A reminder of how democrats led us to this mess

(continued from above)


In Fall 2003, the Bush Admin was pushing Congress hard to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise Fannie and Freddie, both Government Sponsored Entities, or GSEs.

At a Congressional hearing on Sept 10, 2003, John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury stated: "We need a strong, world-class regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of the GSE's, and the safety and soundness of their financial activities."

At that same hearing, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank (D-MA) defended his practices with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis."

Frank said the Fed Govt should be encouraging F&F to do more to get low-income families into homes:
"The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up a possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury - which I do not see, I think we see entities which are fundamentally sound financially and can withstand some of the disaster scenarios - the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of 'affordable housing' ".

The top executives at F&F began cooking their books, exaggerating their sales in their quarterly reports, so that the company officials could claim they had met their companies' sales targets, and thus collect huge salary bonuses. They were finally caught in 2004. Several of them stepped down, but none was every punished, or even charged. One of them, Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae, later gave financial and housing advice to the campaign of Presidential contender Barack Obama.

At a House Financial Services Committee Hearing on Feb. 17, 2005, Alan Greenspan warned against one of the fundamental ideas of modern liberalism, the idea of putting all our eggs in one basket by concentrating financial activity into just a few big agencies in central government: "... Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."
He later added at another hearing on April 6, 2005: "If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis."

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) ignored any possibility the F&F might be in trouble at that hearing, and simply pointed to the advantages some people had gotten from the government's activities: "I think Fannie and Freddie ... are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world... if you look over the last 20 or whatever years, they have done a very, very good job."
Schumer also complained, "Things are good in the housing market. Why are people entertaining radical change?"

On April 7, 2005, Treasury Secretary John Snow warned again: "These large portfolios, unchecked in their growth over the last decade or so, pose a real problem." The Senate Banking Committee adopted strong regulation that would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from acquiring these bad mortgages. All of the Republicans on the committee voted for it, and all the Democrats voted against it, and it passed out of the committee on a straight party-line vote. But Democrats then filibustered the bill on the Senate floor, preventing it from being brought to a vote.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was active in making campaign contributions to politicians, from money that ostensibly was for low-income mortgages. The top two recipients were:

Christopher Dodd (D-CT): $165,000
Barack Obama (D-IL): $126,000

The highest-receiving Republican was Bob Bennett (R-UT), who got $108,000. Further down the list was John McCain (R-AZ), who accepted $25,000.

On May 25, 2006 in the Senate, John McCain (R-AZ) sounded more warnings over the huge size and lack of discipline in the government companies, and sponsored a bill to regulate the companies more firmly: "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market... the GSEs need to be reformed without delay." McCain's bill was voted out of committee on a straight party-line vote: All Republicans voted for it, and all Democrats voted against. Democrats then announced they would filibuster the bill in the Senate, as they had the previous year's regulatory legislation. Republicans knew they did not have enough votes to achieve the 60% needed, and so never brought the bill to the Senate floor.

By the beginning of 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had bought up over $4 trillion in mortgages, roughly one-quarter of which was risky sub-prime mortgage paper. With interest rates rising, these rickety homeowners started defaulting on their loans. Only about 2% of them defaulted by January 2008, but the effect was disastrous. Banks began to get leery of lending money to each other, knowing that their fellow banks held substantial assets that might default and become worthless, thus making the banks unable to pay back their loans to each other.

Banks and lending institutions began collapsing or seeking emergency help: Countrywide Financial, Lehman Brothers, insurer AIG, Bear Stearns, IndyMac bank, etc. buckled to their knees as paralysis spread. The huge numbers of risky subprime mortgages, had become like a "poison pill" that choked the institutions that had swallowed them. The Fed finally took over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the damage had long been done.

Congress appropriated nearly $1 trillion in emergency funds to loan to, or otherwise prop up, failing financial institutions. But none of the original legislation that had spurred decades of risky lending, has been repealed in all the "bailout" frenzy, and as of this writing (in 2008) there are no bills pending to do so.
 
(continued from above)


In Fall 2003, the Bush Admin was pushing Congress hard to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise Fannie and Freddie, both Government Sponsored Entities, or GSEs.

At a Congressional hearing on Sept 10, 2003, John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury stated: "We need a strong, world-class regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of the GSE's, and the safety and soundness of their financial activities."

At that same hearing, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank (D-MA) defended his practices with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis."

Frank said the Fed Govt should be encouraging F&F to do more to get low-income families into homes:
"The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up a possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury - which I do not see, I think we see entities which are fundamentally sound financially and can withstand some of the disaster scenarios - the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of 'affordable housing' ".

The top executives at F&F began cooking their books, exaggerating their sales in their quarterly reports, so that the company officials could claim they had met their companies' sales targets, and thus collect huge salary bonuses. They were finally caught in 2004. Several of them stepped down, but none was every punished, or even charged. One of them, Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae, later gave financial and housing advice to the campaign of Presidential contender Barack Obama.

At a House Financial Services Committee Hearing on Feb. 17, 2005, Alan Greenspan warned against one of the fundamental ideas of modern liberalism, the idea of putting all our eggs in one basket by concentrating financial activity into just a few big agencies in central government: "... Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."
He later added at another hearing on April 6, 2005: "If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis."

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) ignored any possibility the F&F might be in trouble at that hearing, and simply pointed to the advantages some people had gotten from the government's activities: "I think Fannie and Freddie ... are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world... if you look over the last 20 or whatever years, they have done a very, very good job."
Schumer also complained, "Things are good in the housing market. Why are people entertaining radical change?"

On April 7, 2005, Treasury Secretary John Snow warned again: "These large portfolios, unchecked in their growth over the last decade or so, pose a real problem." The Senate Banking Committee adopted strong regulation that would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from acquiring these bad mortgages. All of the Republicans on the committee voted for it, and all the Democrats voted against it, and it passed out of the committee on a straight party-line vote. But Democrats then filibustered the bill on the Senate floor, preventing it from being brought to a vote.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was active in making campaign contributions to politicians, from money that ostensibly was for low-income mortgages. The top two recipients were:

Christopher Dodd (D-CT): $165,000
Barack Obama (D-IL): $126,000

The highest-receiving Republican was Bob Bennett (R-UT), who got $108,000. Further down the list was John McCain (R-AZ), who accepted $25,000.

On May 25, 2006 in the Senate, John McCain (R-AZ) sounded more warnings over the huge size and lack of discipline in the government companies, and sponsored a bill to regulate the companies more firmly: "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market... the GSEs need to be reformed without delay." McCain's bill was voted out of committee on a straight party-line vote: All Republicans voted for it, and all Democrats voted against. Democrats then announced they would filibuster the bill in the Senate, as they had the previous year's regulatory legislation. Republicans knew they did not have enough votes to achieve the 60% needed, and so never brought the bill to the Senate floor.

By the beginning of 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had bought up over $4 trillion in mortgages, roughly one-quarter of which was risky sub-prime mortgage paper. With interest rates rising, these rickety homeowners started defaulting on their loans. Only about 2% of them defaulted by January 2008, but the effect was disastrous. Banks began to get leery of lending money to each other, knowing that their fellow banks held substantial assets that might default and become worthless, thus making the banks unable to pay back their loans to each other.

Banks and lending institutions began collapsing or seeking emergency help: Countrywide Financial, Lehman Brothers, insurer AIG, Bear Stearns, IndyMac bank, etc. buckled to their knees as paralysis spread. The huge numbers of risky subprime mortgages, had become like a "poison pill" that choked the institutions that had swallowed them. The Fed finally took over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the damage had long been done.

Congress appropriated nearly $1 trillion in emergency funds to loan to, or otherwise prop up, failing financial institutions. But none of the original legislation that had spurred decades of risky lending, has been repealed in all the "bailout" frenzy, and as of this writing (in 2008) there are no bills pending to do so.



WEIRD, LONG SINCE DEBUNKED RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, THOROUGHLY ALREADY DEBUNKED IN THIS THREAD??? LOL


No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)





Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis



Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged 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


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

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


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime


"The sub-prime loans would not have been made if there were not buyers and sellers for them on secondary markets via MBS's.

The MBS's would not have existed if regulators had taken a look at them, realized pretty much no one knew what the hell they were, and acted accordingly.

There would not have been buyers for the MBS's if the ratings agencies had given them appropriate ratings, such as S&P's CCC, about where they should have been.

Those selling the MBS's would not have been able to move risk off their books if someone not been willing to sell them CDS's."


WHO WAS IN CHARGE IN THIS PERIOD? WHO HAD THE SEC, FBI, GSE'S, ETC AS PART OF THEIR EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERSIGHT?


"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 Sr. regulator during S&L debacle



“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



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



Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005


The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.
 
(continued from above)


In Fall 2003, the Bush Admin was pushing Congress hard to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise Fannie and Freddie, both Government Sponsored Entities, or GSEs.

At a Congressional hearing on Sept 10, 2003, John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury stated: "We need a strong, world-class regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of the GSE's, and the safety and soundness of their financial activities."

At that same hearing, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank (D-MA) defended his practices with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis."

Frank said the Fed Govt should be encouraging F&F to do more to get low-income families into homes:
"The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up a possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury - which I do not see, I think we see entities which are fundamentally sound financially and can withstand some of the disaster scenarios - the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of 'affordable housing' ".

The top executives at F&F began cooking their books, exaggerating their sales in their quarterly reports, so that the company officials could claim they had met their companies' sales targets, and thus collect huge salary bonuses. They were finally caught in 2004. Several of them stepped down, but none was every punished, or even charged. One of them, Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae, later gave financial and housing advice to the campaign of Presidential contender Barack Obama.

At a House Financial Services Committee Hearing on Feb. 17, 2005, Alan Greenspan warned against one of the fundamental ideas of modern liberalism, the idea of putting all our eggs in one basket by concentrating financial activity into just a few big agencies in central government: "... Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."
He later added at another hearing on April 6, 2005: "If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis."

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) ignored any possibility the F&F might be in trouble at that hearing, and simply pointed to the advantages some people had gotten from the government's activities: "I think Fannie and Freddie ... are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world... if you look over the last 20 or whatever years, they have done a very, very good job."
Schumer also complained, "Things are good in the housing market. Why are people entertaining radical change?"

On April 7, 2005, Treasury Secretary John Snow warned again: "These large portfolios, unchecked in their growth over the last decade or so, pose a real problem." The Senate Banking Committee adopted strong regulation that would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from acquiring these bad mortgages. All of the Republicans on the committee voted for it, and all the Democrats voted against it, and it passed out of the committee on a straight party-line vote. But Democrats then filibustered the bill on the Senate floor, preventing it from being brought to a vote.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was active in making campaign contributions to politicians, from money that ostensibly was for low-income mortgages. The top two recipients were:

Christopher Dodd (D-CT): $165,000
Barack Obama (D-IL): $126,000

The highest-receiving Republican was Bob Bennett (R-UT), who got $108,000. Further down the list was John McCain (R-AZ), who accepted $25,000.

On May 25, 2006 in the Senate, John McCain (R-AZ) sounded more warnings over the huge size and lack of discipline in the government companies, and sponsored a bill to regulate the companies more firmly: "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market... the GSEs need to be reformed without delay." McCain's bill was voted out of committee on a straight party-line vote: All Republicans voted for it, and all Democrats voted against. Democrats then announced they would filibuster the bill in the Senate, as they had the previous year's regulatory legislation. Republicans knew they did not have enough votes to achieve the 60% needed, and so never brought the bill to the Senate floor.

By the beginning of 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had bought up over $4 trillion in mortgages, roughly one-quarter of which was risky sub-prime mortgage paper. With interest rates rising, these rickety homeowners started defaulting on their loans. Only about 2% of them defaulted by January 2008, but the effect was disastrous. Banks began to get leery of lending money to each other, knowing that their fellow banks held substantial assets that might default and become worthless, thus making the banks unable to pay back their loans to each other.

Banks and lending institutions began collapsing or seeking emergency help: Countrywide Financial, Lehman Brothers, insurer AIG, Bear Stearns, IndyMac bank, etc. buckled to their knees as paralysis spread. The huge numbers of risky subprime mortgages, had become like a "poison pill" that choked the institutions that had swallowed them. The Fed finally took over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the damage had long been done.

Congress appropriated nearly $1 trillion in emergency funds to loan to, or otherwise prop up, failing financial institutions. But none of the original legislation that had spurred decades of risky lending, has been repealed in all the "bailout" frenzy, and as of this writing (in 2008) there are no bills pending to do so.



WEIRD, LONG SINCE DEBUNKED RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, THOROUGHLY ALREADY DEBUNKED IN THIS THREAD??? LOL


No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)





Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
A summary I wrote more than six years ago. Looks like it's time for a reprint.

Even more timely today, with the Democrats re-starting the same policies that led to the economic crash of 2008: Millions of risky housing loans to people unlikely to be able to pay them back.

----------------------------------------

An hour-long program on the origins of the current financial crisis, was put together by Fox News in 2008. It contains a great many clips from various officials who were involved, interviews by news people, etc. They called it "Saving Our Economy". Someone put it on YouTube, in six segments. Go there and do a search on that title, and you should get all six segments. They vary from 5 to 10 minutes each, about 45 minutes running time total (no commercials).

It's an excellent explanation of how the crisis started, who did what, what the results were, etc. A real must-see.

Here's a summary:

-----------------------------------------

Sept. 23, 2008: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson: "The events leading us here began many years ago, starting with bad lending practices by banks and financial institutions, and by borrowers taking up mortgages they couldn't afford."

-----------------------------------------

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA, or "Fannie Mae") was created in 1938 during the Great Depression, to create a market for mortgages where they could be bought and sold.

In 1968, Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress spun off Fannie Mae so that it would not show up in the Federal budget. But the Federal govt was always there, ready to bail out Fannie Mae if problems happened. This enables Fannie Mae to offer lower rates for the mortgages it bought, since it was not taking the risks that other banks and institutions had to. In 1970, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") was formed, to create competition for Fannie Mae, since ordinary banks could NOT compete with the government-backed rates they offered.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. It made sure banks were lending to people of all colors and income levels. But things quickly began going off the rails, as activist groups found a new weapon in the law: The could start suing lenders for discrimination if they didn't lend to enough minority families, regardless of the families' ability to pay the loans back as promised. Banks began making riskier and riskier loans for fear of having to fight expensive lawsuits.

Community groups began bullying the banks, especially one called the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now ("ACORN"). It hired several specialized lawyers, including a young man named Barack Obama, to teach its employees how to go to the homes of bank CEOs and senior officers, harassing and publicly embarrassing them while remaining within the limits of local law to avoid prosecution. At one point, ACORN brought a lawsuit against a thrift merger in Illinois, insisting that the lending institutions had not made as many loans to minorities as ACORN thought they should. The bank replied that such loans would be financially irresponsible, and would put ALL the bank's customers at unacceptable risk. ACORN prevailed in court, and banks began making more and more risky loans to home buyers who could have never qualified for those loans under ordinary circumstances.

In late 2000, in the last days of the Clinton administration, the government ordered Fannie and Freddie to increase the numbers of these risky ("sub-prime") mortgages they were buying from banks and lending institutions across the country. They did, lowering their rates and buying more and more, until fully half their portfolios consisted of these risky sub-prime mortgages, combined and packaged in various ways.

The Bush administration raised red flags starting in April 2001. Their 2002 Budget Request declared that the size of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is "a potential problem" because financial trouble in either one of them "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets".

In 2003, the White House warning about Fannie and Freddie, was upgraded to a "Systemic Risk that could spread beyond just the housing sector".

As Fannie and Freddie continued to lower their rates and buy mortgages, lenders made more and more mortgages to buyers with questionable ability to pay, safe in the knowledge that they could immediately turn around and sell the mortgages to the government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie, thus avoiding any consequences if the loans were later defaulted. They were happy to make more and more such mortgages, collecting fees for each and selling the mortgages to F&F.

Countrywide Financial chairman Angelo Mazzillo literally started screaming at Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot, when Gigot asked him about the wisdom of making so many loans to buyers unlikely to pay them back. Mazzillo insisted loudly that Gigot had no idea what he was talking about, did not understand the first thing about mortgage lending, etc., etc. He failed, however, to answer any of Gigot's questions in even the simplest terms or explain why they were "wrong".


(to be continued)


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged 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.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "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




Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.

About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.


Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis




Subprime_mortgage_originations,_1996-2008.GIF
 
Isn't the Information Age great?! When everybody has their own "facts." Democrat/Republican Conservative/Liberal can prove their point with a few finger movements. Look here: all is as I say because I looked for and found everything that supports my point of view. The Internet is fucking wunderbar!!

Edit: Fuck people that vote straight tickets.
 
WEIRD, LONG SINCE DEBUNKED RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, THOROUGHLY ALREADY DEBUNKED IN THIS THREAD???

TRANSLATION: I can't refute any of them, nor deny the clear pattern they lay out. But if I announce they've been debunked (even though nobody's done it), maybe I can fool someone into believing there's something wrong in there somewhere.
 
WEIRD, LONG SINCE DEBUNKED RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, THOROUGHLY ALREADY DEBUNKED IN THIS THREAD???

TRANSLATION: I can't refute any of them, nor deny the clear pattern they lay out. But if I announce they've been debunked (even though nobody's done it), maybe I can fool someone into believing there's something wrong in there somewhere.


No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)


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.”


“But from 2002-2005, [GSEs] saw a fairly precipitous drop in market share, going from about 50% to just under 30% of all mortgage originations. Conversely, private label securitization [PLS] shot up from about 10% to about 40% over the same period. This is, to state the obvious, a very radical shift in mortgage originations that overlapped neatly with the origination of the most toxic home loans.”


2. The government’s affordability mission didn’t cause the crisis:




3. There is a lot of research to back this up and little against it: This is not exactly an obscure corner of the wonk world — it is one of the most studied capital markets in the world.



4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now

MY FAV:

AEI'S Peter Wallison in 2004: “In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.”




LOL


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

June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan



NEW YORK (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


LOL

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
 
WEIRD, LONG SINCE DEBUNKED RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS, THOROUGHLY ALREADY DEBUNKED IN THIS THREAD???

TRANSLATION: I can't refute any of them, nor deny the clear pattern they lay out. But if I announce they've been debunked (even though nobody's done it), maybe I can fool someone into believing there's something wrong in there somewhere.


WHO WAS FANNIE/FREDDIE REGULATOR 2001-JAN 2009 AGAIN? RIGHT, DUBYA'S ADMIN HAD OVERSIGHT, WHY WOULD DUBYA CHANGE CLINTON'S 2000 RULE THAT STOPPED ALLOWING F/F TO USE SUBPRIME LOANS IN THEIR AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS? DUBYA DID THAT IN 2004 BUBS


Why did Dubya FORCE F/F to buy $440 BILLION IN MBS's's in he secondary market in 2004-2008 period to meet his new housing goals and ramped up the goals from clinton's 50% in 2000 to 56% by 2004 Bubba? lol

WHAT SUPER POWERS DID THE DEMS HAVE IN THE MAJORITY GOP HOUSE AGAIN THAT STOPPED REFORMS TO PASS THAT BODY? YOU KNOW SINCE IT WAS SIMPLE MAJORITY RULED? LOL


DEMS STOPPED REFORM HUH?


Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.

In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September.


Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it.

In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote.


Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.

In the end, there was not enough Republican support for Hagel's bill to warrant bringing it up for a vote because Democrats also opposed it and the votes of some would be needed for passage

Freddie Mac Tried to Kill Republican Regulatory Bill in 2005 | Fox News


LOL






Subprime_mortgage_originations,_1996-2008.GIF
 
Isn't the Information Age great?! When everybody has their own "facts." Democrat/Republican Conservative/Liberal can prove their point with a few finger movements. Look here: all is as I say because I looked for and found everything that supports my point of view. The Internet is fucking wunderbar!!

Edit: Fuck people that vote straight tickets.


Got it dumfukk, don't use logic or reasoning, just "believe" good little patsy, lol
 
To totally wash Alan Greenspan hands of this mess is total malarkey.

"Even though some down payments are borrowed, it would take a large, and historically most unusual, fall in home prices to wipe out a significant part of home equity. Many of those who purchased their residence more than a year ago have equity buffers in their homes adequate to withstand any price decline other than a very deep one." -- October 2004

"Improvements in lending practices driven by information technology have enabled lenders to reach out to households with previously unrecognized borrowing capacities." -- October 2004

"The use of a growing array of derivatives and the related application of more-sophisticated approaches to measuring and managing risk are key factors underpinning the greater resilience of our largest financial institutions .... Derivatives have permitted the unbundling of financial risks." -- May 2005

"I really didn't get it until very late in 2005 and 2006." - September 2007

"I think Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we've had in a while." - September 2007

"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity – myself especially – are in a state of shocked disbelief." - 2008
 
Isn't the Information Age great?! When everybody has their own "facts." Democrat/Republican Conservative/Liberal can prove their point with a few finger movements. Look here: all is as I say because I looked for and found everything that supports my point of view. The Internet is fucking wunderbar!!

Edit: Fuck people that vote straight tickets.


Got it dumfukk, don't use logic or reasoning, just "believe" good little patsy, lol

Says the far left drone that denies reality.

Yet not one post from this one about the illegal wars of Obama..
 
To totally wash Alan Greenspan hands of this mess is total malarkey.

"Even though some down payments are borrowed, it would take a large, and historically most unusual, fall in home prices to wipe out a significant part of home equity. Many of those who purchased their residence more than a year ago have equity buffers in their homes adequate to withstand any price decline other than a very deep one." -- October 2004

"Improvements in lending practices driven by information technology have enabled lenders to reach out to households with previously unrecognized borrowing capacities." -- October 2004

"The use of a growing array of derivatives and the related application of more-sophisticated approaches to measuring and managing risk are key factors underpinning the greater resilience of our largest financial institutions .... Derivatives have permitted the unbundling of financial risks." -- May 2005

"I really didn't get it until very late in 2005 and 2006." - September 2007

"I think Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we've had in a while." - September 2007

"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity – myself especially – are in a state of shocked disbelief." - 2008


Greenspan COULD HAVE stopped much of it, BUT he wasn't the ELECTED representative in charge of the FBI, SEC, HUD, F/F, ETC


Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself.
In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf




For the Housing Bubble, I blame the following in this order

1) Conservative ideology that people will ALWAYS act in the best interests of their employers (banks) and less regulation and banks self interests will ALWAYS stop people from overreaching (see greed)


2) Dubya's regulator failures, including but not limited to fighting all 50 states on predatory lenders, ignoring and gutting FBI white collar (1,800+ agents) after warnings of EPIDEMIC of mortgage fraud that could rival the Reagan S&L crisis and Dubya allowing the leverage rules to more than triple which flooded the market with money in 2004

3) Federal reserve policy. NOT stopping the predatory lenders was #1.
Interest rates WAY down the list


9) Regulations. Plenty on hand to stop Dubya's regulator failure!
 
Isn't the Information Age great?! When everybody has their own "facts." Democrat/Republican Conservative/Liberal can prove their point with a few finger movements. Look here: all is as I say because I looked for and found everything that supports my point of view. The Internet is fucking wunderbar!!

Edit: Fuck people that vote straight tickets.


Got it dumfukk, don't use logic or reasoning, just "believe" good little patsy, lol

Says the far left drone that denies reality.

Yet not one post from this one about the illegal wars of Obama..

Illegal wars? lol

Come on dummy, WARS? lol
 
Isn't the Information Age great?! When everybody has their own "facts." Democrat/Republican Conservative/Liberal can prove their point with a few finger movements. Look here: all is as I say because I looked for and found everything that supports my point of view. The Internet is fucking wunderbar!!

Edit: Fuck people that vote straight tickets.


Got it dumfukk, don't use logic or reasoning, just "believe" good little patsy, lol
I get it. Pulling that lever for every candidate with their respective party symbol in front or behind of makes someone feel better about themselves. Seriously? Logic and reasoning tells you that every person running as a D or R is worthy of your vote. Voting party affiliation over self interest is a logical and reasonable action. By the way you spelled that shit wrong son. It's dumb fuck.
 
Dispute it
Republicans run the house, senate, and Presidency from 2000 to 2006. But let's blame the Democrats! :rofl:
Your god damn right. The gop feared they didn't have the votes. They failed. But they DID NOT CRASH THE AMERICAN ECONOMY. Democratic policy did that
Then why are they all so unelectable?

They aren't. You guys just keep trying to convince yourself of that
 
Isn't the Information Age great?! When everybody has their own "facts." Democrat/Republican Conservative/Liberal can prove their point with a few finger movements. Look here: all is as I say because I looked for and found everything that supports my point of view. The Internet is fucking wunderbar!!

Edit: Fuck people that vote straight tickets.


Got it dumfukk, don't use logic or reasoning, just "believe" good little patsy, lol

Says the far left drone that denies reality.

Yet not one post from this one about the illegal wars of Obama..
Moi?
 
Isn't the Information Age great?! When everybody has their own "facts." Democrat/Republican Conservative/Liberal can prove their point with a few finger movements. Look here: all is as I say because I looked for and found everything that supports my point of view. The Internet is fucking wunderbar!!

Edit: Fuck people that vote straight tickets.


Got it dumfukk, don't use logic or reasoning, just "believe" good little patsy, lol
I get it. Pulling that lever for every candidate with their respective party symbol in front or behind of makes someone feel better about themselves. Seriously? Logic and reasoning tells you that every person running as a D or R is worthy of your vote. Voting party affiliation over self interest is a logical and reasonable action. By the way you spelled that shit wrong son. It's dumb fuck.

Without FALSE PREMISES, distortions and lies, WHAT WOULD RIGHT WINGERS EVER HAVE BUBBA?

But yes, CONservatives, whether GOP or CONservaDems are generally on the wrong side of history

AND IF THE BEST YOU HAVE IS TO USE YOUR TINY BRAIN TO SAY BOTH SIDES HAVE "FACTS", GET OFF YOUR BUMPER STICKER READING BREAK AND TRY TO USE CRITICAL THINKING! There ARE definitive, straight forward verifiable FACTS LIKE BARNEY FRANK (OR ANY DEM IN THE GOP MAJORITY HOUSE 1995-2007) COULD DO ABSOLUTELY ZERO TO STOP ANY GOP BILL FROM PASSING THAT HOUSE OF CONGRESS! Barney could run nekkid through the halls on fire, and not stop the GOP 1995-Jan 2007!
 
Isn't the Information Age great?! When everybody has their own "facts." Democrat/Republican Conservative/Liberal can prove their point with a few finger movements. Look here: all is as I say because I looked for and found everything that supports my point of view. The Internet is fucking wunderbar!!

Edit: Fuck people that vote straight tickets.


Got it dumfukk, don't use logic or reasoning, just "believe" good little patsy, lol

Says the far left drone that denies reality.

Yet not one post from this one about the illegal wars of Obama..

Illegal wars? lol

Come on dummy, WARS? lol


And this shows how the far left drones will deny reality as they far left masters tell them to..
 
Isn't the Information Age great?! When everybody has their own "facts." Democrat/Republican Conservative/Liberal can prove their point with a few finger movements. Look here: all is as I say because I looked for and found everything that supports my point of view. The Internet is fucking wunderbar!!

Edit: Fuck people that vote straight tickets.


Got it dumfukk, don't use logic or reasoning, just "believe" good little patsy, lol
I get it. Pulling that lever for every candidate with their respective party symbol in front or behind of makes someone feel better about themselves. Seriously? Logic and reasoning tells you that every person running as a D or R is worthy of your vote. Voting party affiliation over self interest is a logical and reasonable action. By the way you spelled that shit wrong son. It's dumb fuck.

Without FALSE PREMISES, distortions and lies, WHAT WOULD RIGHT WINGERS EVER HAVE BUBBA?

But yes, CONservatives, whether GOP or CONservaDems are generally on the wrong side of history

AND IF THE BEST YOU HAVE IS TO USE YOUR TINY BRAIN TO SAY BOTH SIDES HAVE "FACTS", GET OFF YOUR BUMPER STICKER READING BREAK AND TRY TO USE CRITICAL THINKING! There ARE definitive, straight forward verifiable FACTS LIKE BARNEY FRANK (OR ANY DEM IN THE GOP MAJORITY HOUSE 1995-2007) COULD DO ABSOLUTELY ZERO TO STOP ANY GOP BILL FROM PASSING THAT HOUSE OF CONGRESS! Barney could run nekkid through the halls on fire, and not stop the GOP 1995-Jan 2007!

The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!

Obama lied people died..

Obama also violated the War Powers Resolution, a law he has specifically proclaimed to be Constitutionally valid, when committing U.S. troops to Libya without Congressional approval. Or as Sullivan put it in 2011, "I'm with Conor. The war in Libya becomes illegal from now on. And the imperial presidency grows even more powerful."

The Biggest Obama Scandals Are Proven and Ignored

And that from a far left source..
 
Isn't the Information Age great?! When everybody has their own "facts." Democrat/Republican Conservative/Liberal can prove their point with a few finger movements. Look here: all is as I say because I looked for and found everything that supports my point of view. The Internet is fucking wunderbar!!

Edit: Fuck people that vote straight tickets.


Got it dumfukk, don't use logic or reasoning, just "believe" good little patsy, lol

Says the far left drone that denies reality.

Yet not one post from this one about the illegal wars of Obama..

Illegal wars? lol

Come on dummy, WARS? lol


And this shows how the far left drones will deny reality as they far left masters tell them to..


Politics+1169.jpg
 

Forum List

Back
Top