Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right, which meant they wouldn't buy those loans if they're not getting credit for them.
They had already made the loans. Per your source.

No, that is not per my source. You're saying they made the loans before they made the loans! Did they make those loans from 2001-2004? Nope. Again, your sophistry is showing.

And they didn't buy those loans.
They did, at the end of the bubble, to the tune of 56% of their purchases.

At the end of the bubble, the poor loans had already been made and defaulted. And GSE loan performance was no better or worse than prior to the bubble. So GSE's made good loans, private labels (your guys) made shitty ones. You have been unable to reconcile the facts that show GSE loan performance remained the same throughout the Bush Mortgage Bubble, whereas private label performance got much, much worse. You don't reconcile that because doing so would undermine your argument that the loans GSE's made were the ones responsible for the collapse. The loan performance data shows that is not the case at all, and GSE loan performance during the bubble was the same as it was prior to the bubble.

So submitting an editorial absent of facts is not going to help you here

HUD didn't make them buy more weak mortgages? LOL!

There were no weak mortgages you shitbag. GSE loan performance throughout the Bush Mortgage Bubble was the same as it was prior to the Bush Mortgage Bubble. THAT IS WHAT THE FACTS SHOW YOU ASSHOLE.

So why is it that you absolutely refuse to accept the facts? Is your ego that fragile that you have to literally ignore things that undermine your belief system? Are you that much of a snowflake? Get over yourself.

How can you come to the conclusion that GSE's bear any blame for the mortgage bubble
Over half their purchases were weak mortgages. You think that leaves them blameless?!

They weren't "weak" mortgages. Why? Because they didn't default at rates higher than before the bubble. Again, that's in the chart that you seem determined to ignore because it destroys everything you are arguing here. So here's another instance of Conservative fantasy clashing with reality. Conservatives think that because private labels issued garbage subprimes, that means all subprimes are garbage. But the GSE loan performance shows that isn't the case at all. You seem unable to reconcile that, which is why you are flaming out big time on this thread. You are struggling to support your claim that the mortgages the GSE's made were "weak". They weren't. GSE mortgages had the same delinquency rates during the bubble than prior to it...and in some cases, the delinquency rate was lower than before the bubble. Which means the mortgages GSE's were buying were not weak, as the borrowers didn't enter delinquency at rates higher than before the bubble.

When faced with these facts, you choose to ignore them. Which makes you an ignoramus.

Also, GSE market share was cut from 70% of the market in 2003 to 40% of the market by 2005:
They were recovering from their accounting scandals. They ramped up their purchases just in time to catch more of the foamy top of the bubble.

No. You are wrong. First of all, whatever was going on in the accounting at the GSEs had no bearing on the number of subprime loans GSE's backed. The reason the GSE market share dropped to 40% by 2005 was because private labels were increasing their subprime originations. From 1993-2003, there were 1.1 million subprimes issued, which comes to about 110,000 a year. From 2004-2006, there were 800,000 subprimes issued, which comes to about 266,000 a year. So what reduced GSE market share was the amount of subprime loans that private labels were issuing. More than double the number there was before. In 3 years, Conservatives issued nearly as many subprimes as were issued in the ten years prior.

You're just making things up as you go.

No, that is not per my source.

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

From Post #1077

Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

Moron.

At the end of the bubble,

In 2006, 56%. Durr.

There were no weak mortgages you shitbag.

The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?

Have you always been a fucktard? Is it the result of a recent brain injury? I'm truly curious.

Sorry Cupcake, the GSE bough the best of he best, highest tranches in the bunch which is why they outperformed the private guys who bought the crap during Dubya pushing the Banksters subprime bubble.

They were done under by Dubya "believing" markets self regulate and Dubya's policy towards F/F



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 Investment 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.


THINK F/F LIVE IN A BUBBLE AND AREN'T EFFECTED BY BAD GOP POLICY LIKE THE REST OF US ARE CUPCAKE?

FACTS on Dubya's great recession

Sorry Cupcake, the GSE bough the best of he best

Yes, when the government forced them to buy crappy mortgages, they only bought the best crappy mortgages.

It was awesome! LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope, the new employees don't collect welfare.

Why not? Is it because Walmart is paying them more? If they are paying them the same, then those workers would collect the same welfare the other workers collected that you just fired.

They're all young people living at home or workers who have higher paid spouses.

How much does the government save now that the welfare collecting former employees are now entirely dependent on welfare?
Is it a $6 billion savings? More? Spell it out!

So we'll save $6 billion? More?

Giving people living wages vs requiring them to live off the Gov't Cupcake?

How many people are you paying a living wage?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

People who aren't collecting welfare

But if they're paying the same rates they paid before, then those people would be collecting welfare.

Nope, the new employees don't collect welfare.
Now that WalMart isn't being subsidized, how much do welfare payments decrease?

State TANF Spending in FY 2015. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program is a $16.5 billion block grant to states, territories, and eligible tribes to provide assistance to low-income families and support a range of services to improve employment and other child and family outcomes.

SAME AMOUNT IT WAS IN 1995 AFTER "WELFARE REFORM" CUPCAKE

How States Use Federal and State Funds Under the TANF Block Grant


Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance
Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

Yes, I love that moronic "study".
When WalMart fires all the welfare recipients, we'll save billions on welfare.
How many billions?

Perhaps just get the welfare queen Walton's off the public teet and pay enough to support their workers Buttercup?

I agree, stop giving WalMart employees welfare.

We'll save billions!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So we'll save $6 billion? More?

No, you won't save anything if Walmart hires workers at the same rates they did before. So all those new Walmart workers, who get paid the same wages as the ones before, would all qualify for welfare.

You get that, right?

No, you won't save anything

Sure we will.

"It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers."

If Walmart fired 100 of their poor workers, would the taxpayers save $301,500 or $581,500?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There were no weak mortgages you shitbag.
The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?

First of all, they were already government-sponsored (What the "G" and "S" stand for in "GSE"). Secondly, the delinquency rates for subprimes connected to GSE's was unchanged from pre-mortgage bubble levels. In fact, in some cases, the delinquency rate was lower than it was pre-bubble, and as much as 6x better than the delinquency rate of private labels.

What that means is that the loans the GSE's had from 2004-7 performed the same (or better) than the loans they had prior. That's what the facts show. So you are trying to lay blame on the GSE's because of their market share, but you are ignoring the loan performance of GSE-backed loans. Are you intentionally ignoring them? It sure seems to be the case.

So why are you ignoring the GSE loan performance? Easy; because it undermines your attempt to pin blame on the GSE's for the negligence Conservatives had when it came to policing lending standards among private labels.

The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?

Have you always been a fucktard? Is it the result of a recent brain injury? I'm truly curious.

 

[JonKoch]

Right, which meant they wouldn't buy those loans if they're not getting credit for them.
They had already made the loans. Per your source.

No, that is not per my source. You're saying they made the loans before they made the loans! Did they make those loans from 2001-2004? Nope. Again, your sophistry is showing.

And they didn't buy those loans.
They did, at the end of the bubble, to the tune of 56% of their purchases.

At the end of the bubble, the poor loans had already been made and defaulted. And GSE loan performance was no better or worse than prior to the bubble. So GSE's made good loans, private labels (your guys) made shitty ones. You have been unable to reconcile the facts that show GSE loan performance remained the same throughout the Bush Mortgage Bubble, whereas private label performance got much, much worse. You don't reconcile that because doing so would undermine your argument that the loans GSE's made were the ones responsible for the collapse. The loan performance data shows that is not the case at all, and GSE loan performance during the bubble was the same as it was prior to the bubble.

So submitting an editorial absent of facts is not going to help you here

HUD didn't make them buy more weak mortgages? LOL!

There were no weak mortgages you shitbag. GSE loan performance throughout the Bush Mortgage Bubble was the same as it was prior to the Bush Mortgage Bubble. THAT IS WHAT THE FACTS SHOW YOU ASSHOLE.

So why is it that you absolutely refuse to accept the facts? Is your ego that fragile that you have to literally ignore things that undermine your belief system? Are you that much of a snowflake? Get over yourself.

How can you come to the conclusion that GSE's bear any blame for the mortgage bubble
Over half their purchases were weak mortgages. You think that leaves them blameless?!

They weren't "weak" mortgages. Why? Because they didn't default at rates higher than before the bubble. Again, that's in the chart that you seem determined to ignore because it destroys everything you are arguing here. So here's another instance of Conservative fantasy clashing with reality. Conservatives think that because private labels issued garbage subprimes, that means all subprimes are garbage. But the GSE loan performance shows that isn't the case at all. You seem unable to reconcile that, which is why you are flaming out big time on this thread. You are struggling to support your claim that the mortgages the GSE's made were "weak". They weren't. GSE mortgages had the same delinquency rates during the bubble than prior to it...and in some cases, the delinquency rate was lower than before the bubble. Which means the mortgages GSE's were buying were not weak, as the borrowers didn't enter delinquency at rates higher than before the bubble.

When faced with these facts, you choose to ignore them. Which makes you an ignoramus.

Also, GSE market share was cut from 70% of the market in 2003 to 40% of the market by 2005:
They were recovering from their accounting scandals. They ramped up their purchases just in time to catch more of the foamy top of the bubble.

No. You are wrong. First of all, whatever was going on in the accounting at the GSEs had no bearing on the number of subprime loans GSE's backed. The reason the GSE market share dropped to 40% by 2005 was because private labels were increasing their subprime originations. From 1993-2003, there were 1.1 million subprimes issued, which comes to about 110,000 a year. From 2004-2006, there were 800,000 subprimes issued, which comes to about 266,000 a year. So what reduced GSE market share was the amount of subprime loans that private labels were issuing. More than double the number there was before. In 3 years, Conservatives issued nearly as many subprimes as were issued in the ten years prior.

You're just making things up as you go.

No, that is not per my source.

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

From Post #1077

Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

Moron.

At the end of the bubble,

In 2006, 56%. Durr.

There were no weak mortgages you shitbag.

The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?

Have you always been a fucktard? Is it the result of a recent brain injury? I'm truly curious.

Sorry Cupcake, the GSE bough the best of he best, highest tranches in the bunch which is why they outperformed the private guys who bought the crap during Dubya pushing the Banksters subprime bubble.

They were done under by Dubya "believing" markets self regulate and Dubya's policy towards F/F



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 Investment 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.


THINK F/F LIVE IN A BUBBLE AND AREN'T EFFECTED BY BAD GOP POLICY LIKE THE REST OF US ARE CUPCAKE?

FACTS on Dubya's great recession

Sorry Cupcake, the GSE bough the best of he best

Yes, when the government forced them to buy crappy mortgages, they only bought the best crappy mortgages.

It was awesome! LOL!

Actually even though Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies forced GSE's to buy up MBS's they had very little subprimes, those they did have were the cream of the crop BECAUSE they got the top (best) tranches

Wish Dubya hadn't cheered on the Banksters credit bubble AS he fought all 50 states wanted to have regulators on the beat right Cupcake?

 

[JonKoch]

Why not? Is it because Walmart is paying them more? If they are paying them the same, then those workers would collect the same welfare the other workers collected that you just fired.

They're all young people living at home or workers who have higher paid spouses.

How much does the government save now that the welfare collecting former employees are now entirely dependent on welfare?
Is it a $6 billion savings? More? Spell it out!

So we'll save $6 billion? More?

Giving people living wages vs requiring them to live off the Gov't Cupcake?

How many people are you paying a living wage?

Thanks to CONservative economics the past 40 years, "winner take all", very few Cupcake, mostly union, Gov't or those with higher education. Sure wish instead of keep rewarding the "job creators", the GOP would want to increase wages at the bottom 90% instead like we had post WW2-1979...

 

[JonKoch]

But if they're paying the same rates they paid before, then those people would be collecting welfare.

Nope, the new employees don't collect welfare.
Now that WalMart isn't being subsidized, how much do welfare payments decrease?

State TANF Spending in FY 2015. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program is a $16.5 billion block grant to states, territories, and eligible tribes to provide assistance to low-income families and support a range of services to improve employment and other child and family outcomes.

SAME AMOUNT IT WAS IN 1995 AFTER "WELFARE REFORM" CUPCAKE

How States Use Federal and State Funds Under the TANF Block Grant


Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance
Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

Yes, I love that moronic "study".
When WalMart fires all the welfare recipients, we'll save billions on welfare.
How many billions?

Perhaps just get the welfare queen Walton's off the public teet and pay enough to support their workers Buttercup?

I agree, stop giving WalMart employees welfare.

We'll save billions!!

Sure Cupcake and be that much closer to a 3rd world nation that CONservative policies are bound to send US too

 

[JonKoch]

There were no weak mortgages you shitbag.
The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?

First of all, they were already government-sponsored (What the "G" and "S" stand for in "GSE"). Secondly, the delinquency rates for subprimes connected to GSE's was unchanged from pre-mortgage bubble levels. In fact, in some cases, the delinquency rate was lower than it was pre-bubble, and as much as 6x better than the delinquency rate of private labels.

What that means is that the loans the GSE's had from 2004-7 performed the same (or better) than the loans they had prior. That's what the facts show. So you are trying to lay blame on the GSE's because of their market share, but you are ignoring the loan performance of GSE-backed loans. Are you intentionally ignoring them? It sure seems to be the case.

So why are you ignoring the GSE loan performance? Easy; because it undermines your attempt to pin blame on the GSE's for the negligence Conservatives had when it came to policing lending standards among private labels.

The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?

Have you always been a fucktard? Is it the result of a recent brain injury? I'm truly curious.

Don't understand TENS OF MILLIONS of homes were under water after Dubya cheered on the Banksters credit bubble Cupcake? Yep, lose 40%-60% home values as we saw 2008-2011 in a LOT of the US and people tend to walk away EVEN QUALITY LOANS THAT HAD UNDERWRITING LIKE GSE'S DID

Not very good with this economic thing Buttercup?

"GSE loans had a delinquency rate of 6.2% in 2008 versus 28.3% for non-GSE or private label loans."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right, which meant they wouldn't buy those loans if they're not getting credit for them.
They had already made the loans. Per your source.

No, that is not per my source. You're saying they made the loans before they made the loans! Did they make those loans from 2001-2004? Nope. Again, your sophistry is showing.

And they didn't buy those loans.
They did, at the end of the bubble, to the tune of 56% of their purchases.

At the end of the bubble, the poor loans had already been made and defaulted. And GSE loan performance was no better or worse than prior to the bubble. So GSE's made good loans, private labels (your guys) made shitty ones. You have been unable to reconcile the facts that show GSE loan performance remained the same throughout the Bush Mortgage Bubble, whereas private label performance got much, much worse. You don't reconcile that because doing so would undermine your argument that the loans GSE's made were the ones responsible for the collapse. The loan performance data shows that is not the case at all, and GSE loan performance during the bubble was the same as it was prior to the bubble.

So submitting an editorial absent of facts is not going to help you here

HUD didn't make them buy more weak mortgages? LOL!

There were no weak mortgages you shitbag. GSE loan performance throughout the Bush Mortgage Bubble was the same as it was prior to the Bush Mortgage Bubble. THAT IS WHAT THE FACTS SHOW YOU ASSHOLE.

So why is it that you absolutely refuse to accept the facts? Is your ego that fragile that you have to literally ignore things that undermine your belief system? Are you that much of a snowflake? Get over yourself.

How can you come to the conclusion that GSE's bear any blame for the mortgage bubble
Over half their purchases were weak mortgages. You think that leaves them blameless?!

They weren't "weak" mortgages. Why? Because they didn't default at rates higher than before the bubble. Again, that's in the chart that you seem determined to ignore because it destroys everything you are arguing here. So here's another instance of Conservative fantasy clashing with reality. Conservatives think that because private labels issued garbage subprimes, that means all subprimes are garbage. But the GSE loan performance shows that isn't the case at all. You seem unable to reconcile that, which is why you are flaming out big time on this thread. You are struggling to support your claim that the mortgages the GSE's made were "weak". They weren't. GSE mortgages had the same delinquency rates during the bubble than prior to it...and in some cases, the delinquency rate was lower than before the bubble. Which means the mortgages GSE's were buying were not weak, as the borrowers didn't enter delinquency at rates higher than before the bubble.

When faced with these facts, you choose to ignore them. Which makes you an ignoramus.

Also, GSE market share was cut from 70% of the market in 2003 to 40% of the market by 2005:
They were recovering from their accounting scandals. They ramped up their purchases just in time to catch more of the foamy top of the bubble.

No. You are wrong. First of all, whatever was going on in the accounting at the GSEs had no bearing on the number of subprime loans GSE's backed. The reason the GSE market share dropped to 40% by 2005 was because private labels were increasing their subprime originations. From 1993-2003, there were 1.1 million subprimes issued, which comes to about 110,000 a year. From 2004-2006, there were 800,000 subprimes issued, which comes to about 266,000 a year. So what reduced GSE market share was the amount of subprime loans that private labels were issuing. More than double the number there was before. In 3 years, Conservatives issued nearly as many subprimes as were issued in the ten years prior.

You're just making things up as you go.

No, that is not per my source.

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

From Post #1077

Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

Moron.

At the end of the bubble,

In 2006, 56%. Durr.

There were no weak mortgages you shitbag.

The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?

Have you always been a fucktard? Is it the result of a recent brain injury? I'm truly curious.

Sorry Cupcake, the GSE bough the best of he best, highest tranches in the bunch which is why they outperformed the private guys who bought the crap during Dubya pushing the Banksters subprime bubble.

They were done under by Dubya "believing" markets self regulate and Dubya's policy towards F/F



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 Investment 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.


THINK F/F LIVE IN A BUBBLE AND AREN'T EFFECTED BY BAD GOP POLICY LIKE THE REST OF US ARE CUPCAKE?

FACTS on Dubya's great recession

Sorry Cupcake, the GSE bough the best of he best

Yes, when the government forced them to buy crappy mortgages, they only bought the best crappy mortgages.

It was awesome! LOL!

Actually even though Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies forced GSE's to buy up MBS's they had very little subprimes, those they did have were the cream of the crop BECAUSE they got the top (best) tranches

Wish Dubya hadn't cheered on the Banksters credit bubble AS he fought all 50 states wanted to have regulators on the beat right Cupcake?

Actually even though Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies forced GSE's to buy up MBS's

I know, the Dems resisted that every step of the way.

those they did have were the cream of the crop

Absolutely! That's why the Treasury and Fed had to give them a couple of hundred billion dollars.
Not a loser in the bunch, eh?

 

[JonKoch]

No, that is not per my source. You're saying they made the loans before they made the loans! Did they make those loans from 2001-2004? Nope. Again, your sophistry is showing.


At the end of the bubble, the poor loans had already been made and defaulted. And GSE loan performance was no better or worse than prior to the bubble. So GSE's made good loans, private labels (your guys) made shitty ones. You have been unable to reconcile the facts that show GSE loan performance remained the same throughout the Bush Mortgage Bubble, whereas private label performance got much, much worse. You don't reconcile that because doing so would undermine your argument that the loans GSE's made were the ones responsible for the collapse. The loan performance data shows that is not the case at all, and GSE loan performance during the bubble was the same as it was prior to the bubble.




There were no weak mortgages you shitbag. GSE loan performance throughout the Bush Mortgage Bubble was the same as it was prior to the Bush Mortgage Bubble. THAT IS WHAT THE FACTS SHOW YOU ASSHOLE.

So why is it that you absolutely refuse to accept the facts? Is your ego that fragile that you have to literally ignore things that undermine your belief system? Are you that much of a snowflake? Get over yourself.


They weren't "weak" mortgages. Why? Because they didn't default at rates higher than before the bubble. Again, that's in the chart that you seem determined to ignore because it destroys everything you are arguing here. So here's another instance of Conservative fantasy clashing with reality. Conservatives think that because private labels issued garbage subprimes, that means all subprimes are garbage. But the GSE loan performance shows that isn't the case at all. You seem unable to reconcile that, which is why you are flaming out big time on this thread. You are struggling to support your claim that the mortgages the GSE's made were "weak". They weren't. GSE mortgages had the same delinquency rates during the bubble than prior to it...and in some cases, the delinquency rate was lower than before the bubble. Which means the mortgages GSE's were buying were not weak, as the borrowers didn't enter delinquency at rates higher than before the bubble.

When faced with these facts, you choose to ignore them. Which makes you an ignoramus.


No. You are wrong. First of all, whatever was going on in the accounting at the GSEs had no bearing on the number of subprime loans GSE's backed. The reason the GSE market share dropped to 40% by 2005 was because private labels were increasing their subprime originations. From 1993-2003, there were 1.1 million subprimes issued, which comes to about 110,000 a year. From 2004-2006, there were 800,000 subprimes issued, which comes to about 266,000 a year. So what reduced GSE market share was the amount of subprime loans that private labels were issuing. More than double the number there was before. In 3 years, Conservatives issued nearly as many subprimes as were issued in the ten years prior.

You're just making things up as you go.

No, that is not per my source.

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

From Post #1077

Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

Moron.

At the end of the bubble,

In 2006, 56%. Durr.

There were no weak mortgages you shitbag.

The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?

Have you always been a fucktard? Is it the result of a recent brain injury? I'm truly curious.

Sorry Cupcake, the GSE bough the best of he best, highest tranches in the bunch which is why they outperformed the private guys who bought the crap during Dubya pushing the Banksters subprime bubble.

They were done under by Dubya "believing" markets self regulate and Dubya's policy towards F/F



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 Investment 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.


THINK F/F LIVE IN A BUBBLE AND AREN'T EFFECTED BY BAD GOP POLICY LIKE THE REST OF US ARE CUPCAKE?

FACTS on Dubya's great recession

Sorry Cupcake, the GSE bough the best of he best

Yes, when the government forced them to buy crappy mortgages, they only bought the best crappy mortgages.

It was awesome! LOL!

Actually even though Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies forced GSE's to buy up MBS's they had very little subprimes, those they did have were the cream of the crop BECAUSE they got the top (best) tranches

Wish Dubya hadn't cheered on the Banksters credit bubble AS he fought all 50 states wanted to have regulators on the beat right Cupcake?

Actually even though Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies forced GSE's to buy up MBS's

I know, the Dems resisted that every step of the way.

those they did have were the cream of the crop

Absolutely! That's why the Treasury and Fed had to give them a couple of hundred billion dollars.
Not a loser in the bunch, eh?

For the 3rd time Cupcake, what power did the Dems have during Dubya's reign again??? Nice dodge on which party had the Executive branch though Cupcake



Don't understand that after 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies the US lost $16+ TRILLION in wealth, 7 million jobs and 10 million homes being foreclosed as the economy dumped 9%+ the last quarter of 2008, the housing economy was dumping??? MIGHT hurt the GSE's and their holdings Cupcake?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, that is not per my source.

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

From Post #1077

Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

Moron.

At the end of the bubble,

In 2006, 56%. Durr.

There were no weak mortgages you shitbag.

The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?

Have you always been a fucktard? Is it the result of a recent brain injury? I'm truly curious.

Sorry Cupcake, the GSE bough the best of he best, highest tranches in the bunch which is why they outperformed the private guys who bought the crap during Dubya pushing the Banksters subprime bubble.

They were done under by Dubya "believing" markets self regulate and Dubya's policy towards F/F



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 Investment 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.


THINK F/F LIVE IN A BUBBLE AND AREN'T EFFECTED BY BAD GOP POLICY LIKE THE REST OF US ARE CUPCAKE?

FACTS on Dubya's great recession

Sorry Cupcake, the GSE bough the best of he best

Yes, when the government forced them to buy crappy mortgages, they only bought the best crappy mortgages.

It was awesome! LOL!

Actually even though Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies forced GSE's to buy up MBS's they had very little subprimes, those they did have were the cream of the crop BECAUSE they got the top (best) tranches

Wish Dubya hadn't cheered on the Banksters credit bubble AS he fought all 50 states wanted to have regulators on the beat right Cupcake?

Actually even though Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies forced GSE's to buy up MBS's

I know, the Dems resisted that every step of the way.

those they did have were the cream of the crop

Absolutely! That's why the Treasury and Fed had to give them a couple of hundred billion dollars.
Not a loser in the bunch, eh?

For the 3rd time Cupcake, what power did the Dems have during Dubya's reign again??? Nice dodge on which party had the Executive branch though Cupcake



Don't understand that after 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies the US lost $16+ TRILLION in wealth, 7 million jobs and 10 million homes being foreclosed as the economy dumped 9%+ the last quarter of 2008, the housing economy was dumping??? MIGHT hurt the GSE's and their holdings Cupcake?

what power did the Dems have during Dubya's reign again???

Did they need power to stop W's home ownership idiocy?
Is that what they would have done if they controlled the House and Senate, stopped his home ownership push for poor people?

 

[JonKoch]

Sorry Cupcake, the GSE bough the best of he best, highest tranches in the bunch which is why they outperformed the private guys who bought the crap during Dubya pushing the Banksters subprime bubble.

They were done under by Dubya "believing" markets self regulate and Dubya's policy towards F/F



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 Investment 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.


THINK F/F LIVE IN A BUBBLE AND AREN'T EFFECTED BY BAD GOP POLICY LIKE THE REST OF US ARE CUPCAKE?

FACTS on Dubya's great recession

Sorry Cupcake, the GSE bough the best of he best

Yes, when the government forced them to buy crappy mortgages, they only bought the best crappy mortgages.

It was awesome! LOL!

Actually even though Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies forced GSE's to buy up MBS's they had very little subprimes, those they did have were the cream of the crop BECAUSE they got the top (best) tranches

Wish Dubya hadn't cheered on the Banksters credit bubble AS he fought all 50 states wanted to have regulators on the beat right Cupcake?

Actually even though Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies forced GSE's to buy up MBS's

I know, the Dems resisted that every step of the way.

those they did have were the cream of the crop

Absolutely! That's why the Treasury and Fed had to give them a couple of hundred billion dollars.
Not a loser in the bunch, eh?

For the 3rd time Cupcake, what power did the Dems have during Dubya's reign again??? Nice dodge on which party had the Executive branch though Cupcake



Don't understand that after 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies the US lost $16+ TRILLION in wealth, 7 million jobs and 10 million homes being foreclosed as the economy dumped 9%+ the last quarter of 2008, the housing economy was dumping??? MIGHT hurt the GSE's and their holdings Cupcake?

what power did the Dems have during Dubya's reign again???

Did they need power to stop W's home ownership idiocy?
Is that what they would have done if they controlled the House and Senate, stopped his home ownership push for poor people?

Don't understand what power of the minority in Congress is Cupcake?



Barney Frank:


June 17th, 2004
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.

The new rule compels the companies to put 57 percent of their mortgage financing by 2008 toward homes for people with incomes no greater than area median income. Fannie Mae and Freddie, the two largest U.S. mortgage finance companies, must currently meet a 50 percent threshold.

The White House “could do some harm if you don't refine the goals,'' said Representative Barney Frank



Frank's comments echo concerns of executives at the government-chartered companies that the new goals will undermine profits and put new homeowners into dwellings they can't afford. “

At their outer edges they become counterproductive –there are not loans to make that will get repaid,'' Freddie Mac Chief Executive Richard Syron said Monday in an interview, referring to the new financing rule.

Frank said the administration is aiming to reduce the role of the two companies in mortgage financing, and has seized on the higher goals “as a useful stick by which to beat Fannie and Freddie.''


HINT EXEC BRANCH HAS HUD, OCC, SEC, GSE, ETC WHICH IS HOW RONNIE FAILED WITH THE S&L CRISIS ALSO, YOU KNOW "MARKETS SELF REGULATE" BS


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?



https://democrats-financialservices...s/112/06-17-04-new-fannie-goals-bloomberg.pdf

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry Cupcake, the GSE bough the best of he best

Yes, when the government forced them to buy crappy mortgages, they only bought the best crappy mortgages.

It was awesome! LOL!

Actually even though Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies forced GSE's to buy up MBS's they had very little subprimes, those they did have were the cream of the crop BECAUSE they got the top (best) tranches

Wish Dubya hadn't cheered on the Banksters credit bubble AS he fought all 50 states wanted to have regulators on the beat right Cupcake?

Actually even though Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies forced GSE's to buy up MBS's

I know, the Dems resisted that every step of the way.

those they did have were the cream of the crop

Absolutely! That's why the Treasury and Fed had to give them a couple of hundred billion dollars.
Not a loser in the bunch, eh?

For the 3rd time Cupcake, what power did the Dems have during Dubya's reign again??? Nice dodge on which party had the Executive branch though Cupcake



Don't understand that after 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies the US lost $16+ TRILLION in wealth, 7 million jobs and 10 million homes being foreclosed as the economy dumped 9%+ the last quarter of 2008, the housing economy was dumping??? MIGHT hurt the GSE's and their holdings Cupcake?

what power did the Dems have during Dubya's reign again???

Did they need power to stop W's home ownership idiocy?
Is that what they would have done if they controlled the House and Senate, stopped his home ownership push for poor people?

Don't understand what power of the minority in Congress is Cupcake?



Barney Frank:


June 17th, 2004
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.

The new rule compels the companies to put 57 percent of their mortgage financing by 2008 toward homes for people with incomes no greater than area median income. Fannie Mae and Freddie, the two largest U.S. mortgage finance companies, must currently meet a 50 percent threshold.

The White House “could do some harm if you don't refine the goals,'' said Representative Barney Frank



Frank's comments echo concerns of executives at the government-chartered companies that the new goals will undermine profits and put new homeowners into dwellings they can't afford. “

At their outer edges they become counterproductive –there are not loans to make that will get repaid,'' Freddie Mac Chief Executive Richard Syron said Monday in an interview, referring to the new financing rule.

Frank said the administration is aiming to reduce the role of the two companies in mortgage financing, and has seized on the higher goals “as a useful stick by which to beat Fannie and Freddie.''


HINT EXEC BRANCH HAS HUD, OCC, SEC, GSE, ETC WHICH IS HOW RONNIE FAILED WITH THE S&L CRISIS ALSO, YOU KNOW "MARKETS SELF REGULATE" BS


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?



https://democrats-financialservices...s/112/06-17-04-new-fannie-goals-bloomberg.pdf

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

Yes, Barney didn't want banks to lend more to low income people. Hilarious!!!

Thanks for the laughs, chuckles.

 

[JonKoch]

Actually even though Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies forced GSE's to buy up MBS's they had very little subprimes, those they did have were the cream of the crop BECAUSE they got the top (best) tranches

Wish Dubya hadn't cheered on the Banksters credit bubble AS he fought all 50 states wanted to have regulators on the beat right Cupcake?

Actually even though Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies forced GSE's to buy up MBS's

I know, the Dems resisted that every step of the way.

those they did have were the cream of the crop

Absolutely! That's why the Treasury and Fed had to give them a couple of hundred billion dollars.
Not a loser in the bunch, eh?

For the 3rd time Cupcake, what power did the Dems have during Dubya's reign again??? Nice dodge on which party had the Executive branch though Cupcake



Don't understand that after 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies the US lost $16+ TRILLION in wealth, 7 million jobs and 10 million homes being foreclosed as the economy dumped 9%+ the last quarter of 2008, the housing economy was dumping??? MIGHT hurt the GSE's and their holdings Cupcake?

what power did the Dems have during Dubya's reign again???

Did they need power to stop W's home ownership idiocy?
Is that what they would have done if they controlled the House and Senate, stopped his home ownership push for poor people?

Don't understand what power of the minority in Congress is Cupcake?



Barney Frank:


June 17th, 2004
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.

The new rule compels the companies to put 57 percent of their mortgage financing by 2008 toward homes for people with incomes no greater than area median income. Fannie Mae and Freddie, the two largest U.S. mortgage finance companies, must currently meet a 50 percent threshold.

The White House “could do some harm if you don't refine the goals,'' said Representative Barney Frank



Frank's comments echo concerns of executives at the government-chartered companies that the new goals will undermine profits and put new homeowners into dwellings they can't afford. “

At their outer edges they become counterproductive –there are not loans to make that will get repaid,'' Freddie Mac Chief Executive Richard Syron said Monday in an interview, referring to the new financing rule.

Frank said the administration is aiming to reduce the role of the two companies in mortgage financing, and has seized on the higher goals “as a useful stick by which to beat Fannie and Freddie.''


HINT EXEC BRANCH HAS HUD, OCC, SEC, GSE, ETC WHICH IS HOW RONNIE FAILED WITH THE S&L CRISIS ALSO, YOU KNOW "MARKETS SELF REGULATE" BS


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?



https://democrats-financialservices...s/112/06-17-04-new-fannie-goals-bloomberg.pdf

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

Yes, Barney didn't want banks to lend more to low income people. Hilarious!!!

Thanks for the laughs, chuckles.

Didn't read the link huh Cupcake?

Frank and housing industry representatives such as Jerry Howard, chief executive of the National Association of Homebuilders, say the White House rules fail to focus financing on multifamily housing and other market segments.


The regulations also don't address a decline in refinancing and other market changes, they said. “We don't see how these goals in any way put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into specific types of affordable housing,'' Howard said.

The association, which represents Centex Corp., Toll Brothers Inc. and about 215,000 other companies in the housing industry, plans to ask for a 60-day extension of the public comment period, Howard said. Referring to the housing goals and the two companies, Frank said, “we want to push them further, but it doesn't make sense to push them in an undifferentiated way.''

https://democrats-financialservices...s/112/06-17-04-new-fannie-goals-bloomberg.pdf

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."


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 (R) told Frank.


Frank Seeks Antidote to Republican Amnesia
Frank Seeks Antidote to Republican Amnesia


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually even though Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies forced GSE's to buy up MBS's

I know, the Dems resisted that every step of the way.

those they did have were the cream of the crop

Absolutely! That's why the Treasury and Fed had to give them a couple of hundred billion dollars.
Not a loser in the bunch, eh?

For the 3rd time Cupcake, what power did the Dems have during Dubya's reign again??? Nice dodge on which party had the Executive branch though Cupcake



Don't understand that after 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies the US lost $16+ TRILLION in wealth, 7 million jobs and 10 million homes being foreclosed as the economy dumped 9%+ the last quarter of 2008, the housing economy was dumping??? MIGHT hurt the GSE's and their holdings Cupcake?

what power did the Dems have during Dubya's reign again???

Did they need power to stop W's home ownership idiocy?
Is that what they would have done if they controlled the House and Senate, stopped his home ownership push for poor people?

Don't understand what power of the minority in Congress is Cupcake?



Barney Frank:


June 17th, 2004
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.

The new rule compels the companies to put 57 percent of their mortgage financing by 2008 toward homes for people with incomes no greater than area median income. Fannie Mae and Freddie, the two largest U.S. mortgage finance companies, must currently meet a 50 percent threshold.

The White House “could do some harm if you don't refine the goals,'' said Representative Barney Frank



Frank's comments echo concerns of executives at the government-chartered companies that the new goals will undermine profits and put new homeowners into dwellings they can't afford. “

At their outer edges they become counterproductive –there are not loans to make that will get repaid,'' Freddie Mac Chief Executive Richard Syron said Monday in an interview, referring to the new financing rule.

Frank said the administration is aiming to reduce the role of the two companies in mortgage financing, and has seized on the higher goals “as a useful stick by which to beat Fannie and Freddie.''


HINT EXEC BRANCH HAS HUD, OCC, SEC, GSE, ETC WHICH IS HOW RONNIE FAILED WITH THE S&L CRISIS ALSO, YOU KNOW "MARKETS SELF REGULATE" BS


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?



https://democrats-financialservices...s/112/06-17-04-new-fannie-goals-bloomberg.pdf

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

Yes, Barney didn't want banks to lend more to low income people. Hilarious!!!

Thanks for the laughs, chuckles.

Didn't read the link huh Cupcake?

Frank and housing industry representatives such as Jerry Howard, chief executive of the National Association of Homebuilders, say the White House rules fail to focus financing on multifamily housing and other market segments.


The regulations also don't address a decline in refinancing and other market changes, they said. “We don't see how these goals in any way put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into specific types of affordable housing,'' Howard said.

The association, which represents Centex Corp., Toll Brothers Inc. and about 215,000 other companies in the housing industry, plans to ask for a 60-day extension of the public comment period, Howard said. Referring to the housing goals and the two companies, Frank said, “we want to push them further, but it doesn't make sense to push them in an undifferentiated way.''

https://democrats-financialservices...s/112/06-17-04-new-fannie-goals-bloomberg.pdf

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."


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 (R) told Frank.


Frank Seeks Antidote to Republican Amnesia
Frank Seeks Antidote to Republican Amnesia


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

Referring to the housing goals and the two companies, Frank said, “we want to push them further,

Thanks. When you prove my point, I don't have to.

 

[JonKoch]

For the 3rd time Cupcake, what power did the Dems have during Dubya's reign again??? Nice dodge on which party had the Executive branch though Cupcake



Don't understand that after 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies the US lost $16+ TRILLION in wealth, 7 million jobs and 10 million homes being foreclosed as the economy dumped 9%+ the last quarter of 2008, the housing economy was dumping??? MIGHT hurt the GSE's and their holdings Cupcake?

what power did the Dems have during Dubya's reign again???

Did they need power to stop W's home ownership idiocy?
Is that what they would have done if they controlled the House and Senate, stopped his home ownership push for poor people?

Don't understand what power of the minority in Congress is Cupcake?



Barney Frank:


June 17th, 2004
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.

The new rule compels the companies to put 57 percent of their mortgage financing by 2008 toward homes for people with incomes no greater than area median income. Fannie Mae and Freddie, the two largest U.S. mortgage finance companies, must currently meet a 50 percent threshold.

The White House “could do some harm if you don't refine the goals,'' said Representative Barney Frank



Frank's comments echo concerns of executives at the government-chartered companies that the new goals will undermine profits and put new homeowners into dwellings they can't afford. “

At their outer edges they become counterproductive –there are not loans to make that will get repaid,'' Freddie Mac Chief Executive Richard Syron said Monday in an interview, referring to the new financing rule.

Frank said the administration is aiming to reduce the role of the two companies in mortgage financing, and has seized on the higher goals “as a useful stick by which to beat Fannie and Freddie.''


HINT EXEC BRANCH HAS HUD, OCC, SEC, GSE, ETC WHICH IS HOW RONNIE FAILED WITH THE S&L CRISIS ALSO, YOU KNOW "MARKETS SELF REGULATE" BS


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?



https://democrats-financialservices...s/112/06-17-04-new-fannie-goals-bloomberg.pdf

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

Yes, Barney didn't want banks to lend more to low income people. Hilarious!!!

Thanks for the laughs, chuckles.

Didn't read the link huh Cupcake?

Frank and housing industry representatives such as Jerry Howard, chief executive of the National Association of Homebuilders, say the White House rules fail to focus financing on multifamily housing and other market segments.


The regulations also don't address a decline in refinancing and other market changes, they said. “We don't see how these goals in any way put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into specific types of affordable housing,'' Howard said.

The association, which represents Centex Corp., Toll Brothers Inc. and about 215,000 other companies in the housing industry, plans to ask for a 60-day extension of the public comment period, Howard said. Referring to the housing goals and the two companies, Frank said, “we want to push them further, but it doesn't make sense to push them in an undifferentiated way.''

https://democrats-financialservices...s/112/06-17-04-new-fannie-goals-bloomberg.pdf

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."


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 (R) told Frank.


Frank Seeks Antidote to Republican Amnesia
Frank Seeks Antidote to Republican Amnesia


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

Referring to the housing goals and the two companies, Frank said, “we want to push them further,

Thanks. When you prove my point, I don't have to.

Sure Cupcake, take it out of context, it's ALL you have.

Are you EVER going to get tired at nipping out our heels and actually get into the debates Cupcake?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

what power did the Dems have during Dubya's reign again???

Did they need power to stop W's home ownership idiocy?
Is that what they would have done if they controlled the House and Senate, stopped his home ownership push for poor people?

Don't understand what power of the minority in Congress is Cupcake?



Barney Frank:


June 17th, 2004
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.

The new rule compels the companies to put 57 percent of their mortgage financing by 2008 toward homes for people with incomes no greater than area median income. Fannie Mae and Freddie, the two largest U.S. mortgage finance companies, must currently meet a 50 percent threshold.

The White House “could do some harm if you don't refine the goals,'' said Representative Barney Frank



Frank's comments echo concerns of executives at the government-chartered companies that the new goals will undermine profits and put new homeowners into dwellings they can't afford. “

At their outer edges they become counterproductive –there are not loans to make that will get repaid,'' Freddie Mac Chief Executive Richard Syron said Monday in an interview, referring to the new financing rule.

Frank said the administration is aiming to reduce the role of the two companies in mortgage financing, and has seized on the higher goals “as a useful stick by which to beat Fannie and Freddie.''


HINT EXEC BRANCH HAS HUD, OCC, SEC, GSE, ETC WHICH IS HOW RONNIE FAILED WITH THE S&L CRISIS ALSO, YOU KNOW "MARKETS SELF REGULATE" BS


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?



https://democrats-financialservices...s/112/06-17-04-new-fannie-goals-bloomberg.pdf

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

Yes, Barney didn't want banks to lend more to low income people. Hilarious!!!

Thanks for the laughs, chuckles.

Didn't read the link huh Cupcake?

Frank and housing industry representatives such as Jerry Howard, chief executive of the National Association of Homebuilders, say the White House rules fail to focus financing on multifamily housing and other market segments.


The regulations also don't address a decline in refinancing and other market changes, they said. “We don't see how these goals in any way put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into specific types of affordable housing,'' Howard said.

The association, which represents Centex Corp., Toll Brothers Inc. and about 215,000 other companies in the housing industry, plans to ask for a 60-day extension of the public comment period, Howard said. Referring to the housing goals and the two companies, Frank said, “we want to push them further, but it doesn't make sense to push them in an undifferentiated way.''

https://democrats-financialservices...s/112/06-17-04-new-fannie-goals-bloomberg.pdf

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."


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 (R) told Frank.


Frank Seeks Antidote to Republican Amnesia
Frank Seeks Antidote to Republican Amnesia


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

Referring to the housing goals and the two companies, Frank said, “we want to push them further,

Thanks. When you prove my point, I don't have to.

Sure Cupcake, take it out of context, it's ALL you have.

Are you EVER going to get tired at nipping out our heels and actually get into the debates Cupcake?

 

[danielpalos]

Tax cuts supply more disposable income; but, only the wealthiest benefit the most.

A higher minimum wage benefits more people and grows our economy.

Retained wealth by the one percent, may be expatriated.

 

[JonKoch]

Don't understand what power of the minority in Congress is Cupcake?



Barney Frank:


June 17th, 2004
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.

The new rule compels the companies to put 57 percent of their mortgage financing by 2008 toward homes for people with incomes no greater than area median income. Fannie Mae and Freddie, the two largest U.S. mortgage finance companies, must currently meet a 50 percent threshold.

The White House “could do some harm if you don't refine the goals,'' said Representative Barney Frank



Frank's comments echo concerns of executives at the government-chartered companies that the new goals will undermine profits and put new homeowners into dwellings they can't afford. “

At their outer edges they become counterproductive –there are not loans to make that will get repaid,'' Freddie Mac Chief Executive Richard Syron said Monday in an interview, referring to the new financing rule.

Frank said the administration is aiming to reduce the role of the two companies in mortgage financing, and has seized on the higher goals “as a useful stick by which to beat Fannie and Freddie.''


HINT EXEC BRANCH HAS HUD, OCC, SEC, GSE, ETC WHICH IS HOW RONNIE FAILED WITH THE S&L CRISIS ALSO, YOU KNOW "MARKETS SELF REGULATE" BS


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?



https://democrats-financialservices...s/112/06-17-04-new-fannie-goals-bloomberg.pdf

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

Yes, Barney didn't want banks to lend more to low income people. Hilarious!!!

Thanks for the laughs, chuckles.

Didn't read the link huh Cupcake?

Frank and housing industry representatives such as Jerry Howard, chief executive of the National Association of Homebuilders, say the White House rules fail to focus financing on multifamily housing and other market segments.


The regulations also don't address a decline in refinancing and other market changes, they said. “We don't see how these goals in any way put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into specific types of affordable housing,'' Howard said.

The association, which represents Centex Corp., Toll Brothers Inc. and about 215,000 other companies in the housing industry, plans to ask for a 60-day extension of the public comment period, Howard said. Referring to the housing goals and the two companies, Frank said, “we want to push them further, but it doesn't make sense to push them in an undifferentiated way.''

https://democrats-financialservices...s/112/06-17-04-new-fannie-goals-bloomberg.pdf

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."


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 (R) told Frank.


Frank Seeks Antidote to Republican Amnesia
Frank Seeks Antidote to Republican Amnesia


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

Referring to the housing goals and the two companies, Frank said, “we want to push them further,

Thanks. When you prove my point, I don't have to.

Sure Cupcake, take it out of context, it's ALL you have.

Are you EVER going to get tired at nipping out our heels and actually get into the debates Cupcake?

View attachment 131461

Nah Cupcake, just tired how right wingers like you ALWAYS try to simplify things by taking it out of context

I guess it's just the way your bumper sticker brains work