw, I feel the pain in your post rookie. I love how you keep grasping at straws. Please don't try to quote the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 like it has relevancy to this topic just because you recently read about it in your favorite financial porn magazine.
Just answer me this, what the fuck does allowing commercial banks to enter in investment banking territory have to do with the meltdown? All it did was push Wall Street to come up with new forms of investments and products to sell. With the best financial minds working in these firms, you would assume they could come up with something that made more sense? And how did they actually profit from these CDOs? By taking advantage of the deregulations made by the Bush administration.
You're out of your league. Accept it. Your lack of good punctuation and personal attacks showcases raw desperation.
-
Geez man, atleast summarize it.
The bottom line is that Fanny and freddy were run into the ground by very liberal democrats and ex clinton officials like Franklin Raines and did nothing to heed many warning of financial disaster.
-
The bottom line is that Fanny and freddy were run into the ground by very liberal democrats and ex clinton officials like Franklin Raines and did nothing to heed many warning of financial disaster.
Not in a million years my friend.
Look up 'predatory lending practices' and Bush's OCC.
-
Not in a million years my friend.
Look up 'predatory lending practices' and Bush's OCC.
::) Denial's a bitch.
-
::) Denial's a bitch.
No. Reality is a bitch b/c your plutocratic masters are cracking the whip to collect and you can't fork over the money fast enough.
-
No. Reality is a bitch b/c your plutocratic masters are cracking the whip to collect and you can't fork over the money fast enough.
Did you lose money?
-
Did you lose money?
We all lost money. The national debt, now 700 billion more than it was days ago is owned by me, you...everyone. That's ok. You want millionaires to get even more money from the scam they started in the first place. God only knows we don't want these rich pricks losing a fourth of fifth home due to the collapse of their scam.
Maybe McCain knows.
-
We all lost money. The national debt, now 700 billion more than it was days ago is owned by me, you...everyone. That's ok. You want millionaires to get even more money from the scam they started in the first place. God only knows we don't want these rich pricks losing a fourth of fifth home due to the collapse of their scam.
Maybe McCain knows.
Well, most of the rich "pricks" I know have their home paid for.
-
April 5, 2008-- Rich Lowery, NYP editorial.
AT the center of the housing crisis, we're told, is some one called the "predatory lender."
He gulled poor people into taking mortgages "designed to fail," as Hillary Clinton has put it, and as the housing market collapsed, he enjoyed the resulting foreclosures. The predatory lender sucks the life out of the American dream, and only new regulations can stop him.
Such is the myth driving the housing debate in Washington, where both Democrats and Republicans are rushing toward a mortgage bailout. Of course there are unscrupulous mortgage brokers and bankers, just as there are unscrupulous politicians. They earned their fees by deceiving people into taking foolish subprime loans. Then, as "securitized" mortgages, the bad debt was unloaded onto investors.
But the real cause of the housing mess is a classic bubble in the housing market, the bursting of which has hammered lenders as well as borrowers. If the market had continued to rise, we never would have heard complaints about subprime loans. In fact, Washington had long encouraged these sorts of loans through the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) as a way to make marginal - largely minority - borrowers into homeowners.
What's the difference between socially responsible loans extending the American dream to deserving people with poor credit histories and predatory lending? It's whether those loans work out or not. If they don't, lenders suddenly become "predatory."
Strangely, the more "predatory" they become, the more likely they are to go out of business under the weight of worthless mortgages.
Consider Countrywide Financial, a leading purveyor of subprime loans rocked by the housing downturn. A few years ago, everyone was covering Countrywide in laurels. In 2000, the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinion named Countrywide "Corporation of the Year" for "outstanding work in the Latino community in 2004, the National Housing Conference lauded Countrywide's CEO for his "longstanding commitment to reducing the barriers to homeownership in 2005, the Lending Industry Diversity Conference gave Countrywide its "Best in Minority Lending Award."
Though Countrywide wasn't technically covered by the CRA, it complied with the act. The CRA forced lenders to lower their standards to get mortgages to more minorities and permitted the "securitization" - the sale on secondary markets - of subprime loans. Hillary Clinton complains, "Subprime loans are five times more likely in predominantly black neighborhoods." As if that weren't the entire point.
As long as the market continued going up, subprime loans were good deals. People got an appreciating asset without spending much on it. If they got in trouble, they could sell or easily refinance.
A new study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston finds that housing prices are the key determinant of foreclosures in Massachusetts. An estimated 18 percent of people with subprime loans will experience foreclosure. Of households that bought homes with subprime mortgages in 1998, however, "less than 6 percent will ever experience foreclosure, because they benefited from the state's historic run-up in house prices between 1993 and 2005."
For a glorious few years, all the rules had been suspended. Wall Street gobbled up subprime loans on the secondary market because the old underwriting standards seemed to be for fuddy-duddies. It was a typical mania.
Washington can now make it into a morality play, but it partook of the delusion: Both political parties celebrated the increase in homeownership; the Federal Reserve expanded the bubble with historically low interest rates; and the CRA positively demanded improvident lending.
The best thing for the housing debate would be for everyone to absorb some hard truths:
1) Housing prices rose 50 percent between 2000 and 2006, and no one is going to start buying again - or know how much mortgage-backed securities are really worth - until the market hits bottom.
2) It has to be more difficult to buy a home.
3) Out of the 46 million mortgages in the country, 42 million are being paid on time by people called "taxpayers." What they should fear is not foreclosure so much as the taxpayer-funded bailout schemes of predatory politicians. comments.lowry@