How many more lies did Barney Frank participate in???

[Dad2three]

Battling QUOTES!!!
The White House released this list of attempts by President Bush to reform Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac since he took office in 2001.
Unfortunately, Congress did not act on the president’s warnings:

** 2001

April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

** 2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

** 2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

** 2004

February: The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.” (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market's] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, “Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order,” Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.” (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

** 2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.” (Secretary John W. Snow, “Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee,” 4/13/05)

** 2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

** 2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.” (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and “move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation
and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

“Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

“[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

“Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying “we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President’s call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
Pelosi Caught In Major Lie- Says Bush Didn't Warn Congress About Financial Crisis? Records Show He Warned Congress 17 Times in 2008 Alone | The Gateway Pundit

WEIRD, 17 TIMES AND DUBYA STILL FORCED F/F TO UP THEIR 'AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS' IN 2004 FROM 50% YO 56% AND DROPPED THE CLINTON RULE THAT REIGNED THEM IN? LOL

Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to purchase more low income home loans, $440 billion in MBSs and then reversed the Clinton rule that actually reigned in Freddie and Fannie


"(In 2000. CLINTON) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."




How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (BUSH), the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."


http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/files/references/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan

Groups ask HUD to rethink plan that would increase financing of homes to low-income people.


Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

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

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



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

WHY DIDN'T THE GOP CONGRESS DO ANYTHING ABOUT DUBYA'S 'WARNINGS'???


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

Are...are you saying that the GOP passed laws they thought would help low income people?

That doesn't quite fit the "Republicans are evil" narrative does it?

Mark

'Help'? lol

Yeah, THAT was Dubya's plan alright, ALLOW the Banksters to collapse underwriting standards to 'help' US. WHY would they need underwriting standards again? Oh right, to KEEP the markets SAFE AND SECURE. How'd the GOP's 'help' work out again?

One policy that GOP (Dubya specifically) , 'helped' people with:




Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to purchase more low income home loans, $440 billion in MBSs and then reversed the Clinton rule that actually reigned in Freddie and Fannie





"(In 2000, CLINTON ) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (BUSH) , the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."



http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/files/references/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf


“We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,” the President said in a 2002 speech. “We can change the print, and we've got to.”

 

[Dad2three]

What part of did not get past the committee are you not understanding?

lol, YOU REALIZE GOP HAD EVERY COMMITTEE IN 2003 IN THE HOUSE RIGHT? And NO bill NEEDS to go to committee, if the Speaker wants to bring it up on a floor vote, he can


Dems could've been nekid and on fire, and not stopped ONE bill out of the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007. UNLIKE where the Senate it takes a super majority (except, again to get out of committee)....

Look to 40+ 'repeal Obamacares' bills for an example

Dems were able to block and delay.

The House Financial Services Committee began debate on September 11, 2003 and held multiple hearings over the next several weeks. In supporting the bills, Republicans focused on GSE’s potential impact on the broader financial system. Democrats focused solely on the mortgage lending targets, stating there was no risk to the broader financial system because the federal government would bail out the GSEs if necessary.


Democrat Delay Tactics: There was a particularly illustrative example of Democrat Party administrative tactics during the September 25, 2003 House Financial Services Committee hearing, in which Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) argued it should take a very long time for Congress to debate any serious GSE regulation. Steve Bartlett, President of the Financial Services Rountable — an organization that represents practically every major US bank — responded,

“Mr. Kanjorski, our organization and our companies have been quite concerned about this from a safety and soundness as well as mission, for the last several years. We have communicated that concern, but recently that concern seems to have been highlighted by a number of factors. So yes sir, I believe there is an urgency to the tune of some $3.3 trillion that is either owned or guaranteed by these two agencies…We think they are not being properly regulated, and we believe that with $3.3 trillion, you don’t want to wait too long, and so now is the time to act.”

Mr. Kanjorski then continued as if Mr. Bartlett had never spoken, and brought up something Franklin Raines had suggested Congress debate, saying, “I could anticipate it taking weeks and weeks and weeks“ just to do that.

A few minutes after this exchange, Mr. Bartlett tried to persuade David Scott (D-GA) that Democrat statements of concern about regulation potentially impacting Fannie’s mortgage lending “mission” was becoming empty, stating,

“It’s gotten to a $3.3 trillion overhang over the nation’s economy, and unless strong, independent regulation is provided, the housing goals for Fannie and Freddie will go in the tank, because the system will ultimately not…will be in jeopardy.”


Democrat Delay Tactics: There was a particularly illustrative example of Democrat Party administrative tactics during the September 25, 2003 House Financial Services Committee hearing, in which Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) argued it should take a very long time for Congress to debate any serious GSE regulation.

Democrats’ Last Line of Defense Was Impenetrable

Under Senate rules, any legislation not passed into law by the end of the session automatically expires, and that’s exactly what Democrat stonewalling achieved. The 108th Congress ended in January 2005, and with it, the Senate bill. Senator Charles Hagel (R-NE) re-introduced the on January 26, 2005, with the co-sponsorship of John McCain (R-AZ), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) and John Sununu (R-NH).

As a new bill, it had to go through committee again before coming up for full Senate vote. Alan Greenspan testified at these hearings in April 2005, stating, ”We at the Federal Reserve remain concerned about the growth and magnitude of the mortgage portfolios of the government-sponsored enterprises, which concentrate interest rate risk and prepayment risk at these two institutions and makes our financial system dependent on their ability to manage these risks” … “To fend off possible future systemic difficulties, which we assess as likely if G.S.E. expansion continues unabated, preventive actions are required sooner rather than later.”

The Senate Committee for Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs passed the legislation on a party-line vote on July 28, 2005… all 11 Republicans voted in favor of the new regulations; all 9 Democrats voted against. The Senate bill took a stronger approach than the House measure, in that it gave the new regulator broad power over the kinds of assets Fannie and Freddie would be allowed to hold. By 2005, GSEs held or guaranteed $1.5 trillion in mortgage debt, having grown the amount by a 20% annual rate since President Clinton’s 1994 GSA changes.

At this point, GSE regulation had passed through the full House and through Senate committee… essentially all that remained was the full Senate to pass it. This was Democrats’ last line of defense, and it was impenetrable.

Under Senate Rule 22, any Senator can filibuster a piece of legislation simply by threatening to do so, without having to formally stand at the podium and read the phone book or anything like that. Such a “filibuster” requires 60 Senators to break, as we have seen more recently with regard to the Health Care legislation. In other words, the minority party can force approval of any bill to require 60 votes, rather than the usual 50.

In the 109th Congress of 2005, there were 55 Republican Senators — five Democrats would have had to have supported the GSE regulatory bill. Chris Dodd (D-CT), ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee for Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs — and the Democrat party general with regard to GSE regulation strategy — let it be known that he recommended opposition to the bill. Every one of Mr. Dodd’s Democrats had opposed the bill in committee, and not one Democrat from the larger Senate offered support to bring the legislation to the floor. Barack Obama (D-IL) had joined the Senate in January 2005 and was among the people de-facto supporting the “filibuster.”

At the time, Democrats were using the Rule 22 filibuster with extraordinary regularity and effect. Democrats and Republicans were in tense negotiations with regard to ending many filibusters on Bush judicial nominees.

By mid 2006, the Senate Republican sponsors of the regulatory bill became frustrated, as it would expire with the coming of the 109th Congressional session. On May 5, 2006, they wrote an open letter to Senate leadership that began, “We are concerned that if effective regulatory legislation for the housing-finance government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”

Despite the evidence presented by OFHEO, Deloitte & Touche, the SEC, and several financial analysts, Democrats never wavered in shielding Fannie Mae from effectively increased regulation or transparency. Despite the regulatory bills passing out of committees in the House and Senate, and passing the full House, it never had a chance of being enacted as long as Senate Democrats remained unified in opposition — it needed five Democrats; none stepped forward.

GROW A FUCKING BRAIN!!!!

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



We want more people owning their own home in America," Bush said. His goal is to have 5.5 million minority homeowners in the country by the end of the decade.

March 26, 2004

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership | Fox News



STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY


The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

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

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



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

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

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



' At this point, GSE regulation had passed through the full House and through Senate committee… essentially all that remained was the full Senate to pass it. This was Democrats’ last line of defense, and it was impenetrable.'



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



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


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


DEMS STOPPED IT HUH? CAN'T THEY VOTE ON IT LIKE THE DEMS DO AND GET SHUTDOWN? LOL


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


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


YES, DUBYA HOSED THE GSE'S BUT THE GSE'S DIDN'T CAUSE THE WORLD WIDE BANKSTER CRISIS, OR EVEN THE US ONE, THAT WAS DUBYA'S REGULATOR FAILURE BUBBA!



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


1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom: The first thing to point out is that the both the subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market, especially the private label securitization channel (PLS) market. The Government-Sponsored Entities (GSEs, or Fannie and Freddie) were not behind them. The fly-by-night lending boom, slicing and dicing mortgage bonds, derivatives and CDOs, and all the other shadiness of the mortgage market in the 2000s were Wall Street creations, and they drove all those risky mortgages


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



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



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

MY FAV, THE GUY (ALONG WITH ED PINTO AND AEI) SAYING GOV'T CAUSED THE CRISIS TODAY, WHAT HE SAID THEN:



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


Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture


LOL

 

[80zephyr]

WEIRD, 17 TIMES AND DUBYA STILL FORCED F/F TO UP THEIR 'AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS' IN 2004 FROM 50% YO 56% AND DROPPED THE CLINTON RULE THAT REIGNED THEM IN? LOL

Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to purchase more low income home loans, $440 billion in MBSs and then reversed the Clinton rule that actually reigned in Freddie and Fannie


"(In 2000. CLINTON) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."




How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (BUSH), the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."


http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/files/references/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan

Groups ask HUD to rethink plan that would increase financing of homes to low-income people.


Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

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

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



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

WHY DIDN'T THE GOP CONGRESS DO ANYTHING ABOUT DUBYA'S 'WARNINGS'???


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

Are...are you saying that the GOP passed laws they thought would help low income people?

That doesn't quite fit the "Republicans are evil" narrative does it?

Mark

'Help'? lol

Yeah, THAT was Dubya's plan alright, ALLOW the Banksters to collapse underwriting standards to 'help' US. WHY would they need underwriting standards again? Oh right, to KEEP the markets SAFE AND SECURE. How'd the GOP's 'help' work out again?

One policy that GOP (Dubya specifically) , 'helped' people with:




Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to purchase more low income home loans, $440 billion in MBSs and then reversed the Clinton rule that actually reigned in Freddie and Fannie





"(In 2000, CLINTON ) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (BUSH) , the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."



http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/files/references/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf


“We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,” the President said in a 2002 speech. “We can change the print, and we've got to.”

Hmm. So, Barney Frank must have also believed the policies helped people, since he didn't want to see them changed.

Is that about right?

Mark

 

[Dad2three]

What part of did not get past the committee are you not understanding?

lol, YOU REALIZE GOP HAD EVERY COMMITTEE IN 2003 IN THE HOUSE RIGHT? And NO bill NEEDS to go to committee, if the Speaker wants to bring it up on a floor vote, he can


Dems could've been nekid and on fire, and not stopped ONE bill out of the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007. UNLIKE where the Senate it takes a super majority (except, again to get out of committee)....

Look to 40+ 'repeal Obamacares' bills for an example

Dems were able to block and delay.

The House Financial Services Committee began debate on September 11, 2003 and held multiple hearings over the next several weeks. In supporting the bills, Republicans focused on GSE’s potential impact on the broader financial system. Democrats focused solely on the mortgage lending targets, stating there was no risk to the broader financial system because the federal government would bail out the GSEs if necessary.


Democrat Delay Tactics: There was a particularly illustrative example of Democrat Party administrative tactics during the September 25, 2003 House Financial Services Committee hearing, in which Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) argued it should take a very long time for Congress to debate any serious GSE regulation. Steve Bartlett, President of the Financial Services Rountable — an organization that represents practically every major US bank — responded,

“Mr. Kanjorski, our organization and our companies have been quite concerned about this from a safety and soundness as well as mission, for the last several years. We have communicated that concern, but recently that concern seems to have been highlighted by a number of factors. So yes sir, I believe there is an urgency to the tune of some $3.3 trillion that is either owned or guaranteed by these two agencies…We think they are not being properly regulated, and we believe that with $3.3 trillion, you don’t want to wait too long, and so now is the time to act.”

Mr. Kanjorski then continued as if Mr. Bartlett had never spoken, and brought up something Franklin Raines had suggested Congress debate, saying, “I could anticipate it taking weeks and weeks and weeks“ just to do that.

A few minutes after this exchange, Mr. Bartlett tried to persuade David Scott (D-GA) that Democrat statements of concern about regulation potentially impacting Fannie’s mortgage lending “mission” was becoming empty, stating,

“It’s gotten to a $3.3 trillion overhang over the nation’s economy, and unless strong, independent regulation is provided, the housing goals for Fannie and Freddie will go in the tank, because the system will ultimately not…will be in jeopardy.”


Democrat Delay Tactics: There was a particularly illustrative example of Democrat Party administrative tactics during the September 25, 2003 House Financial Services Committee hearing, in which Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) argued it should take a very long time for Congress to debate any serious GSE regulation.

Democrats’ Last Line of Defense Was Impenetrable

Under Senate rules, any legislation not passed into law by the end of the session automatically expires, and that’s exactly what Democrat stonewalling achieved. The 108th Congress ended in January 2005, and with it, the Senate bill. Senator Charles Hagel (R-NE) re-introduced the on January 26, 2005, with the co-sponsorship of John McCain (R-AZ), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) and John Sununu (R-NH).

As a new bill, it had to go through committee again before coming up for full Senate vote. Alan Greenspan testified at these hearings in April 2005, stating, ”We at the Federal Reserve remain concerned about the growth and magnitude of the mortgage portfolios of the government-sponsored enterprises, which concentrate interest rate risk and prepayment risk at these two institutions and makes our financial system dependent on their ability to manage these risks” … “To fend off possible future systemic difficulties, which we assess as likely if G.S.E. expansion continues unabated, preventive actions are required sooner rather than later.”

The Senate Committee for Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs passed the legislation on a party-line vote on July 28, 2005… all 11 Republicans voted in favor of the new regulations; all 9 Democrats voted against. The Senate bill took a stronger approach than the House measure, in that it gave the new regulator broad power over the kinds of assets Fannie and Freddie would be allowed to hold. By 2005, GSEs held or guaranteed $1.5 trillion in mortgage debt, having grown the amount by a 20% annual rate since President Clinton’s 1994 GSA changes.

At this point, GSE regulation had passed through the full House and through Senate committee… essentially all that remained was the full Senate to pass it. This was Democrats’ last line of defense, and it was impenetrable.

Under Senate Rule 22, any Senator can filibuster a piece of legislation simply by threatening to do so, without having to formally stand at the podium and read the phone book or anything like that. Such a “filibuster” requires 60 Senators to break, as we have seen more recently with regard to the Health Care legislation. In other words, the minority party can force approval of any bill to require 60 votes, rather than the usual 50.

In the 109th Congress of 2005, there were 55 Republican Senators — five Democrats would have had to have supported the GSE regulatory bill. Chris Dodd (D-CT), ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee for Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs — and the Democrat party general with regard to GSE regulation strategy — let it be known that he recommended opposition to the bill. Every one of Mr. Dodd’s Democrats had opposed the bill in committee, and not one Democrat from the larger Senate offered support to bring the legislation to the floor. Barack Obama (D-IL) had joined the Senate in January 2005 and was among the people de-facto supporting the “filibuster.”

At the time, Democrats were using the Rule 22 filibuster with extraordinary regularity and effect. Democrats and Republicans were in tense negotiations with regard to ending many filibusters on Bush judicial nominees.

By mid 2006, the Senate Republican sponsors of the regulatory bill became frustrated, as it would expire with the coming of the 109th Congressional session. On May 5, 2006, they wrote an open letter to Senate leadership that began, “We are concerned that if effective regulatory legislation for the housing-finance government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”

Despite the evidence presented by OFHEO, Deloitte & Touche, the SEC, and several financial analysts, Democrats never wavered in shielding Fannie Mae from effectively increased regulation or transparency. Despite the regulatory bills passing out of committees in the House and Senate, and passing the full House, it never had a chance of being enacted as long as Senate Democrats remained unified in opposition — it needed five Democrats; none stepped forward.

H.R. 1461 (109th): Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (On Passage of the Bill)

122 DEMS VOTED IN THE HOUSE FOR THIS BILL, BUT S109 COULDN'T GET 1 DEM VOTE? LOL
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2005/h547


Yeah, MUST be the Demns fault, that bill 122 Dems voted for, AND 209 GOPers, was this bill Dubya OPPOSED

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

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

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


YEAH, DEMS STOPPED F/F REFORM, AFTER ALL WE KNOW THE GOP LOVES GOOD REGULATIONS AND THE DEMS HATE IT RIGHT?


BTW, RULE 22 IS JUST FILIBUSTER, DOESN'T STOP THE GOP FROM BRINGING IT UP FOR A VOTE, WEIRD THEY DIDN'T RIGHT? LOL

 

[Dad2three]

Are...are you saying that the GOP passed laws they thought would help low income people?

That doesn't quite fit the "Republicans are evil" narrative does it?

Mark

'Help'? lol

Yeah, THAT was Dubya's plan alright, ALLOW the Banksters to collapse underwriting standards to 'help' US. WHY would they need underwriting standards again? Oh right, to KEEP the markets SAFE AND SECURE. How'd the GOP's 'help' work out again?

One policy that GOP (Dubya specifically) , 'helped' people with:




Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to purchase more low income home loans, $440 billion in MBSs and then reversed the Clinton rule that actually reigned in Freddie and Fannie





"(In 2000, CLINTON ) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (BUSH) , the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."



http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/files/references/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf


“We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,” the President said in a 2002 speech. “We can change the print, and we've got to.”

Hmm. So, Barney Frank must have also believed the policies helped people, since he didn't want to see them changed.

Is that about right?

Mark

SURE, SURE

In 2009 Frank responded to what he called "wholly inaccurate efforts by Republicans to blame Democrats, and [me] in particular" for the subprime mortgage crisis, which is linked to the financial crisis of 2007–2009.


Is There an Antidote to the Republican Amnesia?

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



He outlined his efforts to reform these institutions and add regulations, but met resistance from Republicans, with the main exception being a bill with Republican Mike Oxley that died because of opposition from President Bush


The 2005 bill included Frank objectives, which were to impose tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing.


Frank and Mike Oxley achieved broad bipartisan support for the bill in the Financial Services Committee, and it passed the House. But the Senate never voted on the measure, in part because President Bush was likely to veto it. "If it had passed, that would have been one of the ways we could have reined in the bowling ball going downhill called housing," Oxley told Frank.


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

 

[Dad2three]

Are...are you saying that the GOP passed laws they thought would help low income people?

That doesn't quite fit the "Republicans are evil" narrative does it?

Mark

'Help'? lol

Yeah, THAT was Dubya's plan alright, ALLOW the Banksters to collapse underwriting standards to 'help' US. WHY would they need underwriting standards again? Oh right, to KEEP the markets SAFE AND SECURE. How'd the GOP's 'help' work out again?

One policy that GOP (Dubya specifically) , 'helped' people with:




Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to purchase more low income home loans, $440 billion in MBSs and then reversed the Clinton rule that actually reigned in Freddie and Fannie





"(In 2000, CLINTON ) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (BUSH) , the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."



http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/files/references/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf


“We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,” the President said in a 2002 speech. “We can change the print, and we've got to.”

Hmm. So, Barney Frank must have also believed the policies helped people, since he didn't want to see them changed.

Is that about right?

Mark

Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf

 

[peach174]

Democrats Admitted Responsibility, Then Recanted When Obama Consolidated Power

Bill Clinton summed up the role of fierce Democrat opposition to GSE regulation in a moment of candor on Good Morning America, in September 2008,

“I think that the responsibility that the Democrats had may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

He said nothing about Democrats’ role in actively causing the system crash.

On September 30, 2008, Representative Artur Davis (D-AL), who had vehemently defended Fannie Mae against regulatory efforts in 2003-2004, echoed President Clinton’s sentiments.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.”

He did not explain how he was “slow” to realize Freddie’s recklessness, which was essentially proven by 2003…or for that matter, Fannie’s which was well proven in 2004.

 

[Dad2three]

Democrats Admitted Responsibility, Then Recanted When Obama Consolidated Power

Bill Clinton summed up the role of fierce Democrat opposition to GSE regulation in a moment of candor on Good Morning America, in September 2008,

“I think that the responsibility that the Democrats had may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

He said nothing about Democrats’ role in actively causing the system crash.

On September 30, 2008, Representative Artur Davis (D-AL), who had vehemently defended Fannie Mae against regulatory efforts in 2003-2004, echoed President Clinton’s sentiments.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.”

He did not explain how he was “slow” to realize Freddie’s recklessness, which was essentially proven by 2003…or for that matter, Fannie’s which was well proven in 2004.

“I think that the responsibility that the Democrats had may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”




IF ONLY THAT WAS THE ONLY THING HE SAID



CLINTON: Well, I think he's suggesting that when we -- I signed a bill that the banking industry wanted that let them get into securities issuance. There are some people who believe that that bill enabled them to somehow participate in some of the riskier housing investments. I disagree with that. That bill primarily enabled them to -- like the Bank of America, to buy Merrill Lynch here without a hitch. And I think that helped to stabilize the situation.

I think the main thing that you could blame the Democrats for, maybe, is that we should have made more of the problems of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and maybe the -- and tried more aggressively to regulate derivatives. But this thing really took off when the SEC, under this administration, exercised less oversight and they got rid of something called the uptick rule, which enabled betting down --

LAUER: Right.

CLINTON: -- on housing stocks to go crazy.

Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown



Mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.



“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”


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



Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC

BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET IN 2004 WITH A CHAINSAW 'CUTTING' REGULATIONS

November 27, 2007

A Snapshot of the Subprime Market



Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:

2007 $1.3 trillion

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion

Percentage increase from 2003: 292%



Proportion of subprime mortgages made from 2004 to 2006 that come with "exploding" adjustable interest rates: 89-93%


Proportion approved without fully documented income: 43-50%


Proportion with no escrow for taxes and insurance: 75%



Proportion of completed foreclosures attributable to adjustable rate loans out of all loans made in 2006 and bundled in subprime mortgage backed securities: 93%


Subprime share of all mortgage originations in 2006: 28%


Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8%




http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession-2.html

 

[Faun]

What part of did not get past the committee are you not understanding?

lol, YOU REALIZE GOP HAD EVERY COMMITTEE IN 2003 IN THE HOUSE RIGHT? And NO bill NEEDS to go to committee, if the Speaker wants to bring it up on a floor vote, he can


Dems could've been nekid and on fire, and not stopped ONE bill out of the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007. UNLIKE where the Senate it takes a super majority (except, again to get out of committee)....

Look to 40+ 'repeal Obamacares' bills for an example

Dems were able to block and delay.

The House Financial Services Committee began debate on September 11, 2003 and held multiple hearings over the next several weeks. In supporting the bills, Republicans focused on GSE’s potential impact on the broader financial system. Democrats focused solely on the mortgage lending targets, stating there was no risk to the broader financial system because the federal government would bail out the GSEs if necessary.


Democrat Delay Tactics: There was a particularly illustrative example of Democrat Party administrative tactics during the September 25, 2003 House Financial Services Committee hearing, in which Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) argued it should take a very long time for Congress to debate any serious GSE regulation. Steve Bartlett, President of the Financial Services Rountable — an organization that represents practically every major US bank — responded,

“Mr. Kanjorski, our organization and our companies have been quite concerned about this from a safety and soundness as well as mission, for the last several years. We have communicated that concern, but recently that concern seems to have been highlighted by a number of factors. So yes sir, I believe there is an urgency to the tune of some $3.3 trillion that is either owned or guaranteed by these two agencies…We think they are not being properly regulated, and we believe that with $3.3 trillion, you don’t want to wait too long, and so now is the time to act.”

Mr. Kanjorski then continued as if Mr. Bartlett had never spoken, and brought up something Franklin Raines had suggested Congress debate, saying, “I could anticipate it taking weeks and weeks and weeks“ just to do that.

A few minutes after this exchange, Mr. Bartlett tried to persuade David Scott (D-GA) that Democrat statements of concern about regulation potentially impacting Fannie’s mortgage lending “mission” was becoming empty, stating,

“It’s gotten to a $3.3 trillion overhang over the nation’s economy, and unless strong, independent regulation is provided, the housing goals for Fannie and Freddie will go in the tank, because the system will ultimately not…will be in jeopardy.”


Democrat Delay Tactics: There was a particularly illustrative example of Democrat Party administrative tactics during the September 25, 2003 House Financial Services Committee hearing, in which Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) argued it should take a very long time for Congress to debate any serious GSE regulation.

Democrats’ Last Line of Defense Was Impenetrable

Under Senate rules, any legislation not passed into law by the end of the session automatically expires, and that’s exactly what Democrat stonewalling achieved. The 108th Congress ended in January 2005, and with it, the Senate bill. Senator Charles Hagel (R-NE) re-introduced the on January 26, 2005, with the co-sponsorship of John McCain (R-AZ), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) and John Sununu (R-NH).

As a new bill, it had to go through committee again before coming up for full Senate vote. Alan Greenspan testified at these hearings in April 2005, stating, ”We at the Federal Reserve remain concerned about the growth and magnitude of the mortgage portfolios of the government-sponsored enterprises, which concentrate interest rate risk and prepayment risk at these two institutions and makes our financial system dependent on their ability to manage these risks” … “To fend off possible future systemic difficulties, which we assess as likely if G.S.E. expansion continues unabated, preventive actions are required sooner rather than later.”

The Senate Committee for Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs passed the legislation on a party-line vote on July 28, 2005… all 11 Republicans voted in favor of the new regulations; all 9 Democrats voted against. The Senate bill took a stronger approach than the House measure, in that it gave the new regulator broad power over the kinds of assets Fannie and Freddie would be allowed to hold. By 2005, GSEs held or guaranteed $1.5 trillion in mortgage debt, having grown the amount by a 20% annual rate since President Clinton’s 1994 GSA changes.

At this point, GSE regulation had passed through the full House and through Senate committee… essentially all that remained was the full Senate to pass it. This was Democrats’ last line of defense, and it was impenetrable.

Under Senate Rule 22, any Senator can filibuster a piece of legislation simply by threatening to do so, without having to formally stand at the podium and read the phone book or anything like that. Such a “filibuster” requires 60 Senators to break, as we have seen more recently with regard to the Health Care legislation. In other words, the minority party can force approval of any bill to require 60 votes, rather than the usual 50.

In the 109th Congress of 2005, there were 55 Republican Senators — five Democrats would have had to have supported the GSE regulatory bill. Chris Dodd (D-CT), ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee for Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs — and the Democrat party general with regard to GSE regulation strategy — let it be known that he recommended opposition to the bill. Every one of Mr. Dodd’s Democrats had opposed the bill in committee, and not one Democrat from the larger Senate offered support to bring the legislation to the floor. Barack Obama (D-IL) had joined the Senate in January 2005 and was among the people de-facto supporting the “filibuster.”

At the time, Democrats were using the Rule 22 filibuster with extraordinary regularity and effect. Democrats and Republicans were in tense negotiations with regard to ending many filibusters on Bush judicial nominees.

By mid 2006, the Senate Republican sponsors of the regulatory bill became frustrated, as it would expire with the coming of the 109th Congressional session. On May 5, 2006, they wrote an open letter to Senate leadership that began, “We are concerned that if effective regulatory legislation for the housing-finance government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”

Despite the evidence presented by OFHEO, Deloitte & Touche, the SEC, and several financial analysts, Democrats never wavered in shielding Fannie Mae from effectively increased regulation or transparency. Despite the regulatory bills passing out of committees in the House and Senate, and passing the full House, it never had a chance of being enacted as long as Senate Democrats remained unified in opposition — it needed five Democrats; none stepped forward.

Democrats did not filibuster any of the bills Republicans proposed for increasing oversight of the GSEs. Try again.

 

[Faun]

Every Democrat in Congress lied about the GSEs, Fannie and Freddy.

It because of their lies and their refusals to go along the Republicans and President G. W. Bush and the proposed reforms that we had that horrible housing crash.

Hmm ... can you tell me what bills Democrats blocked between 2003 and 2006, while Republicans controlled the Congress? Cite the bill numbers please, so I can look them up.

Thanks.

1. H.R.2022 introduced on 7 May 2003 by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT,4).
Title: To extend the registration and reporting requirements of the Federal securities laws to certain housing-related Government-sponsored enterprises, and for other purposes.

2. 2. H.R.2117 introduced 23 May 2003 by Rep. Pete Fortney (D-CA,13).
Title: To amend the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act to remove certain competitive advantages granted to the housing-related government-sponsored enterprises relative to other secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

3. 4.H.R.2803 introduced on 21 July 2003 by Rep. Edward R Royce (R-CA,40).
Title: To establish the Office of Housing Finance Oversight in the Department of the Treasury to ensure the financial safety and soundness of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal home loan banks.

4. 6.S.1508, introduced 31 July 2003 by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE).
Title: A bill to address regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

5. 7.S.1656, introduced 23 September 2003 by Sen. Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ).
Title: A bill to address regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

This was just in 2003 let alone all of the others. They were blocked by Dems in the Housing & Banking Committee and did not even make it to the floor.

Funny how the record doesn't show what you claim. Republican chairs in the respective committees never point them to a vote. 2 of the 5 bills were even sponsored by Democrats. In 2 others, they were co-sponsored by Democrats. Republicans were in charge ... Republicans dropped the ball. Democrats did not block any of them. Four of them were never even voted on and none of them made it out of their respective committees.

H.R.2022

Co-sponsored by Democrats

ALL ACTIONS:

5/7/2003:
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

5/23/2003:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

No vote

H.R.2117

Sponsored by a Democrat

ALL ACTIONS:

5/15/2003:
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E972)

5/15/2003:
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

5/23/2003:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

No vote

H.R.2803

Co-sponsored by a Democrat

ALL ACTIONS:

7/21/2003:
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

8/4/2003:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

S.1508

No vote

ALL ACTIONS:

7/31/2003:
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S10623)

7/31/2003:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. (text of measure as introduced: CR 8/1/2003 S10623-10631)

4/1/2004:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

S.1656

Sponsored by a Democrat

ALL ACTIONS:

9/25/2003:
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S11990-11991)

9/25/2003:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

No vote

 

[billyerock1991]

I never trusted that fag

-Geaux

Geaux4it is another right wing nut job thats afraid of comming out of the closet ... its ok Geaux4it ... say you haven't any fear... shout it loud and clear ... say I'm Geaux4it and without any fear you're queer... you can do it ...

 

[billyerock1991]

The point of my above conclusion is best summed up by the OLD cartoon called Pogo who
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
Probably the most famous Pogo quotation is "We have met the enemy and he is us." Perhaps more than any other words written by Kelly, it perfectly sums up his attitude towards the foibles of mankind and the nature of the human condition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_(comic_strip)
In this case paraphrasing it .."we've identified who caused the housing bubble and it is ALL OF US"!!!

Nope, like the 1929 GOP crash, it was easy money, and REGULATOR FAILURE (just like Reagan's S&L crisis)

Weird it's like we elect guys who don't 'believe in' Gov't and it's regulators and then are SHOCKED when they fail in their jobs!

american dream downpayment initiativewas the failure of the bush administration...

The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
P. J. O'Rourke

how true is that...

 

[Jarhead]

OK. Lets see how honest our friends on the left are......

The question is...

"Why did President Bush not strengthen regulations on the lending industry to prevent what proved to be the bursting of the housing bubble?"

Lets say he did. In 2006, before the collapse, he used EO to strengthen regulations.

What would our friends on the left, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Senator Barak Obama, Charlie Rangel and others have said?

1) I see it as a good policy as it will prevent what appears to be a traumatic bubble from bursting. Kudos to President Bush.

or....

2) All the GOP ever talks about is less government intervention UNLESS it is a policy that assists in keeping the black man down. This move by President Bush has nothing to do with a bubble bursting. It is racially motivated for it is obvious that it will prevent hard working black families from achieving the American Dream.


How honest are you, RW and dad2three?

What would you have said?

 

[Dad2three]

OK. Lets see how honest our friends on the left are......

The question is...

"Why did President Bush not strengthen regulations on the lending industry to prevent what proved to be the bursting of the housing bubble?"

Lets say he did. In 2006, before the collapse, he used EO to strengthen regulations.

What would our friends on the left, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Senator Barak Obama, Charlie Rangel and others have said?

1) I see it as a good policy as it will prevent what appears to be a traumatic bubble from bursting. Kudos to President Bush.

or....

2) All the GOP ever talks about is less government intervention UNLESS it is a policy that assists in keeping the black man down. This move by President Bush has nothing to do with a bubble bursting. It is racially motivated for it is obvious that it will prevent hard working black families from achieving the American Dream.


How honest are you, RW and dad2three?

What would you have said?

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

Bush and he was pushing his “Ownership Society” programs that was a major and successful part of his re election campaign in 2004. And Bush’s regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bush’s documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

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


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.





We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,” the President said in a 2002 speech. “We can change the print, and we've got to.”


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


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


WHAT DID THE 'LEFT' SAY?

June 2004

Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.



http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf

IN RESPONSE TO THIS:



Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


GROW A BRAIN!!!

 

[Jarhead]

OK. Lets see how honest our friends on the left are......

The question is...

"Why did President Bush not strengthen regulations on the lending industry to prevent what proved to be the bursting of the housing bubble?"

Lets say he did. In 2006, before the collapse, he used EO to strengthen regulations.

What would our friends on the left, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Senator Barak Obama, Charlie Rangel and others have said?

1) I see it as a good policy as it will prevent what appears to be a traumatic bubble from bursting. Kudos to President Bush.

or....

2) All the GOP ever talks about is less government intervention UNLESS it is a policy that assists in keeping the black man down. This move by President Bush has nothing to do with a bubble bursting. It is racially motivated for it is obvious that it will prevent hard working black families from achieving the American Dream.


How honest are you, RW and dad2three?

What would you have said?

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

Bush and he was pushing his “Ownership Society” programs that was a major and successful part of his re election campaign in 2004. And Bush’s regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bush’s documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

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


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.





We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,” the President said in a 2002 speech. “We can change the print, and we've got to.”


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


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


WHAT DID THE 'LEFT' SAY?

June 2004

Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.



http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf

IN RESPONSE TO THIS:



Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


GROW A BRAIN!!!

You post made up quotes with absolutely no idea what was really said.

No longer worth my time. Putting you on ignore because I do not wish to see your childish bold, underline posts filled with mistruths and childish attacks.

I pity you.

 

[Dad2three]

OK. Lets see how honest our friends on the left are......

The question is...

"Why did President Bush not strengthen regulations on the lending industry to prevent what proved to be the bursting of the housing bubble?"

Lets say he did. In 2006, before the collapse, he used EO to strengthen regulations.

What would our friends on the left, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Senator Barak Obama, Charlie Rangel and others have said?

1) I see it as a good policy as it will prevent what appears to be a traumatic bubble from bursting. Kudos to President Bush.

or....

2) All the GOP ever talks about is less government intervention UNLESS it is a policy that assists in keeping the black man down. This move by President Bush has nothing to do with a bubble bursting. It is racially motivated for it is obvious that it will prevent hard working black families from achieving the American Dream.


How honest are you, RW and dad2three?

What would you have said?

"Lets say he did. In 2006, before the collapse, he used EO to strengthen regulations."



Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

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

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

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

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

Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

 

[Dad2three]

OK. Lets see how honest our friends on the left are......

The question is...

"Why did President Bush not strengthen regulations on the lending industry to prevent what proved to be the bursting of the housing bubble?"

Lets say he did. In 2006, before the collapse, he used EO to strengthen regulations.

What would our friends on the left, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Senator Barak Obama, Charlie Rangel and others have said?

1) I see it as a good policy as it will prevent what appears to be a traumatic bubble from bursting. Kudos to President Bush.

or....

2) All the GOP ever talks about is less government intervention UNLESS it is a policy that assists in keeping the black man down. This move by President Bush has nothing to do with a bubble bursting. It is racially motivated for it is obvious that it will prevent hard working black families from achieving the American Dream.


How honest are you, RW and dad2three?

What would you have said?

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

Bush and he was pushing his “Ownership Society” programs that was a major and successful part of his re election campaign in 2004. And Bush’s regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bush’s documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

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


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.





We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,” the President said in a 2002 speech. “We can change the print, and we've got to.”


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


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


WHAT DID THE 'LEFT' SAY?

June 2004

Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.



http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf

IN RESPONSE TO THIS:



Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


GROW A BRAIN!!!

You post made up quotes with absolutely no idea what was really said.

No longer worth my time. Putting you on ignore because I do not wish to see your childish bold, underline posts filled with mistruths and childish attacks.

I pity you.

Fucking hack, NONE of my post was 'made up' I HAVE FUCKING LINKS, YOUR PREMISE WAS BULLSHIT FROM THE START!

The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
P. J. O'Rourke

 

[Dad2three]

OK. Lets see how honest our friends on the left are......

The question is...

"Why did President Bush not strengthen regulations on the lending industry to prevent what proved to be the bursting of the housing bubble?"

Lets say he did. In 2006, before the collapse, he used EO to strengthen regulations.

What would our friends on the left, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Senator Barak Obama, Charlie Rangel and others have said?

1) I see it as a good policy as it will prevent what appears to be a traumatic bubble from bursting. Kudos to President Bush.

or....

2) All the GOP ever talks about is less government intervention UNLESS it is a policy that assists in keeping the black man down. This move by President Bush has nothing to do with a bubble bursting. It is racially motivated for it is obvious that it will prevent hard working black families from achieving the American Dream.


How honest are you, RW and dad2three?

What would you have said?

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

Bush and he was pushing his “Ownership Society” programs that was a major and successful part of his re election campaign in 2004. And Bush’s regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bush’s documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

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


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.





We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,” the President said in a 2002 speech. “We can change the print, and we've got to.”


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


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html


WHAT DID THE 'LEFT' SAY?

June 2004

Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.



http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf

IN RESPONSE TO THIS:



Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


GROW A BRAIN!!!

You post made up quotes with absolutely no idea what was really said.

No longer worth my time. Putting you on ignore because I do not wish to see your childish bold, underline posts filled with mistruths and childish attacks.

I pity you.

Remarks at St. Paul AME Church in Atlanta, Georgia

And part of economic security is owning your own home. Part of being a secure America is to encourage homeownership, so somebody can say, "This is my home. Welcome to my home."



"We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home, we can change the print, and we've got to.”

Fannie Mae will establish 100 partnerships with faith-based organizations that will provide home buyer education and help increase homeownership for their congregations. I love the partnership.

And if one of the goals is to increase home-ownership, it makes sense to help people pay that downpayment. We believe that the amount of money in our budget, fully approved by Congress, will help 40,000 families every year realize the dream of owning a home


The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation will dramatically expand financial and home buyer education efforts to 380,000 minority families.

The Neighborhood Housing Services of America will raise $750 million to promote homeownership initiatives in many communities.



George W. Bush: Remarks at St. Paul AME Church in Atlanta, Georgia

lol

 

[Faun]

OK. Lets see how honest our friends on the left are......

The question is...

"Why did President Bush not strengthen regulations on the lending industry to prevent what proved to be the bursting of the housing bubble?"

Lets say he did. In 2006, before the collapse, he used EO to strengthen regulations.

What would our friends on the left, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Senator Barak Obama, Charlie Rangel and others have said?

1) I see it as a good policy as it will prevent what appears to be a traumatic bubble from bursting. Kudos to President Bush.

or....

2) All the GOP ever talks about is less government intervention UNLESS it is a policy that assists in keeping the black man down. This move by President Bush has nothing to do with a bubble bursting. It is racially motivated for it is obvious that it will prevent hard working black families from achieving the American Dream.


How honest are you, RW and dad2three?

What would you have said?

Wouldn't you rather the left say that than be able to show how the right fucked our economy up??