Dems did NOT cause meltdown- Pub Propaganda as usual....

[Truthmatters]

When was the GLBact passed?

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Sure- Whatever Rush, Glenn, Savage, and Sean say...no evidence necessary- Strong and Wrong wins with dittoheads...."It's all the fault of poor minorities- and the gay guy?"- LOL!
Read the 3 articles on p.1 and 2-- full of facts that show: over 80% of the bubble was privately held mortgages (NOT Fannie and Freddie), we certainly took a huge hit on bank bailouts, a Booosh's enforcement and regulation holiday made the bubble and the Depression. Wake up, Foxbots!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure- Whatever Rush, Glenn, Savage, and Sean say...no evidence necessary- Strong and Wrong wins with dittoheads...."It's all the fault of poor minorities- and the gay guy?"- LOL!
Read the 3 articles on p.1 and 2-- full of facts that show: over 80% of the bubble was privately held mortgages (NOT Fannie and Freddie), we certainly took a huge hit on bank bailouts, a Booosh's enforcement and regulation holiday made the bubble and the Depression. Wake up, Foxbots!!

Are you getting your info about "we certainly took a huge hit on bank bailouts" from Maddow, Matthews and Schultz? That would explain your confusion.
Facts are hard, especially for Dems.

 

[Truthmatters]

I did not infer it took Cox from 1999 to 2007 to pass the rules, I said it was the Bush SEC that held back the rules for years, Cox merely held them back for two years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When was the GLBact passed?

Banks could write mortgages before GLB. Banks could write mortgages after GLB.
You realize that, don't you? LOL!

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Our Economy did go in the Toilet after the Democrats took Congress back. I don't see how Democrats can deny this. Everything seemed to be going pretty good before they took Congress back. Democrats Barney Frank & Chris Dodd had a lot to do with the awful collapse. But hey,it was all about "Blame DA BOOOOOOOSH!!" for the Dems. And i guess that worked. Enough Americans bought it. It's very sad.

 

[Mustang]

Our Economy did go in the Toilet after the Democrats took Congress back. I don't see how Democrats can deny this. Everything seemed to be going pretty good before they took Congress back. Democrats Barney Frank & Chris Dodd had a lot to do with the awful collapse. But hey,it was all about "Blame DA BOOOOOOOSH!!" for the Dems. And i guess that worked. Enough Americans bought it. It's very sad.

The recession started in December 2007. It can't be the fault of the Democrats because they won a landslide election over a year before. It couldn't possibly be the fault of Bush Admission economic policies, could it? I say that since Bush had been in office for almost seven full years.

So, using your <cough> logic about how an immedicate prior event must somehow be the cause of an event that follows it in time, I decided to do some checking into the events of Dec 07. Below is a list (a partial list, to be sure).

Please pick the event that you feel (notice that I didn't say, THINK) caused the recession. This method of choosing is equally as valid as your stated reason seeing as how you've offered no supporting evidence.

December 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On another note. I had an ice cream cone that melted today. I hate it when ice cream causes high temperatures.

 

[Mustang]

Our Economy did go in the Toilet after the Democrats took Congress back. I don't see how Democrats can deny this. Everything seemed to be going pretty good before they took Congress back. Democrats Barney Frank & Chris Dodd had a lot to do with the awful collapse. But hey,it was all about "Blame DA BOOOOOOOSH!!" for the Dems. And i guess that worked. Enough Americans bought it. It's very sad.

Our country was attacked after Bush took the WH back. I don't see how Republicans can deny this. Everything seemed to be going pretty good before he took the WH back. Ergo, the election of George Bush led to the 911 attack.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Both parties had a hand in the meltdown.

The typical-response, when "conservatives" get.....

BUSTED!!!

"The move to retain Weingarten comes as investigations of Goldman and its role in the 2007-2009 financial crisis continue."

GET 'EM, ERIC!!!!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Both parties had a hand in the meltdown.

The typical-response, when "conservatives" get.....

BUSTED!!!

"The move to retain Weingarten comes as investigations of Goldman and its role in the 2007-2009 financial crisis continue."

GET 'EM, ERIC!!!!!!

The Democrats at Goldman caused the meltdown?

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy NewspapersWASHINGTON &#8212; As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.
Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.
Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.Federal Reserve Board data show that: More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics. The "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 President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.
Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages."I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.
Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.
To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication.
One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.During those same explosive three years, private investment banks &#8212; not Fannie and Freddie &#8212; dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.
Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities.Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac &#8212; who in turn pressured banks and other lenders &#8212; to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity.
"Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.
What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.
In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems.

Sorry about facts

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Private mortgagers caused the housing market to collapse- then of course EVERYONE was facked...

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Endangerment-Outsized-Corruption-Armageddon/dp/0805091203]Amazon.com: Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon (9780805091205): Gretchen Morgenson, Joshua Rosner: Books[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Fannie was a criminal enterprise

 

[Steelplate]

What the fuck happened to paragraphs?

Plus, Dems under Clinton had the chance to regulate toxic derivatives, but what did they do? They chased Brooksley Borne out of Washington. Then Obama hired old Clintonites such as Summers, Geithner, and Gensler. Now Gensler is heading the CTFC.

Plus, both parties are responsible. However, Dems played their role.

We are just lucky that Republicans, who controlled both houses under Bush, didn't deregulate Wall Street moving 70% of the mortgage market to Wall Street.

Oh, wait.

Oops, nevermind.

Yeah... and just think... that's what they want to do with the Social Security we've paid into all our lives. Guess the Reptilian Party never learns.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy NewspapersWASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.
Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.
Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.Federal Reserve Board data show that: More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics. The "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 President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.
Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages."I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.
Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.
To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication.
One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.
Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities.Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity.
"Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.
What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.
In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems.

Sorry about facts

"Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication"

The thing about subprime loans held by the private sector is that they caused private losses.
The thing about subprime loans held by the Dem controlled Fannie and Freddie is that they caused the Treasury (U.S. taxpayers) to lose money.

Good job Dems.
Sorry about facts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What the fuck happened to paragraphs?

Plus, Dems under Clinton had the chance to regulate toxic derivatives, but what did they do? They chased Brooksley Borne out of Washington. Then Obama hired old Clintonites such as Summers, Geithner, and Gensler. Now Gensler is heading the CTFC.

Plus, both parties are responsible. However, Dems played their role.

We are just lucky that Republicans, who controlled both houses under Bush, didn't deregulate Wall Street moving 70% of the mortgage market to Wall Street.

Oh, wait.

Oops, nevermind.

Yeah... and just think... that's what they want to do with the Social Security we've paid into all our lives. Guess the Reptilian Party never learns.

Yes, we'd like to get Social Security away from the greedy hands of the politicians.
So they can't piss it away like they did Fannie and Freddie.
Let me hold my own retirement in a 401K-like account.
Screw the idiots in Washington who want to spend it now.
Guess the Dumocrat Party never learns.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Pub dupe BS...

 

[Steelplate]

We are just lucky that Republicans, who controlled both houses under Bush, didn't deregulate Wall Street moving 70% of the mortgage market to Wall Street.

Oh, wait.

Oops, nevermind.

Yeah... and just think... that's what they want to do with the Social Security we've paid into all our lives. Guess the Reptilian Party never learns.

Yes, we'd like to get Social Security away from the greedy hands of the politicians.
So they can't piss it away like they did Fannie and Freddie.
Let me hold my own retirement in a 401K-like account.
Screw the idiots in Washington who want to spend it now.
Guess the Dumocrat Party never learns.

Greedy hands of politicians? Hey, at least they pay it back after they steal it... not so much with Wall Street... they steal it, lose it and then beg the taxpayer for help.

Let YOU hold your own retirement? Naaah. You'll just fuck it up then expect us taxpayers to pay for your welfare. I'd much rather see it in a guaranteed system where you'll actually gain from it without risk.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah... and just think... that's what they want to do with the Social Security we've paid into all our lives. Guess the Reptilian Party never learns.

Yes, we'd like to get Social Security away from the greedy hands of the politicians.
So they can't piss it away like they did Fannie and Freddie.
Let me hold my own retirement in a 401K-like account.
Screw the idiots in Washington who want to spend it now.
Guess the Dumocrat Party never learns.

Greedy hands of politicians? Hey, at least they pay it back after they steal it... not so much with Wall Street... they steal it, lose it and then beg the taxpayer for help.

Let YOU hold your own retirement? Naaah. You'll just fuck it up then expect us taxpayers to pay for your welfare. I'd much rather see it in a guaranteed system where you'll actually gain from it without risk.

The banks already paid back TARP, at a profit to the Treasury.
We'll never get our money back from Fannie and Freddie.
I'll fuck up my own retirement? LOL!
Compared to the geniuses in government, I'm Warren fucking Buffett.
You expect to gain from your Social Security "contributions" without risk?
You're dumber than you sound.

 

[bripat9643]

NOTHING in comparison to private mortgagers- they weren't lying. Rush, Sean, Glenn and pubs are, duh.

Yeah, those evil private mortgage companies: how dare the give mortgages to deadbeats who couldn't pay them! How dare they exploit losers with no income by giving them huge homes to live in!