Failure of the Welfare State

[NYcarbineer]

To make a proper case for proclaiming the failure of the welfare state, one would have to prove (or at least present ample evidence for) the counterfactual, i.e.,

that had the US not implemented any of the poverty programs of the past 50 or more years,

then there would now be less poverty than we have.

No one even attempts to make that case, oddly enough.

You don't recall reading this in the OP?
". … the poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising
welfare spending. In fact, the only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage
of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of
1996)."


Remember, you shouldn’t drink on an empty head.

Your post has nothing to do with my post. I think you may have answered someone else's.

 

[PoliticalChic]

To make a proper case for proclaiming the failure of the welfare state, one would have to prove (or at least present ample evidence for) the counterfactual, i.e.,

that had the US not implemented any of the poverty programs of the past 50 or more years,

then there would now be less poverty than we have.

No one even attempts to make that case, oddly enough.

You don't recall reading this in the OP?
". … the poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising
welfare spending. In fact, the only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage
of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of
1996)."


Remember, you shouldn’t drink on an empty head.

Your post has nothing to do with my post. I think you may have answered someone else's.

1. Marcus Aurelius is supposed to have said "Stand erect, or be made to stand erect."

By making more stringent the eligibility for welfare, and forcing recipients to work, conservative policies were proven correct.

By, in effect, reducing said programs, we fulfilled your request, i.e., " had the US not implemented any of the poverty programs of the past 50 or more years, then there would now be less poverty...."

2. In addition to answering your query, I am now going to show you a guaranteed path to increasing your reputation on the board...

I have a t-shirt that says 'Lord, if you can't make me thin, at least make my friends fat!'

Get the gist?
It's all relative....

My suggestion is that you post only in proximity to posts by franco......you'll look like a genius!!

Your welcome.

 

[NYcarbineer]

FOOD STAMPS HELPED REDUCE THE POVERTY RATE, STUDY FINDS

WASHINGTON — A new study by the Agriculture Department has found that food stamps, one of the country’s largest social safety net programs, reduced the poverty rate substantially during the recent recession. The food stamp program, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, reduced the poverty rate by nearly 8 percent in 2009, the most recent year included in the study, a significant impact for a social program whose effects often go unnoticed by policy makers.

...The stimulus package pushed by President Obama and enacted by Congress significantly boosted funding for the program as a temporary relief for families who had fallen on hard times in the recession.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/us/food-stamp-program-helping-reduce-poverty.html

*****

So, contrary to the illusions of the OP, the social programs for the poor actually, irrefutably, kept the poverty rate from being even worse.

And note that the GOP, in order to pay for tax cuts for Mitt and Ann Romney and their fellow rich folks, want to CUT the food stamp program,

thus putting more people back into poverty.

bump for the slow learners.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some more actual factual data for the few here who might care about the facts:

CARPE DIEM: U.S. Poverty Rate: 1959 to 2009

 

[PoliticalChic]

FOOD STAMPS HELPED REDUCE THE POVERTY RATE, STUDY FINDS

WASHINGTON — A new study by the Agriculture Department has found that food stamps, one of the country’s largest social safety net programs, reduced the poverty rate substantially during the recent recession. The food stamp program, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, reduced the poverty rate by nearly 8 percent in 2009, the most recent year included in the study, a significant impact for a social program whose effects often go unnoticed by policy makers.

...The stimulus package pushed by President Obama and enacted by Congress significantly boosted funding for the program as a temporary relief for families who had fallen on hard times in the recession.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/us/food-stamp-program-helping-reduce-poverty.html

*****

So, contrary to the illusions of the OP, the social programs for the poor actually, irrefutably, kept the poverty rate from being even worse.

And note that the GOP, in order to pay for tax cuts for Mitt and Ann Romney and their fellow rich folks, want to CUT the food stamp program,

thus putting more people back into poverty.

bump for the slow learners.

"...as a temporary relief..."

The 'slow learners' are the folks who believe that any of the efforts will be temporary....


"According to Obama administration projections, combined federal and state welfare spending will not drop significantly once the
economy fully recovers. As we have seen, welfare spending has continued to increase." Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal
Year 2010 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2008), CD-ROM, Table 24-14, http:/ www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical Perspectives.


Let's review:
The Liberal plan is to put more and more folks on the rolls, and never, ever let them get off the welfare rolls.

This was predicted by Alexis de Tocqueville, almost 200 years ago:

Alexis de Tocqueville, writing “Democracy in America” in the 1830’s, described “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.” It is entirely proper to ask, as he asked, whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”


Again: ...relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking...


Shoe fit?

 

[The T]

FOOD STAMPS HELPED REDUCE THE POVERTY RATE, STUDY FINDS

WASHINGTON — A new study by the Agriculture Department has found that food stamps, one of the country’s largest social safety net programs, reduced the poverty rate substantially during the recent recession. The food stamp program, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, reduced the poverty rate by nearly 8 percent in 2009, the most recent year included in the study, a significant impact for a social program whose effects often go unnoticed by policy makers.

...The stimulus package pushed by President Obama and enacted by Congress significantly boosted funding for the program as a temporary relief for families who had fallen on hard times in the recession.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/us/food-stamp-program-helping-reduce-poverty.html

*****

So, contrary to the illusions of the OP, the social programs for the poor actually, irrefutably, kept the poverty rate from being even worse.

And note that the GOP, in order to pay for tax cuts for Mitt and Ann Romney and their fellow rich folks, want to CUT the food stamp program,

thus putting more people back into poverty.

bump for the slow learners.

"...as a temporary relief..."

The 'slow learners' are the folks who believe that any of the efforts will be temporary....


"According to Obama administration projections, combined federal and state welfare spending will not drop significantly once the
economy fully recovers. As we have seen, welfare spending has continued to increase." Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal
Year 2010 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2008), CD-ROM, Table 24-14, http:/ www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical Perspectives.


Let's review:
The Liberal plan is to put more and more folks on the rolls, and never, ever let them get off the welfare rolls.

This was predicted by Alexis de Tocqueville, almost 200 years ago:

Alexis de Tocqueville, writing “Democracy in America” in the 1830’s, described “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.” It is entirely proper to ask, as he asked, whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”


Again: ...relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking...


Shoe fit?

Nothing with Government and encroachment upon Liberty...is ever temporary.

 

[NYcarbineer]

FOOD STAMPS HELPED REDUCE THE POVERTY RATE, STUDY FINDS

WASHINGTON — A new study by the Agriculture Department has found that food stamps, one of the country’s largest social safety net programs, reduced the poverty rate substantially during the recent recession. The food stamp program, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, reduced the poverty rate by nearly 8 percent in 2009, the most recent year included in the study, a significant impact for a social program whose effects often go unnoticed by policy makers.

...The stimulus package pushed by President Obama and enacted by Congress significantly boosted funding for the program as a temporary relief for families who had fallen on hard times in the recession.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/us/food-stamp-program-helping-reduce-poverty.html

*****

So, contrary to the illusions of the OP, the social programs for the poor actually, irrefutably, kept the poverty rate from being even worse.

And note that the GOP, in order to pay for tax cuts for Mitt and Ann Romney and their fellow rich folks, want to CUT the food stamp program,

thus putting more people back into poverty.

bump for the slow learners.

"...as a temporary relief..."

The 'slow learners' are the folks who believe that any of the efforts will be temporary....


"According to Obama administration projections, combined federal and state welfare spending will not drop significantly once the
economy fully recovers. As we have seen, welfare spending has continued to increase." Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal
Year 2010 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2008), CD-ROM, Table 24-14, http:/ www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical Perspectives.


Let's review:
The Liberal plan is to put more and more folks on the rolls, and never, ever let them get off the welfare rolls.

This was predicted by Alexis de Tocqueville, almost 200 years ago:

Alexis de Tocqueville, writing “Democracy in America” in the 1830’s, described “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.” It is entirely proper to ask, as he asked, whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”


Again: ...relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking...


Shoe fit?

As the chart below shows to those of you without the common sense to figure it out on your own,
the poverty rate goes up and down with the business cycle.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You people are complaining about the poverty rate at the same time you want to cut spending that will cause the poverty rate to go even higher.

That is not rational.

 

[Bfgrn]

1. "News that the poverty rate has risen to 15.1
percent of Americans, the highest level in nearly
a decade, has set off a predictable round of calls
for increased government spending on social
welfare programs. Yet this year the federal
government will spend more than $668 billion on at
least 126 different programs to fight poverty.
And that does not even begin to count welfare
spending by state and local governments, which
adds $284 billion to that figure. In total, the
United States spends nearly $1 trillion every
year to fight poverty. That amounts to $20,610
for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per
poor family of three.

2. In fact, since
President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more
than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15
trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the
poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.


3. Throwing money at the problem has neither
reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient.

4. Since 1964 the federal government spent roughly $12 trillion fighting
poverty, and state and local governments
added another $3 trillion. Yet the poverty
rate never fell below 10.5 percent and is now
at the highest level in nearly a decade.


5. ...federal welfare spending alone totals more than $14,848 for every poor man,
woman, and child in this country. For a typical poor family of three, that amounts to
more than $44,500. Combined with state and
local spending, government spends $20,610
for every poor person in America, or $61,830
per poor family of three. Given that the poverty line for that family is just $18,530, we
should have theoretically wiped out poverty
in America many times over.

6. . … the poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising
welfare spending. In fact, the only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage
of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of
1996).


7. The vast majority of current programs are focused
on making poverty more comfortable—giving poor people more food, better shelter,
health care, and so forth—rather than giving
people the tools that will help them escape
poverty. And we actually have a pretty solid
idea of the keys to getting out of and staying
out of poverty: (1) finish school; (2) do not
get pregnant outside marriage; and (3) get a
job, any job, and stick with it.

a. ...we can add one more important stepping stone on
the road out of poverty—savings and the accumulation of wealth.
... “for the vast majority of households,
the pathway out of poverty is not through
consumption, but through saving and accumulation.”
Michael Sherraden, Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1991)."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf
Scribd


Again:
"only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility,"

So....conservatives were right....

The choice in November is clear.

Are you that disingenuous or that ignorant?

Do you know WHY since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent?

If an alcoholic has sclerosis of the liver, would you blame the doctor?

 

[PoliticalChic]

bump for the slow learners.

"...as a temporary relief..."

The 'slow learners' are the folks who believe that any of the efforts will be temporary....


"According to Obama administration projections, combined federal and state welfare spending will not drop significantly once the
economy fully recovers. As we have seen, welfare spending has continued to increase." Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal
Year 2010 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2008), CD-ROM, Table 24-14, http:/ www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical Perspectives.


Let's review:
The Liberal plan is to put more and more folks on the rolls, and never, ever let them get off the welfare rolls.

This was predicted by Alexis de Tocqueville, almost 200 years ago:

Alexis de Tocqueville, writing “Democracy in America” in the 1830’s, described “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.” It is entirely proper to ask, as he asked, whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”


Again: ...relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking...


Shoe fit?

As the chart below shows to those of you without the common sense to figure it out on your own,
the poverty rate goes up and down with the business cycle.

So....now you agree with the OP?

There was no reason to waste the $15 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "News that the poverty rate has risen to 15.1
percent of Americans, the highest level in nearly
a decade, has set off a predictable round of calls
for increased government spending on social
welfare programs. Yet this year the federal
government will spend more than $668 billion on at
least 126 different programs to fight poverty.
And that does not even begin to count welfare
spending by state and local governments, which
adds $284 billion to that figure. In total, the
United States spends nearly $1 trillion every
year to fight poverty. That amounts to $20,610
for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per
poor family of three.

2. In fact, since
President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more
than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15
trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the
poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.


3. Throwing money at the problem has neither
reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient.

4. Since 1964 the federal government spent roughly $12 trillion fighting
poverty, and state and local governments
added another $3 trillion. Yet the poverty
rate never fell below 10.5 percent and is now
at the highest level in nearly a decade.


5. ...federal welfare spending alone totals more than $14,848 for every poor man,
woman, and child in this country. For a typical poor family of three, that amounts to
more than $44,500. Combined with state and
local spending, government spends $20,610
for every poor person in America, or $61,830
per poor family of three. Given that the poverty line for that family is just $18,530, we
should have theoretically wiped out poverty
in America many times over.

6. . … the poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising
welfare spending. In fact, the only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage
of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of
1996).


7. The vast majority of current programs are focused
on making poverty more comfortable—giving poor people more food, better shelter,
health care, and so forth—rather than giving
people the tools that will help them escape
poverty. And we actually have a pretty solid
idea of the keys to getting out of and staying
out of poverty: (1) finish school; (2) do not
get pregnant outside marriage; and (3) get a
job, any job, and stick with it.

a. ...we can add one more important stepping stone on
the road out of poverty—savings and the accumulation of wealth.
... “for the vast majority of households,
the pathway out of poverty is not through
consumption, but through saving and accumulation.”
Michael Sherraden, Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1991)."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf
Scribd


Again:
"only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility,"

So....conservatives were right....

The choice in November is clear.

Are you that disingenuous or that ignorant?

Do you know WHY since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent?

If an alcoholic has sclerosis of the liver, would you blame the doctor?

1. "Do you know WHY since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent?"

Sure....

Obama told all that the welfare wasn't because folks needed the money....

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.
Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.
"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."


Read more: OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT - NYPOST.com


He...and you....have this loopy idea that taking from the producers and giving it to any who don't work is a good plan.
That's what you believe, isn't it?


2. "Are you that disingenuous or that ignorant?"

Hey...you forgot choice "c".....What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of us left.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You people are complaining about the poverty rate at the same time you want to cut spending that will cause the poverty rate to go even higher.

That is not rational.

"...you want to cut spending that will cause the poverty rate to go even higher."


This post blurs the line between insanity and stupidity…
You can't be this dumb....unless you're a franco!

I just proved twice that that is the exact opposite of what happens!!!!

Don't make me go to all caps!!

One more time:

". … the poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising
welfare spending. In fact, the only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage
of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of
1996).



See if you can get your next post to come with coo-coo clock sound effects.

 

[The T]

You people are complaining about the poverty rate at the same time you want to cut spending that will cause the poverty rate to go even higher.

That is not rational.

"...you want to cut spending that will cause the poverty rate to go even higher."


This post blurs the line between insanity and stupidity…
You can't be this dumb....unless you're a franco!

I just proved twice that that is the exact opposite of what happens!!!!

Don't make me go to all caps!!

One more time:

". … the poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising
welfare spending. In fact, the only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage
of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of
1996).



See if you can get your next post to come with coo-coo clock sound effects.

Clinton begrudgingly signed it.

 

[Bfgrn]

1. "News that the poverty rate has risen to 15.1
percent of Americans, the highest level in nearly
a decade, has set off a predictable round of calls
for increased government spending on social
welfare programs. Yet this year the federal
government will spend more than $668 billion on at
least 126 different programs to fight poverty.
And that does not even begin to count welfare
spending by state and local governments, which
adds $284 billion to that figure. In total, the
United States spends nearly $1 trillion every
year to fight poverty. That amounts to $20,610
for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per
poor family of three.

2. In fact, since
President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more
than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15
trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the
poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.


3. Throwing money at the problem has neither
reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient.

4. Since 1964 the federal government spent roughly $12 trillion fighting
poverty, and state and local governments
added another $3 trillion. Yet the poverty
rate never fell below 10.5 percent and is now
at the highest level in nearly a decade.


5. ...federal welfare spending alone totals more than $14,848 for every poor man,
woman, and child in this country. For a typical poor family of three, that amounts to
more than $44,500. Combined with state and
local spending, government spends $20,610
for every poor person in America, or $61,830
per poor family of three. Given that the poverty line for that family is just $18,530, we
should have theoretically wiped out poverty
in America many times over.

6. . … the poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 1965, despite rising
welfare spending. In fact, the only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage
of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of
1996).


7. The vast majority of current programs are focused
on making poverty more comfortable—giving poor people more food, better shelter,
health care, and so forth—rather than giving
people the tools that will help them escape
poverty. And we actually have a pretty solid
idea of the keys to getting out of and staying
out of poverty: (1) finish school; (2) do not
get pregnant outside marriage; and (3) get a
job, any job, and stick with it.

a. ...we can add one more important stepping stone on
the road out of poverty—savings and the accumulation of wealth.
... “for the vast majority of households,
the pathway out of poverty is not through
consumption, but through saving and accumulation.”
Michael Sherraden, Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1991)."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf
Scribd


Again:
"only appreciable decline occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility,"

So....conservatives were right....

The choice in November is clear.

Are you that disingenuous or that ignorant?

Do you know WHY since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent?

If an alcoholic has sclerosis of the liver, would you blame the doctor?

1. "Do you know WHY since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent?"

Sure....

Obama told all that the welfare wasn't because folks needed the money....

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.
Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.
"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."


Read more: OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT - NYPOST.com


He...and you....have this loopy idea that taking from the producers and giving it to any who don't work is a good plan.
That's what you believe, isn't it?


2. "Are you that disingenuous or that ignorant?"

Hey...you forgot choice "c".....What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of us left.

Did anyone tell you about the economic crisis under Bush, where millions of people lost their jobs?

Now, LIST the laws Obama changed that would allow more people to qualify for relief than before he took office?


Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you that disingenuous or that ignorant?

Do you know WHY since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent?

If an alcoholic has sclerosis of the liver, would you blame the doctor?

1. "Do you know WHY since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent?"

Sure....

Obama told all that the welfare wasn't because folks needed the money....

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.
Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.
"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."


Read more: OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT - NYPOST.com


He...and you....have this loopy idea that taking from the producers and giving it to any who don't work is a good plan.
That's what you believe, isn't it?


2. "Are you that disingenuous or that ignorant?"

Hey...you forgot choice "c".....What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of us left.

Did anyone tell you about the economic crisis under Bush, where millions of people lost their jobs?

Now,than before he took office?


Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

"Did anyone tell you about the economic crisis under Bush, where millions of people lost their jobs?"

Wait a minute....it rings a bell......

Oh...yeah......the one brought about by the policies of Democrat-Liberal-Progressives!!!

Yup...


That would be the adventure into side-stepping the United States Constitution by FDR, when he decided that it allowed him to support private home ownership via Freddy and Fanny, the GSE's.....

and then more Democrat shenanigans:
(now...pay particular attention to my insertions and bolding! It will teach you a lot!)

"a. [Democrat] Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

c. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

d. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, [Democrat] Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

e. [Democrat] Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.

f. Shortly after Cisneros announced his plan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agreed to begin buying loans under new, looser guidelines. Freddie Mac, for instance, started approving low-income buyers with bad credit histories or none at all, so long as they were current on rent and utilities payments. Freddie Mac also said that it would begin counting income from seasonal jobs and public assistance toward its income minimum, despite the FHA disaster of the sixties.

g. Freddie Mac began an “alternative qualifying” program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldn’t exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates.

h. Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, [Democrat] Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, [Democrat] Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA “among the most egregious redliners.”

i. Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the core of the subprime meltdown.

j. A 1998 sales pitch by a Bear Stearns managing director advised banks to begin packaging their loans to low-income borrowers into securities that the firm could sell. Forget traditional underwriting standards when considering these loans, the director advised. For a low-income borrower, he continued in all-too-familiar terms, owning a home was “a near-sacred obligation. A family will do almost anything to meet that monthly mortgage payment.” Bunk, says Stan Liebowitz, a professor of economics at the University of Texas: “The [Liberal] claim that lower-income homeowners are somehow different in their devotion to their home is a purely emotional claim with no evidence to support it.”

k. Any concern was quickly dismissed. When in early 2000 the FDIC proposed increasing capital requirements for lenders making “subprime” loans—loans to people with questionable credit, that is—Democratic representative Carolyn Maloney of New York told a congressional hearing that she feared that the step would dry up CRA loans. Her fellow New York Democrat John J. LaFalce urged regulators “not to be premature” in imposing new regulations.

l. In July 1999, HUD proposed new levels for Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s low-income lending; in September, Fannie Mae agreed to begin purchasing loans made to “borrowers with slightly impaired credit”—that is, with credit standards even lower than the government had been pushing for a generation.

m. In 2004 Congress pressed new affordable-housing goals on the two mortgage giants, which through 2007 purchased some $1 trillion in loans to lower- and moderate-income buyers. The buying spree helped spark a massive increase in securitization of mortgages to people with dubious credit.

n. In October 1994, Fannie Mae head James Johnson had reminded a banking convention that mortgages with small down payments had a much higher risk of defaulting. (A Duff & Phelps study found that they were nearly three times more likely to default than conventional mortgages.) Yet the very next month, Fannie Mae said that it expected to back loans to low-income home buyers with a 97 percent loan-to-value ratio—that is, loans in which the buyer puts down just 3 percent—as part of a commitment, made earlier that year to Congress, to purchase $1 trillion in affordable-housing mortgages by the end of the nineties. According to Edward Pinto, who served as the company’s chief credit officer, the program was the result of political pressure on Fannie Mae trumping lending standards.

o. In 1992, the Boston Fed produced an extraordinary 29-page document that codified the new [Liberal] lending wisdom. Conventional mortgage criteria, the report argued, might be “unintentionally biased” because they didn’t take into account “the economic culture of urban, lower-income and nontraditional customers.” Lenders should thus consider junking the industry’s traditional income-to-payments ratio and stop viewing an applicant’s “lack of credit history” as a “negative factor.” Further, if applicants had bad credit, banks should “consider extenuating circumstances”—even though a study by mortgage insurance companies would soon show, not surprisingly, that borrowers with no credit rating or a bad one were far more likely to default. If applicants didn’t have enough savings for a down payment, the Boston Fed urged, banks should allow loans from nonprofits or government assistance agencies to count toward one. A later study of Freddie Mac mortgages would find that a borrower who made a down payment with third-party funds was four times more likely to default, a reminder that traditional underwriting standards weren’t arbitrary but based on historical lending patterns.

p. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus launched Hogar in 2003, an initiative that pushed for easing [Liberal] lending standards for immigrants, including touting so-called seller-financed mortgages in which a builder provided down-payment aid to buyers via contributions to nonprofit groups. As a result, mortgage lending to Hispanics soared. And today, in districts where Hispanics make up at least 25 percent of the population, foreclosure rates are now nearly 50 percent higher than the national average, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.

q. [Liberal] Republicans and Democrats, meanwhile, have scrambled to reignite the housing market through ill-conceived tax credits and renewed federal subsidies for mortgages, including the Obama administration’s mortgage bailout plan, which recalls the New Deal’s HOLC. Behind these [Progressive] efforts is a fundamental misconception among politicians that housing drives the American economy and therefore demands subsidy at virtually any cost. Our praiseworthy initial efforts—to eliminate housing discrimination and provide all Americans an equal opportunity to buy a home—were eventually turned on their heads by advocates and politicians, who instead tried to ensure equality of outcomes."
Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009

Imagine how much misery could have been avoided if America had not elected Wilson and FDR???
Wow!


"... LIST the laws Obama changed that would allow more people to qualify for relief ..."


a….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part
of the program’s growth is due to conscious
policy choices by this administration to ease
eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have
risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007
and are now roughly 10 percent higher than
they were when Obama took office.
Casey Mulligan, “The Sharp Increase in
the Food Stamps Program,” Economix, http://
economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/thesharp-increase-in-the-food-stamps-program/.

b. …the stimulus bill included a provision that created a new “emergency fund” to help states pay for added welfare recipients, with the federal government
footing 80 percent of the cost for the new “clients.”
Robert Rector and Katherine Bradley, “Stimulus Bill Abolishes Welfare Reform and Adds New
Welfare Spending,” Heritage Foundation, http://
www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/02/
s t imulus -bi l l - abol i she s -we l f a r e - r e form- andadds-new-welfare-spending.

c. This was an important change
because it undid many of the incentives contained in the 1996 Clinton welfare reform,
which helped states to reduce welfare rolls.
Under the new rules, states that succeed in
getting people off welfare lose the opportunity for increased federal funding. And
states that make it easier to stay on welfare
(by, say, raising the time limit from two years
to five) are rewarded with more taxpayer
cash. The bill even let states with rising welfare rolls continue to collect their “case-load
reduction” bonuses.
Mickey Kaus, “The Money Liberal Conspiracy at Work,” Slate, http://www.slate.com/blogs/ kausfiles/2009/02/10/the_money_liberal_con
spiracy_at_work.html.

d. According to Obama administration projections, combined federal and state welfare spending will not drop significantly once the
economy fully recovers. As we have seen, welfare spending has continued to increase. Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal
Year 2010 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2008), CD-ROM, Table 24-14, http:/ www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical Perspectives.

 

[Bfgrn]

1. "Do you know WHY since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent?"

Sure....

Obama told all that the welfare wasn't because folks needed the money....

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.
Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.
"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."


Read more: OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT - NYPOST.com


He...and you....have this loopy idea that taking from the producers and giving it to any who don't work is a good plan.
That's what you believe, isn't it?


2. "Are you that disingenuous or that ignorant?"

Hey...you forgot choice "c".....What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of us left.

Did anyone tell you about the economic crisis under Bush, where millions of people lost their jobs?

Now,than before he took office?


Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

"Did anyone tell you about the economic crisis under Bush, where millions of people lost their jobs?"

Wait a minute....it rings a bell......

Oh...yeah......the one brought about by the policies of Democrat-Liberal-Progressives!!!

Yup...


That would be the adventure into side-stepping the United States Constitution by FDR, when he decided that it allowed him to support private home ownership via Freddy and Fanny, the GSE's.....

and then more Democrat shenanigans:
(now...pay particular attention to my insertions and bolding! It will teach you a lot!)

"a. [Democrat] Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

c. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

d. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, [Democrat] Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

e. [Democrat] Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.

f. Shortly after Cisneros announced his plan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agreed to begin buying loans under new, looser guidelines. Freddie Mac, for instance, started approving low-income buyers with bad credit histories or none at all, so long as they were current on rent and utilities payments. Freddie Mac also said that it would begin counting income from seasonal jobs and public assistance toward its income minimum, despite the FHA disaster of the sixties.

g. Freddie Mac began an “alternative qualifying” program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldn’t exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates.

h. Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, [Democrat] Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, [Democrat] Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA “among the most egregious redliners.”

i. Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the core of the subprime meltdown.

j. A 1998 sales pitch by a Bear Stearns managing director advised banks to begin packaging their loans to low-income borrowers into securities that the firm could sell. Forget traditional underwriting standards when considering these loans, the director advised. For a low-income borrower, he continued in all-too-familiar terms, owning a home was “a near-sacred obligation. A family will do almost anything to meet that monthly mortgage payment.” Bunk, says Stan Liebowitz, a professor of economics at the University of Texas: “The [Liberal] claim that lower-income homeowners are somehow different in their devotion to their home is a purely emotional claim with no evidence to support it.”

k. Any concern was quickly dismissed. When in early 2000 the FDIC proposed increasing capital requirements for lenders making “subprime” loans—loans to people with questionable credit, that is—Democratic representative Carolyn Maloney of New York told a congressional hearing that she feared that the step would dry up CRA loans. Her fellow New York Democrat John J. LaFalce urged regulators “not to be premature” in imposing new regulations.

l. In July 1999, HUD proposed new levels for Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s low-income lending; in September, Fannie Mae agreed to begin purchasing loans made to “borrowers with slightly impaired credit”—that is, with credit standards even lower than the government had been pushing for a generation.

m. In 2004 Congress pressed new affordable-housing goals on the two mortgage giants, which through 2007 purchased some $1 trillion in loans to lower- and moderate-income buyers. The buying spree helped spark a massive increase in securitization of mortgages to people with dubious credit.

n. In October 1994, Fannie Mae head James Johnson had reminded a banking convention that mortgages with small down payments had a much higher risk of defaulting. (A Duff & Phelps study found that they were nearly three times more likely to default than conventional mortgages.) Yet the very next month, Fannie Mae said that it expected to back loans to low-income home buyers with a 97 percent loan-to-value ratio—that is, loans in which the buyer puts down just 3 percent—as part of a commitment, made earlier that year to Congress, to purchase $1 trillion in affordable-housing mortgages by the end of the nineties. According to Edward Pinto, who served as the company’s chief credit officer, the program was the result of political pressure on Fannie Mae trumping lending standards.

o. In 1992, the Boston Fed produced an extraordinary 29-page document that codified the new [Liberal] lending wisdom. Conventional mortgage criteria, the report argued, might be “unintentionally biased” because they didn’t take into account “the economic culture of urban, lower-income and nontraditional customers.” Lenders should thus consider junking the industry’s traditional income-to-payments ratio and stop viewing an applicant’s “lack of credit history” as a “negative factor.” Further, if applicants had bad credit, banks should “consider extenuating circumstances”—even though a study by mortgage insurance companies would soon show, not surprisingly, that borrowers with no credit rating or a bad one were far more likely to default. If applicants didn’t have enough savings for a down payment, the Boston Fed urged, banks should allow loans from nonprofits or government assistance agencies to count toward one. A later study of Freddie Mac mortgages would find that a borrower who made a down payment with third-party funds was four times more likely to default, a reminder that traditional underwriting standards weren’t arbitrary but based on historical lending patterns.

p. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus launched Hogar in 2003, an initiative that pushed for easing [Liberal] lending standards for immigrants, including touting so-called seller-financed mortgages in which a builder provided down-payment aid to buyers via contributions to nonprofit groups. As a result, mortgage lending to Hispanics soared. And today, in districts where Hispanics make up at least 25 percent of the population, foreclosure rates are now nearly 50 percent higher than the national average, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.

q. [Liberal] Republicans and Democrats, meanwhile, have scrambled to reignite the housing market through ill-conceived tax credits and renewed federal subsidies for mortgages, including the Obama administration’s mortgage bailout plan, which recalls the New Deal’s HOLC. Behind these [Progressive] efforts is a fundamental misconception among politicians that housing drives the American economy and therefore demands subsidy at virtually any cost. Our praiseworthy initial efforts—to eliminate housing discrimination and provide all Americans an equal opportunity to buy a home—were eventually turned on their heads by advocates and politicians, who instead tried to ensure equality of outcomes."
Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009

Imagine how much misery could have been avoided if America had not elected Wilson and FDR???
Wow!


"... LIST the laws Obama changed that would allow more people to qualify for relief ..."


a….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part
of the program’s growth is due to conscious
policy choices by this administration to ease
eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have
risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007
and are now roughly 10 percent higher than
they were when Obama took office.
Casey Mulligan, “The Sharp Increase in
the Food Stamps Program,” Economix, http://
economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/thesharp-increase-in-the-food-stamps-program/.

b. …the stimulus bill included a provision that created a new “emergency fund” to help states pay for added welfare recipients, with the federal government
footing 80 percent of the cost for the new “clients.”
Robert Rector and Katherine Bradley, “Stimulus Bill Abolishes Welfare Reform and Adds New
Welfare Spending,” Heritage Foundation, http://
www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/02/
s t imulus -bi l l - abol i she s -we l f a r e - r e form- andadds-new-welfare-spending.

c. This was an important change
because it undid many of the incentives contained in the 1996 Clinton welfare reform,
which helped states to reduce welfare rolls.
Under the new rules, states that succeed in
getting people off welfare lose the opportunity for increased federal funding. And
states that make it easier to stay on welfare
(by, say, raising the time limit from two years
to five) are rewarded with more taxpayer
cash. The bill even let states with rising welfare rolls continue to collect their “case-load
reduction” bonuses.
Mickey Kaus, “The Money Liberal Conspiracy at Work,” Slate, http://www.slate.com/blogs/ kausfiles/2009/02/10/the_money_liberal_con
spiracy_at_work.html.

d. According to Obama administration projections, combined federal and state welfare spending will not drop significantly once the
economy fully recovers. As we have seen, welfare spending has continued to increase. Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal
Year 2010 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2008), CD-ROM, Table 24-14, http:/ www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical Perspectives.

WOW, I'm impressed. I have never seen better propaganda. Unfortunately it is all false. You truly have been totally brainwashed...totally.

Here is what we DO know about the financial crisis:

1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.

2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.

3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.

4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.

The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a large segment of buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from their mortgages, leaving people who bought homes to live in with lower values on their house and neighborhood.

AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN


WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA

WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA - The Sequel

Reuters - UPDATE 2-Lending to poor didn't spur crisis

Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act

Business Insider - Here's Why Fannie And Freddie Are Not At Fault For The Housing Bubble

Center for Responsible Lending - CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown

Don't blame Fannie and Freddie

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

ForeclosureS.com - ACORN - Progress in the Fight Against Predatory Lending

Acorn Led Financial Sector With Warnings on Lending

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

The Millionaire Foreclosure Club

Foreclosure double standard: Why the rich get away with defaulting

More Rich People Default On Mortgages

The rich bail faster on mortgages

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

Rich Borrowers More Likely to Default on Mortgage

Foreclosures & Walking Away: 60 Minutes Eyes an ‘Epidemic’

Speculation By Investors Largely Cause Of Foreclosure Crisis

How the Foreclosure Crisis Started: Investors, Speculators, Mortgage Fraud & Lax Lending Standards


"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did anyone tell you about the economic crisis under Bush, where millions of people lost their jobs?

Now,than before he took office?


Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

"Did anyone tell you about the economic crisis under Bush, where millions of people lost their jobs?"

Wait a minute....it rings a bell......

Oh...yeah......the one brought about by the policies of Democrat-Liberal-Progressives!!!

Yup...


That would be the adventure into side-stepping the United States Constitution by FDR, when he decided that it allowed him to support private home ownership via Freddy and Fanny, the GSE's.....

and then more Democrat shenanigans:
(now...pay particular attention to my insertions and bolding! It will teach you a lot!)

"a. [Democrat] Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

c. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

d. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, [Democrat] Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

e. [Democrat] Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.

f. Shortly after Cisneros announced his plan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agreed to begin buying loans under new, looser guidelines. Freddie Mac, for instance, started approving low-income buyers with bad credit histories or none at all, so long as they were current on rent and utilities payments. Freddie Mac also said that it would begin counting income from seasonal jobs and public assistance toward its income minimum, despite the FHA disaster of the sixties.

g. Freddie Mac began an “alternative qualifying” program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldn’t exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates.

h. Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, [Democrat] Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, [Democrat] Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA “among the most egregious redliners.”

i. Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the core of the subprime meltdown.

j. A 1998 sales pitch by a Bear Stearns managing director advised banks to begin packaging their loans to low-income borrowers into securities that the firm could sell. Forget traditional underwriting standards when considering these loans, the director advised. For a low-income borrower, he continued in all-too-familiar terms, owning a home was “a near-sacred obligation. A family will do almost anything to meet that monthly mortgage payment.” Bunk, says Stan Liebowitz, a professor of economics at the University of Texas: “The [Liberal] claim that lower-income homeowners are somehow different in their devotion to their home is a purely emotional claim with no evidence to support it.”

k. Any concern was quickly dismissed. When in early 2000 the FDIC proposed increasing capital requirements for lenders making “subprime” loans—loans to people with questionable credit, that is—Democratic representative Carolyn Maloney of New York told a congressional hearing that she feared that the step would dry up CRA loans. Her fellow New York Democrat John J. LaFalce urged regulators “not to be premature” in imposing new regulations.

l. In July 1999, HUD proposed new levels for Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s low-income lending; in September, Fannie Mae agreed to begin purchasing loans made to “borrowers with slightly impaired credit”—that is, with credit standards even lower than the government had been pushing for a generation.

m. In 2004 Congress pressed new affordable-housing goals on the two mortgage giants, which through 2007 purchased some $1 trillion in loans to lower- and moderate-income buyers. The buying spree helped spark a massive increase in securitization of mortgages to people with dubious credit.

n. In October 1994, Fannie Mae head James Johnson had reminded a banking convention that mortgages with small down payments had a much higher risk of defaulting. (A Duff & Phelps study found that they were nearly three times more likely to default than conventional mortgages.) Yet the very next month, Fannie Mae said that it expected to back loans to low-income home buyers with a 97 percent loan-to-value ratio—that is, loans in which the buyer puts down just 3 percent—as part of a commitment, made earlier that year to Congress, to purchase $1 trillion in affordable-housing mortgages by the end of the nineties. According to Edward Pinto, who served as the company’s chief credit officer, the program was the result of political pressure on Fannie Mae trumping lending standards.

o. In 1992, the Boston Fed produced an extraordinary 29-page document that codified the new [Liberal] lending wisdom. Conventional mortgage criteria, the report argued, might be “unintentionally biased” because they didn’t take into account “the economic culture of urban, lower-income and nontraditional customers.” Lenders should thus consider junking the industry’s traditional income-to-payments ratio and stop viewing an applicant’s “lack of credit history” as a “negative factor.” Further, if applicants had bad credit, banks should “consider extenuating circumstances”—even though a study by mortgage insurance companies would soon show, not surprisingly, that borrowers with no credit rating or a bad one were far more likely to default. If applicants didn’t have enough savings for a down payment, the Boston Fed urged, banks should allow loans from nonprofits or government assistance agencies to count toward one. A later study of Freddie Mac mortgages would find that a borrower who made a down payment with third-party funds was four times more likely to default, a reminder that traditional underwriting standards weren’t arbitrary but based on historical lending patterns.

p. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus launched Hogar in 2003, an initiative that pushed for easing [Liberal] lending standards for immigrants, including touting so-called seller-financed mortgages in which a builder provided down-payment aid to buyers via contributions to nonprofit groups. As a result, mortgage lending to Hispanics soared. And today, in districts where Hispanics make up at least 25 percent of the population, foreclosure rates are now nearly 50 percent higher than the national average, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.

q. [Liberal] Republicans and Democrats, meanwhile, have scrambled to reignite the housing market through ill-conceived tax credits and renewed federal subsidies for mortgages, including the Obama administration’s mortgage bailout plan, which recalls the New Deal’s HOLC. Behind these [Progressive] efforts is a fundamental misconception among politicians that housing drives the American economy and therefore demands subsidy at virtually any cost. Our praiseworthy initial efforts—to eliminate housing discrimination and provide all Americans an equal opportunity to buy a home—were eventually turned on their heads by advocates and politicians, who instead tried to ensure equality of outcomes."
Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009

Imagine how much misery could have been avoided if America had not elected Wilson and FDR???
Wow!


"... LIST the laws Obama changed that would allow more people to qualify for relief ..."


a….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part
of the program’s growth is due to conscious
policy choices by this administration to ease
eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have
risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007
and are now roughly 10 percent higher than
they were when Obama took office.
Casey Mulligan, “The Sharp Increase in
the Food Stamps Program,” Economix, http://
economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/thesharp-increase-in-the-food-stamps-program/.

b. …the stimulus bill included a provision that created a new “emergency fund” to help states pay for added welfare recipients, with the federal government
footing 80 percent of the cost for the new “clients.”
Robert Rector and Katherine Bradley, “Stimulus Bill Abolishes Welfare Reform and Adds New
Welfare Spending,” Heritage Foundation, http://
www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/02/
s t imulus -bi l l - abol i she s -we l f a r e - r e form- andadds-new-welfare-spending.

c. This was an important change
because it undid many of the incentives contained in the 1996 Clinton welfare reform,
which helped states to reduce welfare rolls.
Under the new rules, states that succeed in
getting people off welfare lose the opportunity for increased federal funding. And
states that make it easier to stay on welfare
(by, say, raising the time limit from two years
to five) are rewarded with more taxpayer
cash. The bill even let states with rising welfare rolls continue to collect their “case-load
reduction” bonuses.
Mickey Kaus, “The Money Liberal Conspiracy at Work,” Slate, http://www.slate.com/blogs/ kausfiles/2009/02/10/the_money_liberal_con
spiracy_at_work.html.

d. According to Obama administration projections, combined federal and state welfare spending will not drop significantly once the
economy fully recovers. As we have seen, welfare spending has continued to increase. Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal
Year 2010 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2008), CD-ROM, Table 24-14, http:/ www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical Perspectives.

WOW, I'm impressed. I have never seen better propaganda. Unfortunately it is all false. You truly have been totally brainwashed...totally.

Here is what we DO know about the financial crisis:

1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.

2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.

3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.

4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.

The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a large segment of buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from their mortgages, leaving people who bought homes to live in with lower values on their house and neighborhood.

AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN


WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA

WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA - The Sequel

Reuters - UPDATE 2-Lending to poor didn't spur crisis

Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act

Business Insider - Here's Why Fannie And Freddie Are Not At Fault For The Housing Bubble

Center for Responsible Lending - CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown

Don't blame Fannie and Freddie

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

ForeclosureS.com - ACORN - Progress in the Fight Against Predatory Lending

Acorn Led Financial Sector With Warnings on Lending

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

The Millionaire Foreclosure Club

Foreclosure double standard: Why the rich get away with defaulting

More Rich People Default On Mortgages

The rich bail faster on mortgages

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

Rich Borrowers More Likely to Default on Mortgage

Foreclosures & Walking Away: 60 Minutes Eyes an ‘Epidemic’

Speculation By Investors Largely Cause Of Foreclosure Crisis

How the Foreclosure Crisis Started: Investors, Speculators, Mortgage Fraud & Lax Lending Standards


"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

"Unfortunately it is all false."

Really?

Does the Constitution allow pols to support home ownership?

No?

Not in Article I, section 8?

Good boy.


Glad to be able to set you on the straight and narrow.

 

[Bfgrn]

"Did anyone tell you about the economic crisis under Bush, where millions of people lost their jobs?"

Wait a minute....it rings a bell......

Oh...yeah......the one brought about by the policies of Democrat-Liberal-Progressives!!!

Yup...


That would be the adventure into side-stepping the United States Constitution by FDR, when he decided that it allowed him to support private home ownership via Freddy and Fanny, the GSE's.....

and then more Democrat shenanigans:
(now...pay particular attention to my insertions and bolding! It will teach you a lot!)

"a. [Democrat] Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

c. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

d. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, [Democrat] Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

e. [Democrat] Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.

f. Shortly after Cisneros announced his plan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agreed to begin buying loans under new, looser guidelines. Freddie Mac, for instance, started approving low-income buyers with bad credit histories or none at all, so long as they were current on rent and utilities payments. Freddie Mac also said that it would begin counting income from seasonal jobs and public assistance toward its income minimum, despite the FHA disaster of the sixties.

g. Freddie Mac began an “alternative qualifying” program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldn’t exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates.

h. Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, [Democrat] Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, [Democrat] Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA “among the most egregious redliners.”

i. Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the core of the subprime meltdown.

j. A 1998 sales pitch by a Bear Stearns managing director advised banks to begin packaging their loans to low-income borrowers into securities that the firm could sell. Forget traditional underwriting standards when considering these loans, the director advised. For a low-income borrower, he continued in all-too-familiar terms, owning a home was “a near-sacred obligation. A family will do almost anything to meet that monthly mortgage payment.” Bunk, says Stan Liebowitz, a professor of economics at the University of Texas: “The [Liberal] claim that lower-income homeowners are somehow different in their devotion to their home is a purely emotional claim with no evidence to support it.”

k. Any concern was quickly dismissed. When in early 2000 the FDIC proposed increasing capital requirements for lenders making “subprime” loans—loans to people with questionable credit, that is—Democratic representative Carolyn Maloney of New York told a congressional hearing that she feared that the step would dry up CRA loans. Her fellow New York Democrat John J. LaFalce urged regulators “not to be premature” in imposing new regulations.

l. In July 1999, HUD proposed new levels for Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s low-income lending; in September, Fannie Mae agreed to begin purchasing loans made to “borrowers with slightly impaired credit”—that is, with credit standards even lower than the government had been pushing for a generation.

m. In 2004 Congress pressed new affordable-housing goals on the two mortgage giants, which through 2007 purchased some $1 trillion in loans to lower- and moderate-income buyers. The buying spree helped spark a massive increase in securitization of mortgages to people with dubious credit.

n. In October 1994, Fannie Mae head James Johnson had reminded a banking convention that mortgages with small down payments had a much higher risk of defaulting. (A Duff & Phelps study found that they were nearly three times more likely to default than conventional mortgages.) Yet the very next month, Fannie Mae said that it expected to back loans to low-income home buyers with a 97 percent loan-to-value ratio—that is, loans in which the buyer puts down just 3 percent—as part of a commitment, made earlier that year to Congress, to purchase $1 trillion in affordable-housing mortgages by the end of the nineties. According to Edward Pinto, who served as the company’s chief credit officer, the program was the result of political pressure on Fannie Mae trumping lending standards.

o. In 1992, the Boston Fed produced an extraordinary 29-page document that codified the new [Liberal] lending wisdom. Conventional mortgage criteria, the report argued, might be “unintentionally biased” because they didn’t take into account “the economic culture of urban, lower-income and nontraditional customers.” Lenders should thus consider junking the industry’s traditional income-to-payments ratio and stop viewing an applicant’s “lack of credit history” as a “negative factor.” Further, if applicants had bad credit, banks should “consider extenuating circumstances”—even though a study by mortgage insurance companies would soon show, not surprisingly, that borrowers with no credit rating or a bad one were far more likely to default. If applicants didn’t have enough savings for a down payment, the Boston Fed urged, banks should allow loans from nonprofits or government assistance agencies to count toward one. A later study of Freddie Mac mortgages would find that a borrower who made a down payment with third-party funds was four times more likely to default, a reminder that traditional underwriting standards weren’t arbitrary but based on historical lending patterns.

p. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus launched Hogar in 2003, an initiative that pushed for easing [Liberal] lending standards for immigrants, including touting so-called seller-financed mortgages in which a builder provided down-payment aid to buyers via contributions to nonprofit groups. As a result, mortgage lending to Hispanics soared. And today, in districts where Hispanics make up at least 25 percent of the population, foreclosure rates are now nearly 50 percent higher than the national average, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.

q. [Liberal] Republicans and Democrats, meanwhile, have scrambled to reignite the housing market through ill-conceived tax credits and renewed federal subsidies for mortgages, including the Obama administration’s mortgage bailout plan, which recalls the New Deal’s HOLC. Behind these [Progressive] efforts is a fundamental misconception among politicians that housing drives the American economy and therefore demands subsidy at virtually any cost. Our praiseworthy initial efforts—to eliminate housing discrimination and provide all Americans an equal opportunity to buy a home—were eventually turned on their heads by advocates and politicians, who instead tried to ensure equality of outcomes."
Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009

Imagine how much misery could have been avoided if America had not elected Wilson and FDR???
Wow!


"... LIST the laws Obama changed that would allow more people to qualify for relief ..."


a….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part
of the program’s growth is due to conscious
policy choices by this administration to ease
eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have
risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007
and are now roughly 10 percent higher than
they were when Obama took office.
Casey Mulligan, “The Sharp Increase in
the Food Stamps Program,” Economix, http://
economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/thesharp-increase-in-the-food-stamps-program/.

b. …the stimulus bill included a provision that created a new “emergency fund” to help states pay for added welfare recipients, with the federal government
footing 80 percent of the cost for the new “clients.”
Robert Rector and Katherine Bradley, “Stimulus Bill Abolishes Welfare Reform and Adds New
Welfare Spending,” Heritage Foundation, http://
www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/02/
s t imulus -bi l l - abol i she s -we l f a r e - r e form- andadds-new-welfare-spending.

c. This was an important change
because it undid many of the incentives contained in the 1996 Clinton welfare reform,
which helped states to reduce welfare rolls.
Under the new rules, states that succeed in
getting people off welfare lose the opportunity for increased federal funding. And
states that make it easier to stay on welfare
(by, say, raising the time limit from two years
to five) are rewarded with more taxpayer
cash. The bill even let states with rising welfare rolls continue to collect their “case-load
reduction” bonuses.
Mickey Kaus, “The Money Liberal Conspiracy at Work,” Slate, http://www.slate.com/blogs/ kausfiles/2009/02/10/the_money_liberal_con
spiracy_at_work.html.

d. According to Obama administration projections, combined federal and state welfare spending will not drop significantly once the
economy fully recovers. As we have seen, welfare spending has continued to increase. Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal
Year 2010 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2008), CD-ROM, Table 24-14, http:/ www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical Perspectives.

WOW, I'm impressed. I have never seen better propaganda. Unfortunately it is all false. You truly have been totally brainwashed...totally.

Here is what we DO know about the financial crisis:

1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.

2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.

3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.

4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.

The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a large segment of buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from their mortgages, leaving people who bought homes to live in with lower values on their house and neighborhood.

AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN


WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA

WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA - The Sequel

Reuters - UPDATE 2-Lending to poor didn't spur crisis

Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act

Business Insider - Here's Why Fannie And Freddie Are Not At Fault For The Housing Bubble

Center for Responsible Lending - CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown

Don't blame Fannie and Freddie

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

ForeclosureS.com - ACORN - Progress in the Fight Against Predatory Lending

Acorn Led Financial Sector With Warnings on Lending

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

The Millionaire Foreclosure Club

Foreclosure double standard: Why the rich get away with defaulting

More Rich People Default On Mortgages

The rich bail faster on mortgages

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

Rich Borrowers More Likely to Default on Mortgage

Foreclosures & Walking Away: 60 Minutes Eyes an ‘Epidemic’

Speculation By Investors Largely Cause Of Foreclosure Crisis

How the Foreclosure Crisis Started: Investors, Speculators, Mortgage Fraud & Lax Lending Standards


"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

"Unfortunately it is all false."

Really?

Does the Constitution allow pols to support home ownership?

No?

Not in Article I, section 8?

Good boy.


Glad to be able to set you on the straight and narrow.

What is it you can't comprehend? Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

• 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.

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.

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.

And maybe you just FORGOT this...

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the ‘Ownership Society’

 

[PoliticalChic]

WOW, I'm impressed. I have never seen better propaganda. Unfortunately it is all false. You truly have been totally brainwashed...totally.

Here is what we DO know about the financial crisis:

1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.

2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.

3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.

4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.

The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a large segment of buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from their mortgages, leaving people who bought homes to live in with lower values on their house and neighborhood.

AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN


WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA

WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA - The Sequel

Reuters - UPDATE 2-Lending to poor didn't spur crisis

Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act

Business Insider - Here's Why Fannie And Freddie Are Not At Fault For The Housing Bubble

Center for Responsible Lending - CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown

Don't blame Fannie and Freddie

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

ForeclosureS.com - ACORN - Progress in the Fight Against Predatory Lending

Acorn Led Financial Sector With Warnings on Lending

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

The Millionaire Foreclosure Club

Foreclosure double standard: Why the rich get away with defaulting

More Rich People Default On Mortgages

The rich bail faster on mortgages

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

Rich Borrowers More Likely to Default on Mortgage

Foreclosures & Walking Away: 60 Minutes Eyes an ‘Epidemic’

Speculation By Investors Largely Cause Of Foreclosure Crisis

How the Foreclosure Crisis Started: Investors, Speculators, Mortgage Fraud & Lax Lending Standards


"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

"Unfortunately it is all false."

Really?

Does the Constitution allow pols to support home ownership?

No?

Not in Article I, section 8?

Good boy.


Glad to be able to set you on the straight and narrow.

What is it you can't comprehend? Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

• 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.

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.

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.

And maybe you just FORGOT this...

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the ‘Ownership Society’

Does the Constitution allow pols to support home ownership?

 

[Bfgrn]

"Unfortunately it is all false."

Really?

Does the Constitution allow pols to support home ownership?

No?

Not in Article I, section 8?

Good boy.


Glad to be able to set you on the straight and narrow.

What is it you can't comprehend? Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

• 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.

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.

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.

And maybe you just FORGOT this...

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the ‘Ownership Society’

Does the Constitution allow pols to support home ownership?

You have been reduced to babble.

The FACTS are the financial crisis was not caused by too much government, it was caused by not enough government regulations and oversight. It was caused by private lenders who were not subject to housing laws. It was caused by mostly rich people buying homes with no intention of residing in them. They were not interested in long term mortgages, they were only looking for a short term low or NO payment loan to buy and SELL. When the market crashed, they walked away. The housing bubble and its inevitable collapse would never have been possible without (1) hordes of speculators (2) absurdly easy financing and (3) widespread mortgage fraud.

Begin your education:

How Speculative Madness Changed the Housing Market

An article which appeared in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in January 2007 painted a vivid picture of the speculative fever which gripped nearly all of Florida. Naples, near Ft. Myers, had become a "hot market" by early 2003. One Naples real estate agent, who owned 13 investment properties there, told the authors that by 2004, "investors were "scouring every corner of Naples."

Another realtor, mentioned in the same WSJ article, sold his own home in the fall of 2004 to an investor for $435,000, more than double what he had paid for it five years earlier. He soon sold numerous other properties to her including a duplex for $621,000 in October 2005 which he had bought seven months earlier for only $349,000. This same investor also bought another house in July for $690,000 which had sold for $275,000 in early 2001. The next door neighbor told the authors "We were just laughing at these prices.... I grew up here and it's out of control."

During the peak of the speculative bubble in Naples from early 2004 to the fall of 2005, median prices almost doubled from $250,000 to $420,000. The authors of the WSJ article talked to numerous local real estate agents who agreed that during this period "as many as 50% of buyers may have been investors."