Close To Half Of Americans Have More Credit Card Debt Than Savings

[Dad2three]

Bush Mortgage Bubble? WTF? Who is going to take you seriously?

So who is going to take an iceweasel seriously about anything when you are to stupid to acknowledge that there was a mortgage bubble and that the President when this occurred was named Bush.

Why don't you try and refute the claim? Can't do it can ya?

That isn't what I said, stupid lying asshole. LOL. The words are right there for anyone to read. Your fellow dingleberry claimed it was the Bush Mortgage Bubble, that would have a specific meaning. You must be huffing glue already.

Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


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


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime


MUCH more here:
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Iceweasel]

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

There's no such thing. It's the thinking of a lunatic on a political forum.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is no incentive to save in this environment. You can put money into the a savings account and draw what? .02% interest on parking money in that manner?

The entire national monetary culture of one of debt service. We treat it at the federal level as though we never plan to pay it back. Ever. Why should that mentality not trickle through the entire culture? It has. As was expected.

 

[Iceweasel]

Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners

Yep. Started by Clinton, voted in by many Democrats.

Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs

That was Barney Frank.

Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership[
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING

But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

Freddy Mae, Fanny Mac, most Democrats, all played a role. The term predatory lending is the hallmark of the left though, conservatives expect grownups to be grownups. the left isn't so inhibited. They believe all wrong is somebody else's fault and that somebody is a conservative.

Your insane (literally) hatred for one particular man overshadows any ability you had to think. You are a classical example of Bush Derangement Syndrome. You LOVE hating him so much you simply can't let it go, it feels too good. And it's all based on lies. You poor tortured soul.


President Bush Warned Dems of Financial and Housing Crisis Real Verse

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. It was easier for the Democrats in Congress to chastise President Bush calling his warning Racist? 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 Democrat Congress has made a sever blow to the American economy. One must wonder if the warnings by President Bush were not responded to because of Democrats and the Cloward & Piven strategy.

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 home-ownership 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. (White House Press Release)

 

[LeftofLeft]

CC interest rates have nothing to do with national interest rates. They calculate the non payers and costs they incur by lending money. You can thank the dead beats for the high rates. I have no idea what the rates are since I've always payed mine off in full each month.

What a stupid post.
First, what are "national interest rates".
Second, who said that credit card rates have to do with anything.
Third, don't people like you ever get tired of trying to blame things on others. Except you never blame those responsible.

btw, who gave those "deadbeats" a credit card to begin with? Anyone with a lick of sense would wonder who gave a deadbeat credit. Then they find out it was the CREDIT CARD COMPANIES THAT GAVE DEAD BEATs CREDIT.
So they could charge that 22% interest.

And seeing as how you don't know what interest credit card companies charge, why weigh in with such a bullshit post?

So let's make hold financial institutions more accountable / regulated. That means they are going to have apply higher standards to credit card approvals. We went through this with mortgages and it turned into a huge race issue on two fronts:

* Minorities were being denied access to mortgages - Community Reinvestment Act required more mortgages based on skin color and geo regions regardless of credit worthiness metrics.
* High rate of defaults among minorities = Financial Institutions were accused of predatory lending practices.

So, what is the solution? Do we implement credit worthiness standards based on strict financial ratios? Higher interest rates are not punitive to try and deny or exploit an ethnic group. Higher interest rates are reflective of a financial institution's exposure to risk that the customer will not pay back. I am not trying to make the financial institutions out to be saints here. Personally, I hate credit cards. I think egregious debt instruments are a threat to all Americans. But, at the same time, I saw the gaming surrounding the Community Reinvestment Act. It resulted in mortgage levels being extended to more people who by their financial snapshot, should not have received such a high mortgage. The banks say they had a gun to their head to execute the mortgage regardless of financial snapshot and the politicians said that the banks benefitted handsomely on higher interest rates and more mortgages ("predatory lending"). Both were correct in their statements yet the American economy took the hit. To prevent this; we need to have banks adhere to strict financial ratios when extending credit cards and other debt instruments.

Are we going to go through the same political bullshit with credit cards?

So no, after getting your talking points demolished, you've chosen to run away, even though you were online earlier today, lol

More regulations on banks, stricter regulations on consumer loans......which means some people will get denied. Banks don't get to do high interest rates, consumers who can't payback loans don't get them. It's not about Black and White. Its about Black and Red. Simple.

Got it, YOU WILL NOT ADDRESS THE ACTUAL POINT YOU ORIGINALLY BROUGHT UP, THAT SOMEHOW, BANKS WERE FORCED TO LOAN, LOL


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.


More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.


The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes



The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed. In March of 2008, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blamed loans “to the minorities, to the poor, to the young” as causing foreclosures. Not long after, conservative commentator Michele Malkin went so far as to claim that illegal immigration caused the crisis.

This tendency to shift blame to minorities and poor people for the financial crisis soon developed into a well-honed narrative on the right.

Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress

I am not interested in putting more blame on banks or more blame on The Community Reinvestment Act. You clearly are married into the notion that it was ALL the banks' fault. I am interested in lessons learned and not repeating same mistakes for the future. I don't want to see banks passing off subprimes to each other holding the bag....nor do I want to see Social engineering of loan programs that ignore or compromise risk fundamentals. It's simple. If you don't qualify, you don't get a loan. Why do you have a problem with that? Why are you so vested in beating dead horses instead of learning lessons on all fronts?

 

[Iceweasel]

I am not interested in putting more blame on banks or more blame on The Community Reinvestment Act. You clearly are married into the notion that it was ALL the banks' fault. I am interested in lessons learned and not repeating same mistakes for the future. I don't want to see banks passing off subprimes to each other holding the bag....nor do I want to see Social engineering of loan programs that ignore or compromise risk fundamentals. It's simple. If you don't qualify, you don't get a loan. Why do you have a problem with that? Why are you so vested in beating dead horses instead of learning lessons on all fronts?

His primary purpose for breathing is to blame Bush. BushCo made the banks do it and forced the innocents to agree to terms they couldn't meet. And he fooled everyone that remotely helped. As he did to get us into the wars. And Bush did all this while being the biggest idiot that ever lived.

 

[Dad2three]

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

There's no such thing. It's the thinking of a lunatic on a political forum.

Weird, I bet you don't think Reagan ignoring Mr Gray's warnings that started in 1984 caused the S&L crisis either

Elect guys who 'don't believe in 'Gov't and people are shocked when their POLICIES harm US

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There is no incentive to save in this environment. You can put money into the a savings account and draw what? .02% interest on parking money in that manner?

The entire national monetary culture of one of debt service. We treat it at the federal level as though we never plan to pay it back. Ever. Why should that mentality not trickle through the entire culture? It has. As was expected.

That's why we closed our savings account and now have only a business and personal checking accounts. Needless to say, we still have money in investments.

Comparing national debt with consumer debt is wrong-think. The individual is not a nation and carrying large consumer debt causes harm on a very personal level.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners

Yep. Started by Clinton, voted in by many Democrats.

Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs

That was Barney Frank.

Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership[
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING

But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

Freddy Mae, Fanny Mac, most Democrats, all played a role. The term predatory lending is the hallmark of the left though, conservatives expect grownups to be grownups. the left isn't so inhibited. They believe all wrong is somebody else's fault and that somebody is a conservative.

Your insane (literally) hatred for one particular man overshadows any ability you had to think. You are a classical example of Bush Derangement Syndrome. You LOVE hating him so much you simply can't let it go, it feels too good. And it's all based on lies. You poor tortured soul.


President Bush Warned Dems of Financial and Housing Crisis Real Verse

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. It was easier for the Democrats in Congress to chastise President Bush calling his warning Racist? 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 Democrat Congress has made a sever blow to the American economy. One must wonder if the warnings by President Bush were not responded to because of Democrats and the Cloward & Piven strategy.

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 home-ownership 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. (White House Press Release)

Goddam, it never ends.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is no incentive to save in this environment. You can put money into the a savings account and draw what? .02% interest on parking money in that manner?

The entire national monetary culture of one of debt service. We treat it at the federal level as though we never plan to pay it back. Ever. Why should that mentality not trickle through the entire culture? It has. As was expected.

That's why we closed our savings account and now have only a business and personal checking accounts. Needless to say, we still have money in investments.

Comparing national debt with consumer debt is wrong-think. The individual is not a nation and carrying large consumer debt causes harm on a very personal level.

The only difference is that the government is not held to any accounting standards. The result of debt and deficits is ultimately the same for a nation as is for a household. One other major difference is that a household can not put its members productivity up as collateral for later collection (or never collection) like a government does to the citizenry. In other words - economic slavery.

 

[Dad2three]

What a stupid post.
First, what are "national interest rates".
Second, who said that credit card rates have to do with anything.
Third, don't people like you ever get tired of trying to blame things on others. Except you never blame those responsible.

btw, who gave those "deadbeats" a credit card to begin with? Anyone with a lick of sense would wonder who gave a deadbeat credit. Then they find out it was the CREDIT CARD COMPANIES THAT GAVE DEAD BEATs CREDIT.
So they could charge that 22% interest.

And seeing as how you don't know what interest credit card companies charge, why weigh in with such a bullshit post?

So let's make hold financial institutions more accountable / regulated. That means they are going to have apply higher standards to credit card approvals. We went through this with mortgages and it turned into a huge race issue on two fronts:

* Minorities were being denied access to mortgages - Community Reinvestment Act required more mortgages based on skin color and geo regions regardless of credit worthiness metrics.
* High rate of defaults among minorities = Financial Institutions were accused of predatory lending practices.

So, what is the solution? Do we implement credit worthiness standards based on strict financial ratios? Higher interest rates are not punitive to try and deny or exploit an ethnic group. Higher interest rates are reflective of a financial institution's exposure to risk that the customer will not pay back. I am not trying to make the financial institutions out to be saints here. Personally, I hate credit cards. I think egregious debt instruments are a threat to all Americans. But, at the same time, I saw the gaming surrounding the Community Reinvestment Act. It resulted in mortgage levels being extended to more people who by their financial snapshot, should not have received such a high mortgage. The banks say they had a gun to their head to execute the mortgage regardless of financial snapshot and the politicians said that the banks benefitted handsomely on higher interest rates and more mortgages ("predatory lending"). Both were correct in their statements yet the American economy took the hit. To prevent this; we need to have banks adhere to strict financial ratios when extending credit cards and other debt instruments.

Are we going to go through the same political bullshit with credit cards?

So no, after getting your talking points demolished, you've chosen to run away, even though you were online earlier today, lol

More regulations on banks, stricter regulations on consumer loans......which means some people will get denied. Banks don't get to do high interest rates, consumers who can't payback loans don't get them. It's not about Black and White. Its about Black and Red. Simple.

Got it, YOU WILL NOT ADDRESS THE ACTUAL POINT YOU ORIGINALLY BROUGHT UP, THAT SOMEHOW, BANKS WERE FORCED TO LOAN, LOL


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.


More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.


The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes



The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed. In March of 2008, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blamed loans “to the minorities, to the poor, to the young” as causing foreclosures. Not long after, conservative commentator Michele Malkin went so far as to claim that illegal immigration caused the crisis.

This tendency to shift blame to minorities and poor people for the financial crisis soon developed into a well-honed narrative on the right.

Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress

I am not interested in putting more blame on banks or more blame on The Community Reinvestment Act. You clearly are married into the notion that it was ALL the banks' fault. I am interested in lessons learned and not repeating same mistakes for the future. I don't want to see banks passing off subprimes to each other holding the bag....nor do I want to see Social engineering of loan programs that ignore or compromise risk fundamentals. It's simple. If you don't qualify, you don't get a loan. Why do you have a problem with that? Why are you so vested in beating dead horses instead of learning lessons on all fronts?

Yeah, 'social engineering' created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. Dozens of nations, Philippines, China, Ireland, Spain, UK, etc...

Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."


Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie

Wall Street Not Fannie and Freddie Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast

 

[Dad2three]

Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners

Yep. Started by Clinton, voted in by many Democrats.

Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs

That was Barney Frank.

Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership[
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING

But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

Freddy Mae, Fanny Mac, most Democrats, all played a role. The term predatory lending is the hallmark of the left though, conservatives expect grownups to be grownups. the left isn't so inhibited. They believe all wrong is somebody else's fault and that somebody is a conservative.

Your insane (literally) hatred for one particular man overshadows any ability you had to think. You are a classical example of Bush Derangement Syndrome. You LOVE hating him so much you simply can't let it go, it feels too good. And it's all based on lies. You poor tortured soul.


President Bush Warned Dems of Financial and Housing Crisis Real Verse

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. It was easier for the Democrats in Congress to chastise President Bush calling his warning Racist? 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 Democrat Congress has made a sever blow to the American economy. One must wonder if the warnings by President Bush were not responded to because of Democrats and the Cloward & Piven strategy.

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 home-ownership 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. (White House Press Release)

lol

BARNEY FRANK? MINORITY MEMBER OF THE GOP MAJORITY HOUSE 1995- JAN 2007? PLEASE TELL ME HIS SUPER POWERS?

One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.


Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again.


The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley (R), now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.”

“What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

Oxley was Chairman of the House Financial Services committee and sponsor of the only reform bill to pass any chamber of the republican controlled congress



FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Iceweasel]

BARNEY FRANK? MINORITY MEMBER OF THE GOP MAJORITY HOUSE 1995- JAN 2007? PLEASE TELL ME HIS SUPER POWERS?

Uhmm, he was the Financial Services Chairman.

Barney Frank s Fannie and Freddie Muddle - US News
Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle
The Financial Services chairman has a rather curious recollection of recent events.
By Sam Dealey Sept. 10, 2008 | 10:20 a.m. EDT + More

Now that crisis management has taken root and Fannie and Freddie have been placed in conservatorship, a number of commentators have remarked that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's actions bear a striking resemblance to what his predecessor proposed five years ago. Whether the two mortgage giants deserve a future will be a pitched battle, but for now, Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the Financial Services Committee chairman, has issued a press release with a fanciful take on history.

From Frank's press release:

The truth is when President Bush took office, and the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, he did not make any progress on comprehensive legislation to reform the regulation of the Government Sponsored Enterprises. It was not until 2005, when the House, on a bipartisan basis, and over the President's objections finally passed a reform bill. It died in the Senate in part because the White House's failure to make it a priority.

In fact, here's a New York Times story from September 2003, clearly showing that the first substantive Fannie and Freddie reform from inside government came from the Bush administration. Spurred by worries that Fannie and Freddie were cooking their books and taking too many risks, Treasury Secretary John Snow proposed placing the companies under Treasury oversight with strict controls over risk and capital reserves. The NYT labeled the proposal "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago" and noted:

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

So five years ago, there was one of those rare moments in Washington when the branches and personalities of government—in this case, the Bush administration—are less interested in protecting or expanding their turf than in fixing a looming catastrophe. What was Frank's response to the proposal?

"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

As Frank mentions in his press release today, two years after it was first proposed, the House finally voted on a bill reforming the mortgage giants. Alas, the legislation was watered down to the point of being meaningless—that's why it passed the House with such wide margins (122 Democrats and 209 Republicans). But even then, and despite his high regard for bipartisanship now, Barney Frank wasn't among the yeas.

 

[LeftofLeft]

So let's make hold financial institutions more accountable / regulated. That means they are going to have apply higher standards to credit card approvals. We went through this with mortgages and it turned into a huge race issue on two fronts:

* Minorities were being denied access to mortgages - Community Reinvestment Act required more mortgages based on skin color and geo regions regardless of credit worthiness metrics.
* High rate of defaults among minorities = Financial Institutions were accused of predatory lending practices.

So, what is the solution? Do we implement credit worthiness standards based on strict financial ratios? Higher interest rates are not punitive to try and deny or exploit an ethnic group. Higher interest rates are reflective of a financial institution's exposure to risk that the customer will not pay back. I am not trying to make the financial institutions out to be saints here. Personally, I hate credit cards. I think egregious debt instruments are a threat to all Americans. But, at the same time, I saw the gaming surrounding the Community Reinvestment Act. It resulted in mortgage levels being extended to more people who by their financial snapshot, should not have received such a high mortgage. The banks say they had a gun to their head to execute the mortgage regardless of financial snapshot and the politicians said that the banks benefitted handsomely on higher interest rates and more mortgages ("predatory lending"). Both were correct in their statements yet the American economy took the hit. To prevent this; we need to have banks adhere to strict financial ratios when extending credit cards and other debt instruments.

Are we going to go through the same political bullshit with credit cards?

So no, after getting your talking points demolished, you've chosen to run away, even though you were online earlier today, lol

More regulations on banks, stricter regulations on consumer loans......which means some people will get denied. Banks don't get to do high interest rates, consumers who can't payback loans don't get them. It's not about Black and White. Its about Black and Red. Simple.

Got it, YOU WILL NOT ADDRESS THE ACTUAL POINT YOU ORIGINALLY BROUGHT UP, THAT SOMEHOW, BANKS WERE FORCED TO LOAN, LOL


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.


More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.


The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes



The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed. In March of 2008, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blamed loans “to the minorities, to the poor, to the young” as causing foreclosures. Not long after, conservative commentator Michele Malkin went so far as to claim that illegal immigration caused the crisis.

This tendency to shift blame to minorities and poor people for the financial crisis soon developed into a well-honed narrative on the right.

Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress

I am not interested in putting more blame on banks or more blame on The Community Reinvestment Act. You clearly are married into the notion that it was ALL the banks' fault. I am interested in lessons learned and not repeating same mistakes for the future. I don't want to see banks passing off subprimes to each other holding the bag....nor do I want to see Social engineering of loan programs that ignore or compromise risk fundamentals. It's simple. If you don't qualify, you don't get a loan. Why do you have a problem with that? Why are you so vested in beating dead horses instead of learning lessons on all fronts?

Yeah, 'social engineering' created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. Dozens of nations, Philippines, China, Ireland, Spain, UK, etc...

Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."


Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie

Wall Street Not Fannie and Freddie Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast

You are still more interested in fingering Bush and Wall Street vs. the simple notion moving forward and instituting stricter financial controls for access to debt instruments among consumers; be it mortgages or credit cards. If the financial controls (ratios and credit reports) indicate an increase in risk for the lender, be it evil Wall Street or your icons at Fannie and Freddie, then the consumer should be denied. How and why do you have a problem with that?

 

[Dad2three]

Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners

Yep. Started by Clinton, voted in by many Democrats.

Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs

That was Barney Frank.

Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership[
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING

But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

Freddy Mae, Fanny Mac, most Democrats, all played a role. The term predatory lending is the hallmark of the left though, conservatives expect grownups to be grownups. the left isn't so inhibited. They believe all wrong is somebody else's fault and that somebody is a conservative.

Your insane (literally) hatred for one particular man overshadows any ability you had to think. You are a classical example of Bush Derangement Syndrome. You LOVE hating him so much you simply can't let it go, it feels too good. And it's all based on lies. You poor tortured soul.


President Bush Warned Dems of Financial and Housing Crisis Real Verse

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. It was easier for the Democrats in Congress to chastise President Bush calling his warning Racist? 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 Democrat Congress has made a sever blow to the American economy. One must wonder if the warnings by President Bush were not responded to because of Democrats and the Cloward & Piven strategy.

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 home-ownership 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. (White House Press Release)

SO YOU ARE SAYING THE GOP CONGRESS DID NOTHING TO HEED DUBYA'S CALLS? Oh wait, DUBYA WAS THE REGULATOR. F/F WERE UNDER EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERSIGHT? Weird right?


STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY



George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers".


Testimony from W’s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation’ of the GSE’s 2004


Mr. BARNEY Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.“



THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES

- THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES


BUT WAIT:

June 17, 2004

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

HOLY COW! Bush forced them to lower their standards. If only somebody had warned us that Bush's policies would hurt Freddie and Fannie. Wait, somebody did.




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



Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown

Wall Street Not Fannie and Freddie Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast

Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie

 

[Dad2three]

I am not interested in putting more blame on banks or more blame on The Community Reinvestment Act. You clearly are married into the notion that it was ALL the banks' fault. I am interested in lessons learned and not repeating same mistakes for the future. I don't want to see banks passing off subprimes to each other holding the bag....nor do I want to see Social engineering of loan programs that ignore or compromise risk fundamentals. It's simple. If you don't qualify, you don't get a loan. Why do you have a problem with that? Why are you so vested in beating dead horses instead of learning lessons on all fronts?

His primary purpose for breathing is to blame Bush. BushCo made the banks do it and forced the innocents to agree to terms they couldn't meet. And he fooled everyone that remotely helped. As he did to get us into the wars. And Bush did all this while being the biggest idiot that ever lived.

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


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


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

BARNEY FRANK? MINORITY MEMBER OF THE GOP MAJORITY HOUSE 1995- JAN 2007? PLEASE TELL ME HIS SUPER POWERS?

Uhmm, he was the Financial Services Chairman.

Barney Frank s Fannie and Freddie Muddle - US News
Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle
The Financial Services chairman has a rather curious recollection of recent events.
By Sam Dealey Sept. 10, 2008 | 10:20 a.m. EDT + More

Now that crisis management has taken root and Fannie and Freddie have been placed in conservatorship, a number of commentators have remarked that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's actions bear a striking resemblance to what his predecessor proposed five years ago. Whether the two mortgage giants deserve a future will be a pitched battle, but for now, Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the Financial Services Committee chairman, has issued a press release with a fanciful take on history.

From Frank's press release:

The truth is when President Bush took office, and the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, he did not make any progress on comprehensive legislation to reform the regulation of the Government Sponsored Enterprises. It was not until 2005, when the House, on a bipartisan basis, and over the President's objections finally passed a reform bill. It died in the Senate in part because the White House's failure to make it a priority.

In fact, here's a New York Times story from September 2003, clearly showing that the first substantive Fannie and Freddie reform from inside government came from the Bush administration. Spurred by worries that Fannie and Freddie were cooking their books and taking too many risks, Treasury Secretary John Snow proposed placing the companies under Treasury oversight with strict controls over risk and capital reserves. The NYT labeled the proposal "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago" and noted:

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

So five years ago, there was one of those rare moments in Washington when the branches and personalities of government—in this case, the Bush administration—are less interested in protecting or expanding their turf than in fixing a looming catastrophe. What was Frank's response to the proposal?

"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

As Frank mentions in his press release today, two years after it was first proposed, the House finally voted on a bill reforming the mortgage giants. Alas, the legislation was watered down to the point of being meaningless—that's why it passed the House with such wide margins (122 Democrats and 209 Republicans). But even then, and despite his high regard for bipartisanship now, Barney Frank wasn't among the yeas.

"Uhmm, he was the Financial Services Chairman."

SURE BEGINNING IN JAN 2007


ONCE MORE DUMMY

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.”

The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession


Once again lots of words by Frank and possibly misguided, but no link between Frank and any action he took to stop regulation. He literally would have to have super powers to stop Republicans. Is the Big Government writer suggested that the Republican majority did not have the moral will power to to withstand Frank’s words. The Republican Congress of 2003 passed any bill it wanted with simple majority votes. If Fannie or Freddie were out of control they could have reigned them in. As a matter of fact the NYT article BG links to does not say Freddie or Fannie were in trouble over leading practices such as being extended beyond their collateral, but because of accounting shenanigans,



...Republicans controlled Congress. They held the committee chairs. Republicans made no objection to guaranteeing Freddie or Fannie against failure or against continuing to subsidize both entities. But based on the crackerjack evidence supplied by BG, Barney Frank is singularly responsible for the Great Recession because of some words that he uttered while in the minority party. In 2003 neither Fannie or Freddie looked like they were in much trouble. AIG, Goldman-Sachs and Merrill-Lynch all looked like they were in good shape too


The Myth of Fannie Mae Freddie Mac Barney Frank the Housing Bubble and the Recession The Long Goodbye


Is There an Antidote to the Republican Amnesia?

According to the Republicans' misty memories of the period before 2007, I allegedly singlehandedly blocked their determined efforts to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and my supposed intransigence literally caused the worldwide financial crisis.

Fortunately, we have tools to aid memory -- pencil and paper, word processing, transcripts, newspapers, and the Congressional record.

Is There an Antidote to the Republican Amnesia Rep. Barney Frank

In 2009 Frank responded to what he called "wholly inaccurate efforts by Republicans to blame Democrats, and [me] in particular" for the subprime mortgage crisis, which is linked to the financial crisis of 2007–2009. He outlined his efforts to reform these institutions and add regulations, but met resistance from Republicans, with the main exception being a bill with Republican Mike Oxley that died because of opposition from President Bush. The 2005 bill included Frank objectives, which were to impose tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing. Frank and Mike Oxley achieved broad bipartisan support for the bill in the Financial Services Committee, and it passed the House. But the Senate never voted on the measure, in part because President Bush was likely to veto it. "If it had passed, that would have been one of the ways we could have reined in the bowling ball going downhill called housing," Oxley told Frank

Barney Frank - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."

 

[Dad2three]

So no, after getting your talking points demolished, you've chosen to run away, even though you were online earlier today, lol

More regulations on banks, stricter regulations on consumer loans......which means some people will get denied. Banks don't get to do high interest rates, consumers who can't payback loans don't get them. It's not about Black and White. Its about Black and Red. Simple.

Got it, YOU WILL NOT ADDRESS THE ACTUAL POINT YOU ORIGINALLY BROUGHT UP, THAT SOMEHOW, BANKS WERE FORCED TO LOAN, LOL


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.


More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.


The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes



The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed. In March of 2008, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blamed loans “to the minorities, to the poor, to the young” as causing foreclosures. Not long after, conservative commentator Michele Malkin went so far as to claim that illegal immigration caused the crisis.

This tendency to shift blame to minorities and poor people for the financial crisis soon developed into a well-honed narrative on the right.

Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress

I am not interested in putting more blame on banks or more blame on The Community Reinvestment Act. You clearly are married into the notion that it was ALL the banks' fault. I am interested in lessons learned and not repeating same mistakes for the future. I don't want to see banks passing off subprimes to each other holding the bag....nor do I want to see Social engineering of loan programs that ignore or compromise risk fundamentals. It's simple. If you don't qualify, you don't get a loan. Why do you have a problem with that? Why are you so vested in beating dead horses instead of learning lessons on all fronts?

Yeah, 'social engineering' created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. Dozens of nations, Philippines, China, Ireland, Spain, UK, etc...

Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."


Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie

Wall Street Not Fannie and Freddie Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast

You are still more interested in fingering Bush and Wall Street vs. the simple notion moving forward and instituting stricter financial controls for access to debt instruments among consumers; be it mortgages or credit cards. If the financial controls (ratios and credit reports) indicate an increase in risk for the lender, be it evil Wall Street or your icons at Fannie and Freddie, then the consumer should be denied. How and why do you have a problem with that?

Weird YOU blamed Gov't policy FORCING banks to loan, which had ZERO to do with Dubya's allowing, in fact CHEERING ON THE BANKSTER CREATED BUBBLE!

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


YOU WERE SAYING??? lol

WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF GIVING LOANS AGAIN???

 

[Dad2three]

So no, after getting your talking points demolished, you've chosen to run away, even though you were online earlier today, lol

More regulations on banks, stricter regulations on consumer loans......which means some people will get denied. Banks don't get to do high interest rates, consumers who can't payback loans don't get them. It's not about Black and White. Its about Black and Red. Simple.

Got it, YOU WILL NOT ADDRESS THE ACTUAL POINT YOU ORIGINALLY BROUGHT UP, THAT SOMEHOW, BANKS WERE FORCED TO LOAN, LOL


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.


More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.


The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes



The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed. In March of 2008, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blamed loans “to the minorities, to the poor, to the young” as causing foreclosures. Not long after, conservative commentator Michele Malkin went so far as to claim that illegal immigration caused the crisis.

This tendency to shift blame to minorities and poor people for the financial crisis soon developed into a well-honed narrative on the right.

Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress

I am not interested in putting more blame on banks or more blame on The Community Reinvestment Act. You clearly are married into the notion that it was ALL the banks' fault. I am interested in lessons learned and not repeating same mistakes for the future. I don't want to see banks passing off subprimes to each other holding the bag....nor do I want to see Social engineering of loan programs that ignore or compromise risk fundamentals. It's simple. If you don't qualify, you don't get a loan. Why do you have a problem with that? Why are you so vested in beating dead horses instead of learning lessons on all fronts?

Yeah, 'social engineering' created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. Dozens of nations, Philippines, China, Ireland, Spain, UK, etc...

Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."


Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie

Wall Street Not Fannie and Freddie Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast

You are still more interested in fingering Bush and Wall Street vs. the simple notion moving forward and instituting stricter financial controls for access to debt instruments among consumers; be it mortgages or credit cards. If the financial controls (ratios and credit reports) indicate an increase in risk for the lender, be it evil Wall Street or your icons at Fannie and Freddie, then the consumer should be denied. How and why do you have a problem with that?

The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along. The big investment banks simply connected the investors to the originators, helped by the AAA ratings.



Out of Control Financial Innovation


By now the litany is familiar: the old model of banking, in which banks held on to the loans they made, was replaced by the new practice of originate-and-distribute. Mortgage originators—which in many cases had no traditional banking business—made loans to buy houses, then quickly sold those loans off to other firms. These firms then repackaged those loans by pooling them, then selling shares of these pools of securities; and rating agencies were willing to label the resulting product chicken—that is, to bestow their seal of approval, the AAA rating, on the more senior of these securities, those that had first claim on interest and principal repayment.

Everyone ignored both the risks posed by a general housing bust and the degradation of underwriting standards as the bubble inflated (that ignorance was no doubt assisted by the huge amounts of money being made). When the bust came, much of that AAA paper turned out to be worth just pennies on the dollar.




The Slump Goes On Why by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells The New York Review of Books

 

[Dad2three]

BARNEY FRANK? MINORITY MEMBER OF THE GOP MAJORITY HOUSE 1995- JAN 2007? PLEASE TELL ME HIS SUPER POWERS?

Uhmm, he was the Financial Services Chairman.

Barney Frank s Fannie and Freddie Muddle - US News
Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle
The Financial Services chairman has a rather curious recollection of recent events.
By Sam Dealey Sept. 10, 2008 | 10:20 a.m. EDT + More

Now that crisis management has taken root and Fannie and Freddie have been placed in conservatorship, a number of commentators have remarked that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's actions bear a striking resemblance to what his predecessor proposed five years ago. Whether the two mortgage giants deserve a future will be a pitched battle, but for now, Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the Financial Services Committee chairman, has issued a press release with a fanciful take on history.

From Frank's press release:

The truth is when President Bush took office, and the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, he did not make any progress on comprehensive legislation to reform the regulation of the Government Sponsored Enterprises. It was not until 2005, when the House, on a bipartisan basis, and over the President's objections finally passed a reform bill. It died in the Senate in part because the White House's failure to make it a priority.

In fact, here's a New York Times story from September 2003, clearly showing that the first substantive Fannie and Freddie reform from inside government came from the Bush administration. Spurred by worries that Fannie and Freddie were cooking their books and taking too many risks, Treasury Secretary John Snow proposed placing the companies under Treasury oversight with strict controls over risk and capital reserves. The NYT labeled the proposal "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago" and noted:

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

So five years ago, there was one of those rare moments in Washington when the branches and personalities of government—in this case, the Bush administration—are less interested in protecting or expanding their turf than in fixing a looming catastrophe. What was Frank's response to the proposal?

"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

As Frank mentions in his press release today, two years after it was first proposed, the House finally voted on a bill reforming the mortgage giants. Alas, the legislation was watered down to the point of being meaningless—that's why it passed the House with such wide margins (122 Democrats and 209 Republicans). But even then, and despite his high regard for bipartisanship now, Barney Frank wasn't among the yeas.

Q Why is it commonly called the “subprime bubble” ?

A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006. In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending. (and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)

“Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages. Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006

https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf



Q. Er uh, didn’t you notice your link said the explosive growth of subprime mortgages started in 2001?

A. It did kinda say that didn’t it? However, the link below clearly states subprime was 10 % in 2003. 9% in 2001 to 10% in 2003 is only a 1% increase. A 1 % increase over 3 years is flat not explosive. 10 % in 2003 to 40% in 2006 is explosive. So the explosive growth started in 2004 which lines up pretty good but not exactly with the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble.


“In dollar terms, nonprime mortgages represented 32 percent of all mortgage originations in 2005, more than triple their 10 percent share only two years earlier


FRB: Finance and Economics Discussion Series: Screen Reader Version - 200899
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum