ACORN/Obama forced toxic mortgages GUARANTEED BY U.S. Govt...!

[Vaard]

Evidently most people don't know that Obama/Acorn in 1995 forced banks to make loans to people who would NEVER pay them back.
So when the FDIC looked at these toxic loans knowing they would never be paid back, the mortgage holders sold them to Fannie/Freddie.

As a result Fannie/Freddie investments that were guaranteed..
Oct. 23,2008 (Bloomberg) --
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have an ``effective'' federal guarantee, not the
"full faith and credit'' of the U.S. government, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart said after the hearing. That does give them effectively a guarantee of the U.S. government.''
Lockhart's Fannie, Freddie Guarantee Remarks Stir Up Confusion - Bloomberg

as a result.. investor/banks LOOKED to the U.S. to pay.. i.e. TARP!

All because the Democrats using Community Reinvestment Act to force banks to make bad loans the FDIC would have closed the banks if they didn't resell to Fannie and if these democrats hadn't thwarted ..

Warned by Bush Administration warned about Fannie/Freddie once in ’01, once in ’02, six times in ’03, three times in ’04, once in ’05, five times in ’07, and 17 times in ’08. Congress didn’t listen especially Democrats LAUGH!!!!

"When warned about Fannie Mae in (House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA)
"these two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac --
are not facing any kind of financial crisis....
The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure
there is on these companies,
the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
(New York Times, 9/11/03)

And then Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings
and called on him to
"immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. .
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac --
are not facing any kind of financial crisis...
(New York Times, 9/11/03.

AND NOW today...
"Spooked by US political wrangling, major investors including the National Pension Service of Korea and the Kuwait Investment Authority have sold out of their holdings of the debt of the US Treasury-backed housing agencies since the 2008 global financial crisis.
Officials from central banks, including the Bank of Japan,
say they will be far more cautious in future.

Fannie and Freddie debt fuels anxiety - FT.com

you mean this klind of warning by bush?

2002: Bush's Speech To the White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership | VDARE.com


Freddie Mae -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- I see the heads who are here; I want to thank you all for coming -- (laughter) -- have committed to provide more money for lenders. They've committed to help meet the shortage of capital available for minority home buyers.

Fannie Mae recently announced a $50 million program to develop 600 homes for the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. Franklin [Raines], I appreciate that commitment. They also announced $12.7 million investment in a condominium project in Harlem. It's the beginnings of a series of initiatives to help meet the goal of 5.5 million families. Franklin told me at the meeting where we kicked this office, he said, I promise you we will help, and he has, like many others in this room have done.

Freddie Mac recently began 25 initiatives around the country to dismantle barriers and create greater opportunities for homeownership. One of the programs is designed to help deserving families who have bad credit histories to qualify for homeownership loans. …

There's all kinds of ways that we can work together to meet the goal. Corporate America has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place. Corporate America has responded. As an example -- only one of many examples -- the good folks at Sears and Roebuck have responded by making a five-year, $100 million commitment to making homeownership and home maintenance possible for millions of Americans. …



funny how the housing markets starting their melt down and had their worse drops when 3,5 and 7 year arms started kicking in after bush dismantled barriers that allowed people with bad credit to get loans easier with freddie and fannie backing........

 

[Big Fitz]

No one could force banks to make loans to unqualified buyers via CRA, in fact, the act itself states that explicitly.

Of course you'd have to actually read the CRA to know that.

Yes they could, and did.

Name one bank that was forced against their will to make loans not in accordance with sound and safe banking practices.

Don't remember Janet Reno threatening persecution (yes persecution) for banks that "committed redlining" with Bawney Fwank and Chris Dodd howling their outrage like the Moron Tabernacle Choir... do you?

 

[BlindBoo]

Evidently most people don't know that Obama/Acorn in 1995 forced banks to make loans to people who would NEVER pay them back.
So when the FDIC looked at these toxic loans knowing they would never be paid back, the mortgage holders sold them to Fannie/Freddie.

As a result Fannie/Freddie investments that were guaranteed..
Oct. 23,2008 (Bloomberg) --
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have an ``effective'' federal guarantee, not the
"full faith and credit'' of the U.S. government, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart said after the hearing. That does give them effectively a guarantee of the U.S. government.''
Lockhart's Fannie, Freddie Guarantee Remarks Stir Up Confusion - Bloomberg

as a result.. investor/banks LOOKED to the U.S. to pay.. i.e. TARP!

All because the Democrats using Community Reinvestment Act to force banks to make bad loans the FDIC would have closed the banks if they didn't resell to Fannie and if these democrats hadn't thwarted ..

Warned by Bush Administration warned about Fannie/Freddie once in ’01, once in ’02, six times in ’03, three times in ’04, once in ’05, five times in ’07, and 17 times in ’08. Congress didn’t listen especially Democrats LAUGH!!!!

"When warned about Fannie Mae in (House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA)
"these two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac --
are not facing any kind of financial crisis....
The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure
there is on these companies,
the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
(New York Times, 9/11/03)

And then Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings
and called on him to
"immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. .
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac --
are not facing any kind of financial crisis...
(New York Times, 9/11/03.

AND NOW today...
"Spooked by US political wrangling, major investors including the National Pension Service of Korea and the Kuwait Investment Authority have sold out of their holdings of the debt of the US Treasury-backed housing agencies since the 2008 global financial crisis.
Officials from central banks, including the Bank of Japan,
say they will be far more cautious in future.

Fannie and Freddie debt fuels anxiety - FT.com

Slow hate day? Is that why you need to rehash this debunked peice of crapola?

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations.

Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley (PDF file here).

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek

 

[BlindBoo]

No one could force banks to make loans to unqualified buyers via CRA, in fact, the act itself states that explicitly.

Of course you'd have to actually read the CRA to know that.

If the banks didn't provide a certain percentage of their portfolio to lower ethanol borrowers, then they would get certain tax breaks, who be hit with penalties and would be at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage to other banks. In effect they hand to lend to lower income individual, but that is very difficult and they tossed out the matrix.

Lenders are still not off the hook. They made the loans and deserves a good chunk of the blame. However the CRA forced their hand.

Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt. (Barry Ritholtz had an excellent and more comprehensive survey of how Washington contributed to the crisis in this week’s Barron’s.)

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek

 

[Vaard]

how come all the bills to put stronger regulations on freddie and fannie died in republican controlled committees?

 

[Truthmatters]

how many sub primes did the CRA require to be written?

Why were so many MORE written than were required by the law?

Because people were making money off them.

Pretending crap is real so yiou can justify your historically failed ideas wont make them non failures.

Quit lying it makes you look really stupid

 

[Vaard]

No one could force banks to make loans to unqualified buyers via CRA, in fact, the act itself states that explicitly.

Of course you'd have to actually read the CRA to know that.

If the banks didn't provide a certain percentage of their portfolio to lower ethanol borrowers, then they would get certain tax breaks, who be hit with penalties and would be at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage to other banks. In effect they hand to lend to lower income individual, but that is very difficult and they tossed out the matrix.

Lenders are still not off the hook. They made the loans and deserves a good chunk of the blame. However the CRA forced their hand.

Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt. (Barry Ritholtz had an excellent and more comprehensive survey of how Washington contributed to the crisis in this week’s Barron’s.)

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek

woah woah woah.......


if you are not going to blame the poor, then you are engaging in class warfare......

 

[Truthmatters]

SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.

In addition, the Commission also voted to issue a second release concerning certain bank dealer activities and other related matters.

The people who sold the repackaged sub primes were brokers.

The broker rules in GLBact were NOT implimented for 8 years by the Bush SEC.


Brokers before GLBact could not be part of the banks employees, they had to be trained and accredited.

After GLBact passed a bank could hire any smuck and train them how ever they wanted and then get them to sell whatever dog shit package the banks wanted them to sell.

No rolling into securities of the sub primes would have meant the banks could not have made money off them, they would have been a liability to the banks.

BUT because they could get any smuck to sell them now they could make bank off them and DID.

If the brokers had had to be licesned like in the past then the broker would have refused to sell the dog shit packages the banks put together because they would have lost their brokers license.

They would have ruined their carreers.

Holding up the broker laws in GLB made the bank scam all possible.

Thank the Bush admin.

 

[Truthmatters]

October 8, 2002

Gramm Joining UBS; LaFalce to SEC Panel?
Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, a one-time chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, is joining UBS Warburg as its vice chairman. Sen. Gramm, who will retire early next year, co-authored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which eliminated legal barriers that separated banks from securities firms. A frequent critic of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Bank System, Sen. Gramm will be joining a firm that has made quite a bit of money the past two years off the mortgage market, especially in regard to subprime lending/securitization. Meanwhile, the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. John LaFalce, D-N.Y., is being considered for a seat on a newly created federal board to oversee the accounting industry. Rep. LaFalce, who is retiring, was contacted by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is putting the panel together.

National Mortgage News - MortgageWire Archive


http://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/dailybriefing/?ts=1034092803

 

[Truthmatters]

Now tell me they banks didnt make money off the subprimes again.


You see they admitted they did LONG ago.

 

[Vaard]

SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.

In addition, the Commission also voted to issue a second release concerning certain bank dealer activities and other related matters.

The people who sold the repackaged sub primes were brokers.

The broker rules in GLBact were NOT implimented for 8 years by the Bush SEC.


Brokers before GLBact could not be part of the banks employees, they had to be trained and accredited.

After GLBact passed a bank could hire any smuck and train them how ever they wanted and then get them to sell whatever dog shit package the banks wanted them to sell.

No rolling into securities of the sub primes would have meant the banks could not have made money off them, they would have been a liability to the banks.

BUT because they could get any smuck to sell them now they could make bank off them and DID.

If the brokers had had to be licesned like in the past then the broker would have refused to sell the dog shit packages the banks put together because they would have lost their brokers license.

They would have ruined their carreers.

Holding up the broker laws in GLB made the bank scam all possible.

Thank the Bush admin.

no, see.. it was a 40 year odl law that never caused a housing problem before this that caused the problem.....


the fact that the buble was created right after the regulations of how securities could be marketed is just a coincidence......


blame the poor! blame the poor!

 

[BlindBoo]

SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.

In addition, the Commission also voted to issue a second release concerning certain bank dealer activities and other related matters.

The people who sold the repackaged sub primes were brokers.

The broker rules in GLBact were NOT implimented for 8 years by the Bush SEC.


Brokers before GLBact could not be part of the banks employees, they had to be trained and accredited.

After GLBact passed a bank could hire any smuck and train them how ever they wanted and then get them to sell whatever dog shit package the banks wanted them to sell.

No rolling into securities of the sub primes would have meant the banks could not have made money off them, they would have been a liability to the banks.

BUT because they could get any smuck to sell them now they could make bank off them and DID.

If the brokers had had to be licesned like in the past then the broker would have refused to sell the dog shit packages the banks put together because they would have lost their brokers license.

They would have ruined their carreers.

Holding up the broker laws in GLB made the bank scam all possible.

Thank the Bush admin.

no, see.. it was a 40 year odl law that never caused a housing problem before this that caused the problem.....


the fact that the buble was created right after the regulations of how securities could be marketed is just a coincidence......


blame the poor! blame the poor!

It was a brilliant strategy of Jimmy Carter. You see he put an Easter Egg in the CRA to bring down his arch-enemy's son...30 years later .....I mean he had to be brilliant to know who was going to be president in 30 years but I guess he was just psyhic that way........

 

[kiwiman127]

CRA had very little to do with the financial meltdown.

If you really believe that then you are either very dum or a liar!

The two biggest pieces of legislation that led to the mortgage and credit meltdown, were the Carter Errors Community Reinvestment Act that Clinton brought back to life and the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act, not to mention Clinton Adm giving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the power to create and artifical secondary market!

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek

So in fact, only 20% of the subprime loans were given by those who fell under the CRA rules.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No one could force banks to make loans to unqualified buyers via CRA, in fact, the act itself states that explicitly.

Of course you'd have to actually read the CRA to know that.

If the banks didn't provide a certain percentage of their portfolio to lower ethanol borrowers, then they would get certain tax breaks, who be hit with penalties and would be at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage to other banks. In effect they hand to lend to lower income individual, but that is very difficult and they tossed out the matrix.

Lenders are still not off the hook. They made the loans and deserves a good chunk of the blame. However the CRA forced their hand.

Like I said, no banks were forced to make loans to unqualified buyers.

12 / 5/ 2011​

"With mortgage lenders now facing allegations of misconduct on several fronts, a former top ranking employee at a major home lender has come forward saying fraud at her firm wasn't the exception, but the norm.

Some are taking a stand against alleged abuses, with Massachusetts AG Martha Coakley last week annoucing a lawsuit against five major mortgage lenders, including Bank of America, the parent company of Countrywide Financial. According to the lawsuit, banks exacerbated the forecloser crisis by taking illegal shortcuts, while doing little to help homeowners in the process."

KARMA TIME!!!​

. . . . ​

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes they could, and did.

Name one bank that was forced against their will to make loans not in accordance with sound and safe banking practices.

Don't remember Janet Reno threatening persecution (yes persecution) for banks that "committed redlining" with Bawney Fwank and Chris Dodd howling their outrage like the Moron Tabernacle Choir... do you?

Racial discrimination does not qualify as a legitimate means to follow safe and sound banking practice.

I'm mildly surprised you don't know that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

if the cra caused the meltdown, why didnt it cause a melt down 40 or 30 or 20 years ago?

The real estate bubble/meltdown hit hardest in relatively higher end real estate markets, such as southern California and Florida.

The idea that poor people, especially minorities, and liberals/Democrats were the primary cause of the real estate disaster is only an enduring fairy tale because the rightwing propaganda machine loves its components

1. blame liberals/Democrats
2. blame the poor
3. blame minorities.

That's what you would call a rightwing propaganda hat trick...the triple crown of rightwing scapegoating, to mix a couple metaphors...

...of course they're going to love this story.

 

[healthmyths]

Look I am going to make this simple.
CRA was to provide government credit to people that weren't qualified.
When banks confronted by toxic assets, they complained to government that
1) Either the justice will get them for not making loans or
2) FDIC will close them because of bad loans!

So what did the govt. do? Guaranteed the loans!

 

[BlindBoo]

Look I am going to make this simple.
CRA was to provide government credit to people that weren't qualified.
When banks confronted by toxic assets, they complained to government that
1) Either the justice will get them for not making loans or
2) FDIC will close them because of bad loans!

So what did the govt. do? Guaranteed the loans!

You're simply mistaken. The CRA was used to force banks to quit redlining, and make loans to "Qualified" lower income depositors.

 

[AmericanFirst]

CRA had very little to do with the financial meltdown.

It is the base problem. You are wrong, again.

 

[AmericanFirst]

No one could force banks to make loans to unqualified buyers via CRA, in fact, the act itself states that explicitly.

Of course you'd have to actually read the CRA to know that.

If the banks didn't provide a certain percentage of their portfolio to lower ethanol borrowers, then they would get certain tax breaks, who be hit with penalties and would be at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage to other banks. In effect they hand to lend to lower income individual, but that is very difficult and they tossed out the matrix.

Lenders are still not off the hook. They made the loans and deserves a good chunk of the blame. However the CRA forced their hand.

Like I said, no banks were forced to make loans to unqualified buyers.

And you lied.