It's about time it was said.

[Samson]

In all fairness though - if Fanny & Freddie weren't direct competition to the bankers with subscriptions, would the WSJ have cared?

It is a business journal.

I'm certain it didn't take the editorial board very long to weigh the pro's vs. the cons of running a story about the Evil Fannie Mae or whether green eyeshadow looked good on Madonna.

But The Wall Street Journal will never own up to any mistakes made by said "business" models, either. Ever.

I'm not sure how you've developed the precognitive powers to know what the WSJ will or will not do in the future.

I'm also not sure what your point could possibly be?

 

[MaggieMae]

Agreed I am not saying the repuyblicans aren't at fault but afterall Freddy and Fanny are democrats pet projects and the CRA which is another democratic thing did most of the damage.

What evidence do you have to back that up with?


The right wing put that talking point out right after the meltdown occured. It has been completely disproved.

In a recent report to Congress, The Federal Reserve System investigated the CRA's alleged connection to the housing crisis; it found the CRA has in fact demonstrated success in its purpose over the years, and noted the following:

•Through partnerships with community organizations as well as adhering to sound lending practices, CRA-covered banks and thrifts created new ways to meet credit needs in underserved areas.
•Studies by the Federal Reserve System and Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, among others, have shown the CRA increased lending and home ownership in poorer communities without undermining banks’ profitability.
•Some financial institutions, not regulated by the CRA, were encouraged by its success and began to compete for business in lower-income areas by offering risky loan products or subprime loans.
•Non CRA-covered financial institutions were responsible for 60 percent of subprime loan originations made to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods -- borrower demographics not covered by the CRA. More than 20 percent of subprime loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or communities by independent non-bank institutions not covered by the CRA.
•CRA-covered banks and thrifts extended only 6 percent of all subprime loans to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods.
Since the CRA did not urge financial institutions to take on unnecessary financial risk, using sound lending practices in lower income neighborhoods has proved to be just as profitable as lending in more affluent areas. Therefore, this piece of legislation is not to blame for our current woes. Instead, it appears we should look more closely at these “independent non-bank institutions” not covered by the CRA that extended risky and subprime loans to borrowers of all income levels.

New Hampshire Housing - Housing Myths

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCTxZa9kpSI&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYz1rbB5V1s[/ame]

Can you tear yourself away from Fox and Youtube long enough to watch THIS one, genius? It contains interviews from some of the actual slimeballs who ran off with gramma's money and made sure her home was foreclosed upon.

Hulu - CNBC Originals: House of Cards - Watch the full episode now.

 

[MaggieMae]

When the government says it will back any loans made by Freddy or fanny and Freddy and fanny makes loans to people who cannot or will not repay the loan and when you have enough of those types of loans. PLEASE PUT 2 AND 2 TOGETHER.

This is no surprise to me. Bush was a lone voice over Fanny and Freddie... and much more. I don't credit Bush for much but, on this, he listened to the right people - Economists - who were warning about the state of the financial industry, ballooning personal debt through stupid lending policies and really stupid Americans borrowing more than they could afford. On Fanny and Freddie, both Republicans and Democrats fucked us over. A bipartisan effort. One of the very, very few who actually tried to do something BEFORE the shit hit the fan was George W Bush.

BALONEY, it was Bush who threw the shit into the fan with his ADDI, American Dream Downpayment Initiative, as you well know.

Bush's Dec 2003 American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) is what changed the rules to allow no down payment loans to people with bad credit who could not keep up with the payments for more than the house was worth and who were at least 20% below the standard for the neighborhood.

That's right, to get the assistance Bush's ADDI legally required people to buy into a neighborhood that was AT LEAST 20% beyond their means!!!

But did the WSJ report that the American Dream Downpayment Act might have played a part? Did FoxNews? Of course not. Ergo, the conservatives don't ever hear about it unless one of us posts it for them (which I've done at least a dozen times, and then they all seem to scatter--imagine that).

 

[MaggieMae]

American Dream Downpayment Initiative


Summary
The American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) was signed into law on December 16, 2003. The American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act authorizes up to $200 million annually for fiscal years 2004 - 2007. ADDI will provide funds to all fifty states and to local participating jurisdictions that have a population of at least 150,000 or will receive an allocation of at least $50,000 under the ADDI formula. ADDI will be administered as a part of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, a formula grant program

American Dream Downpayment Initiative - Affordable Housing - CPD - HUD


Who ran HUD in 2003????? Who wrote the Law?????

You cannot escape it no matter how much spin you put on it. This was Bush's brainchild.

Posted 1/20/2004 1:31 AM
Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership
By Thomas A. Fogarty, USA TODAY

In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans.

In announcing the plan Monday at a home builders show in Las Vegas, Federal Housing Commissioner John Weicher called the proposal the "most significant FHA initiative in more than a decade." It would lead to 150,000 first-time owners annually, he said.

Nothing-down options are available on the private mortgage market, but, in general, they require the borrower to have pristine credit. Bush's proposed change would extend the nothing-down option to borrowers with blemished credit.

USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership

 

[Samson]

But did the WSJ report that the American Dream Downpayment Act might have played a part? Did FoxNews? Of course not. Ergo, the conservatives don't ever hear about it unless one of us posts it for them (which I've done at least a dozen times, and then they all seem to scatter--imagine that).

I'll let you do the search through WSJ and FNC, but I doubt you'll bother because finding anything would destroy your partisan dogma.

 

[MaggieMae]

During the limbaugh Bush interviewtoday Rush ask President Bush aboiut the car in the ditch
I will let President Bush speak for himself on this issue


Time and time again I have said Freddy and fanny was the cause of the fanical crisis. Thank you George for telling it like it is.

While in 2003 the gop had the majority, it wasn't enough to burst the filabuster. And, if I recall, he mentioned the need to reg F/F 13 times, and every time, congress, especially that traitor Franks, blew him off.

I haven't seen much news lately. Did the dims re-elect that traitor?

The answer is Yes, Bwaney Fwanks was re-elected to represent the 10th MA district in the US House.

The GOP had the majority up until the final two years of the Bush Presidency. You'd think that with all the Alarms going off over the period, there'd be more than a whisper "hey, maybe we should throw a bucket of water on the fire."

There wasn't.

The Bush White house was concentrating on a number of immediate disasters: 9/11, Katrina, Iraq, and probably didn't have the resources to hold R's feet to the fire regarding the impending economic disaster that was tipped over by leveraging high risk loans.

What's amusing about arguments like that is while Bush is provided with all sorts of excuses, the cons all jump at the chance to blame the Obama administration for the whole damned thing--no excuses allowed--as if making sure the housing bubble burst causing the entire economy to crash was his first order of business.

You use as one excuse the attacks of 911. Hello? It was in the aftermath of 911 that Bush yelled to everyone GO OUT AND SPEND MONEY! So they did. YAY!! Let's buy a HOUSE! Tomorrow we may die!!

 

[MaggieMae]

While in 2003 the gop had the majority, it wasn't enough to burst the filabuster. And, if I recall, he mentioned the need to reg F/F 13 times, and every time, congress, especially that traitor Franks, blew him off.

I haven't seen much news lately. Did the dims re-elect that traitor?

The answer is Yes, Bwaney Fwanks was re-elected to represent the 10th MA district in the US House.

The GOP had the majority up until the final two years of the Bush Presidency. You'd think that with all the Alarms going off over the period, there'd be more than a whisper "hey, maybe we should throw a bucket of water on the fire."

There wasn't.

The Bush White house was concentrating on a number of immediate disasters: 9/11, Katrina, Iraq, and probably didn't have the resources to hold R's feet to the fire regarding the impending economic disaster that was tipped over by leveraging high risk loans.

Good Lord

That alone completely invalidates any bs they spew about re-electing Bush.

Most of us wanted Pelosi and Reid gone, but they were just assholes, Franks actually is a traitor.

damn

How is he a "traitor" O Brilliant One? Wouldn't that make Alan Greenspan a partner in crime? You're clueless, I'm afraid.

 

[Samson]

While in 2003 the gop had the majority, it wasn't enough to burst the filabuster. And, if I recall, he mentioned the need to reg F/F 13 times, and every time, congress, especially that traitor Franks, blew him off.

I haven't seen much news lately. Did the dims re-elect that traitor?

The answer is Yes, Bwaney Fwanks was re-elected to represent the 10th MA district in the US House.

The GOP had the majority up until the final two years of the Bush Presidency. You'd think that with all the Alarms going off over the period, there'd be more than a whisper "hey, maybe we should throw a bucket of water on the fire."

There wasn't.

The Bush White house was concentrating on a number of immediate disasters: 9/11, Katrina, Iraq, and probably didn't have the resources to hold R's feet to the fire regarding the impending economic disaster that was tipped over by leveraging high risk loans.

What's amusing about arguments like that is while Bush is provided with all sorts of excuses, the cons all jump at the chance to blame the Obama administration for the whole damned thing--no excuses allowed--as if making sure the housing bubble burst causing the entire economy to crash was his first order of business.

You use as one excuse the attacks of 911. Hello? It was in the aftermath of 911 that Bush yelled to everyone GO OUT AND SPEND MONEY! So they did. YAY!! Let's buy a HOUSE! Tomorrow we may die!!

What is amusing is that you think anyone believes Bush is perfect.

 

[MaggieMae]

The answer is Yes, Bwaney Fwanks was re-elected to represent the 10th MA district in the US House.

The GOP had the majority up until the final two years of the Bush Presidency. You'd think that with all the Alarms going off over the period, there'd be more than a whisper "hey, maybe we should throw a bucket of water on the fire."

There wasn't.

The Bush White house was concentrating on a number of immediate disasters: 9/11, Katrina, Iraq, and probably didn't have the resources to hold R's feet to the fire regarding the impending economic disaster that was tipped over by leveraging high risk loans.

Good Lord

That alone completely invalidates any bs they spew about re-electing Bush.

Most of us wanted Pelosi and Reid gone, but they were just assholes, Franks actually is a traitor.

damn

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-romper-room/140172-barney-franks-avoids-taking-one-in-the-ass.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...eddie-while-his-seat-is-being-challenged.html

But the odd fact remains: NOT even the MENTION of a congressional investigation of the events leading up to the "Great Recession?" Why?

Because Both parties are guilty.

Hopefully by now you've seen the post where I shatter that presumption.

 

[mdn2000]

The answer is Yes, Bwaney Fwanks was re-elected to represent the 10th MA district in the US House.

The GOP had the majority up until the final two years of the Bush Presidency. You'd think that with all the Alarms going off over the period, there'd be more than a whisper "hey, maybe we should throw a bucket of water on the fire."

There wasn't.

The Bush White house was concentrating on a number of immediate disasters: 9/11, Katrina, Iraq, and probably didn't have the resources to hold R's feet to the fire regarding the impending economic disaster that was tipped over by leveraging high risk loans.

Good Lord

That alone completely invalidates any bs they spew about re-electing Bush.

Most of us wanted Pelosi and Reid gone, but they were just assholes, Franks actually is a traitor.

damn

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-romper-room/140172-barney-franks-avoids-taking-one-in-the-ass.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...eddie-while-his-seat-is-being-challenged.html

But the odd fact remains: NOT even the MENTION of a congressional investigation of the events leading up to the "Great Recession?" Why?

Because Both parties are guilty.

Guilty equals getting filthy rich

 

[MaggieMae]

American Dream Downpayment Initiative


Summary
The American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) was signed into law on December 16, 2003. The American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act authorizes up to $200 million annually for fiscal years 2004 - 2007. ADDI will provide funds to all fifty states and to local participating jurisdictions that have a population of at least 150,000 or will receive an allocation of at least $50,000 under the ADDI formula. ADDI will be administered as a part of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, a formula grant program

American Dream Downpayment Initiative - Affordable Housing - CPD - HUD


Who ran HUD in 2003????? Who wrote the Law?????

Bush appointee Mel Martinez ran HUD in 2003

ADDI was sponsored by Wayne Allard in the Senate and Kathrine Harris, remember her, in the House.

And here is the part about being required to be at least 20% below the means of the neighborhood they are buying into, from the link you posted.

Eligible Customers

To be eligible for ADDI assistance, individuals must be first-time homebuyers interested in purchasing single family housing. A first-time homebuyer is defined as an individual and his or her spouse who have not owned a home during the three-year period prior to the purchase of a home with ADDI assistance. ADDI funds may be used to purchase one- to four- family housing, condominium unit, cooperative unit, or manufactured housing. Additionally, individuals who qualify for ADDI assistance must have incomes not exceeding 80% of area median income.

Yet at the time, it seems that he didn't do enough. You guy's need to make up your mind. Another point, as I understand it, the "No Money Down" came from Cuomo, also the threat of Government Investigation, if the Loan applications were looked at too closely.

When Mel Martinez announced his candidacy for the Senate from his home state of Florida, it was inevitable that he would give a positive spin to his record as secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Martinez is claiming that on his watch HUD successfully promoted minority homeownership and faith-based initiatives, and eliminated waste and fraud. But housing advocates say his accomplishments have been ephemeral at best, as flimsy as a house of cards.

“I am disappointed that Mr. Martinez never got behind a new production program, as it appeared he might when he first arrived in Washington,” says Sheila Crowley, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC). “He certainly acknowledged the need. But he followed orders from the White House and [Office of Management and Budget] and actually worked against the National Housing Trust Fund.”

And that’s not all he did.

“[W]hat I resent most about the Martinez agenda for HUD is the co-optation of the language of ending chronic homelessness,” observes Crowley. “First of all, it has been all too easy for his declaration to morph into ending homelessness,” she says. “But more egregiously, the rhetoric was never matched with deeds and, I fear, was simply adopted to be used in political campaigns to validate the Bush Administration’s claims to compassionate conservatism.”

Seven Republican candidates are jockeying for position in advance of the August 31 primary for the opportunity to compete for the seat currently held by Democrat Bob Graham, who is retiring. Florida’s Senate race is being heralded as one of the most important in the nation for two reasons. First, the seat is up for grabs, with neither party having a clear advantage. Second, it is likely that, in what is widely predicted to be a close presidential race, Florida will once again figure prominently. Florida, as the 2000 presidential contest revealed, is a closely divided state, and both the Bush and Kerry campaigns will be putting considerable effort into winning the Sunshine State.

Martinez, who has the support of President Bush and an apparently close relationship with him, is perceived as having an edge. A profile of Martinez that ran last year in Orlando magazine derided the importance of HUD, and quoted from a National Journal report card of Cabinet members that gave Martinez an overall C, but an A for carrying out the president’s political agenda.

But even with the president’s support and as a member of the politically active Cuban-American community, Martinez is no shoo-in for the nomination. Earlier this year polls showed him running even with former U.S. Rep. Bill McCollum, a 20-year veteran of Congress. Martinez is running to McCollum’s right (even as he’s being attacked as a liberal by GOP gadfly and professional Clinton-hater Larry Klayman) but should he win the nomination he will have to move towards the center. He hopes his experience at HUD will help him do this. But if the Florida media examines the record – as the Orlando report suggests – the candidate might not get the bump he hopes for.
House of Cards: Mel Martinez's HUD Accomplishments

You sure are struggling to find some lame proof that Bush and his administration didn't contribute HUGELY to the housing crash. It's truly funny. I'd like to see something where Mario Cuomo had such influence on a major policy of George W. Bush. A liberal Democrat from New York? Sure. Incredible. Just incredible.

 

[MaggieMae]

What "storm" did Dems blame you for? Are you admitting global warming isn't just a myth? And I didn't even realize Mercury wasn't considered a planet anymore, so not sure there was any "blame" going viral for that or I would have seen it.

As for Bush working with Democrats, he didn't have to, except when it came to war supplementals, when he would simply say that if there were any clauses that put a timeframe for withdrawal in the bills, that he would veto them. Bush lived in an even tighter bubble than Obama does--relying heavily on his insiders to feed him only what he needed to know. He was not aware of Internet jokes, rumors, etc. Bush also wasn't a big reader of newspapers, so he was insulated from most of the negative press.

Do you try to write incoherent babble, or does it come naturally?

Sorry your reading comprehension still sucks.

 

[MaggieMae]

Think harder. Charlie Rangel just got re-Elected.

What does he have to do with congressional oversight of the banking crisis? (Also, Rangel has represented HARLEM for eons, so that was a given...duh...)

You might scroll down to the entry of October 14th to see what the congressional oversight committee is currently investigating. This entire blog report is chock full of information for everyone.

Blog

This is about TARP investigations.

My point is there are no congressionals investigations into the CAUSE(S) of the 2008 financial meltdown that required TARP.

Didn't spend a lotta time reading it, did you... As for the root cause? Congress probably didn't want to do any "investigating" until they started getting their TARP money back. It's a no-brainer. So...let's see how your Republicans do with investigations. I shall wait with bated breath to see just how eager THEY are to line up some of their good buddies for all the world to watch on C-Span.

 

[MaggieMae]

It is a business journal.

I'm certain it didn't take the editorial board very long to weigh the pro's vs. the cons of running a story about the Evil Fannie Mae or whether green eyeshadow looked good on Madonna.

But The Wall Street Journal will never own up to any mistakes made by said "business" models, either. Ever.

I'm not sure how you've developed the precognitive powers to know what the WSJ will or will not do in the future.

I'm also not sure what your point could possibly be?

I give up (again) with you. I keep forgetting your have the comprehension of a gnat. In a nutshell, the WSJ is ALWAYS going to be business-friendly and therefore will NEVER "blame" businesses for any part in ANY shenanigans. They will do NOTHING that will damage the daily market prices of shares.

 

[MaggieMae]

But did the WSJ report that the American Dream Downpayment Act might have played a part? Did FoxNews? Of course not. Ergo, the conservatives don't ever hear about it unless one of us posts it for them (which I've done at least a dozen times, and then they all seem to scatter--imagine that).

I'll let you do the search through WSJ and FNC, but I doubt you'll bother because finding anything would destroy your partisan dogma.

Nice copout. You post a link, and I'll read it.

 

[Angelhair]

BOTH parties are to blame - geez, what a concept.

 

[MaggieMae]

The answer is Yes, Bwaney Fwanks was re-elected to represent the 10th MA district in the US House.

The GOP had the majority up until the final two years of the Bush Presidency. You'd think that with all the Alarms going off over the period, there'd be more than a whisper "hey, maybe we should throw a bucket of water on the fire."

There wasn't.

The Bush White house was concentrating on a number of immediate disasters: 9/11, Katrina, Iraq, and probably didn't have the resources to hold R's feet to the fire regarding the impending economic disaster that was tipped over by leveraging high risk loans.

What's amusing about arguments like that is while Bush is provided with all sorts of excuses, the cons all jump at the chance to blame the Obama administration for the whole damned thing--no excuses allowed--as if making sure the housing bubble burst causing the entire economy to crash was his first order of business.

You use as one excuse the attacks of 911. Hello? It was in the aftermath of 911 that Bush yelled to everyone GO OUT AND SPEND MONEY! So they did. YAY!! Let's buy a HOUSE! Tomorrow we may die!!

What is amusing is that you think anyone believes Bush is perfect.

What's hilarious is your attempt at back-pedaling. Where's YOUR proof against mine (ours, since I've got some backup here for a change)?? Ironically, you accuse me of partisan dogma, when that's all you ever use to back up your own fact-free contributions.

 

[mdn2000]

I always think of George Bush sr and the bailout of the Savings and loans. Like father like son, Two Iraq wars and two bailouts of banks.

 

[MikeK]

During the limbaugh Bush interviewtoday Rush ask President Bush aboiut the car in the ditch
I will let President Bush speak for himself on this issue

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, on this issue, I don't steer clear because I remind the reader that on the issue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I saw a problem, and went to Congress and said, "Look, this is a group of... These are enterprises that have got an implicit government guarantee and they're taking risky stances, and therefore we ought to regulate them. If they've got an implicit government guarantee there ought to be some sense of regulation and make sure they don't misuse that guarantee, and I make it clear in the book what happened, and that is that powerful forces in Congress resisted that reform. Whether those reforms had taken place in 2003 it's hard to predict whether or not this crisis would have occurred, but I'm comfortable in telling the reader and comfortable that history will judge that we tried to do something about it. You know, and eventually the truth wins out, and this book is an attempt to set the record straight from my perspective.

Time and time again I have said Freddy and fanny was the cause of the fanical crisis. Thank you George for telling it like it is.

Powerful Forces in congress in 2003 were REPUBLICAN.

Exactly. And if Bush were willing to explore the validity of his claim he would have named names.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What evidence do you have to back that up with?


The right wing put that talking point out right after the meltdown occured. It has been completely disproved.

In a recent report to Congress, The Federal Reserve System investigated the CRA's alleged connection to the housing crisis; it found the CRA has in fact demonstrated success in its purpose over the years, and noted the following:

•Through partnerships with community organizations as well as adhering to sound lending practices, CRA-covered banks and thrifts created new ways to meet credit needs in underserved areas.
•Studies by the Federal Reserve System and Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, among others, have shown the CRA increased lending and home ownership in poorer communities without undermining banks’ profitability.
•Some financial institutions, not regulated by the CRA, were encouraged by its success and began to compete for business in lower-income areas by offering risky loan products or subprime loans.
•Non CRA-covered financial institutions were responsible for 60 percent of subprime loan originations made to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods -- borrower demographics not covered by the CRA. More than 20 percent of subprime loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or communities by independent non-bank institutions not covered by the CRA.
•CRA-covered banks and thrifts extended only 6 percent of all subprime loans to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods.
Since the CRA did not urge financial institutions to take on unnecessary financial risk, using sound lending practices in lower income neighborhoods has proved to be just as profitable as lending in more affluent areas. Therefore, this piece of legislation is not to blame for our current woes. Instead, it appears we should look more closely at these “independent non-bank institutions” not covered by the CRA that extended risky and subprime loans to borrowers of all income levels.

New Hampshire Housing - Housing Myths

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCTxZa9kpSI&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYz1rbB5V1s[/ame]

Can you tear yourself away from Fox and Youtube long enough to watch THIS one, genius? It contains interviews from some of the actual slimeballs who ran off with gramma's money and made sure her home was foreclosed upon.

Hulu - CNBC Originals: House of Cards - Watch the full episode now.

DOES IT MATTER WHO DELIEVERS THE MESSAGE? Listen to the democrats say nothing was wrong with either but yet they failed and along came the economy.