Thanks Trump, for destroying the GOP

[Faun]

And I showed you a vast majority of the toxic loans which cratered the economy were not subjected to CRA regulations. 6% of higher priced residential toxic loans were CRA loans and zero percent of commercial toxic loans were CRA loans.

Edward Pinto

Edward Pinto, a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry, was the chief credit officer at Fannie Mae in the 1980s.

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic

So why is Congress thinking about expanding it?

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic


1. The question of how well CRA loans have performed is of vital importance because of the trillions of dollars in such lending. During the first 15 years of the act’s existence, total announced commitments under the CRA totaled $9 billion. But starting in 1992, volume exploded. Over the next 16 years, from 1992 to 2008, announced CRA commitments totaled $6 trillion. And incredible though it may seem, the same federal regulators who forced the CRA on banks have neglected to track the performance of trillions of dollars of loans made to satisfy it. But there is a strong prima facie case that they constitute toxic lending—that is, lending that leads to unsustainable loans, resulting in an unacceptable level of foreclosures.


2. …approximately 50 percent of CRA loans for single-family residences were nevertheless made to borrowers who made down payments of 5 percent or less or had low credit scores—characteristics that indicated high credit risk. Whether or not anyone called these loans “subprime,” in other words, the chances are good that many of them have defaulted or remain at high risk of doing so.


3. Though the feds, again, haven’t collected figures for CRA loans’ performance as a whole, we do have statistics from a few lenders that are troubling indeed. In Cleveland, Third Federal Savings and Loan has a 35 percent delinquency rate on its CRA-mandated “Home Today” loans, versus a 2 percent delinquency rate on its non–Home Today portfolio. Chicago’s Shorebank—the nation’s first community development bank, with largely CRA-related loans on its books—has a 19 percent delinquency and nonaccrual rate for its portfolio of first-mortgage loans for single-family residences. And Bank of America said in 2008 that while its CRA loans constituted 7 percent of its owned residential-mortgage portfolio, they represented 29 percent of that portfolio’s net losses.


4. Over the last 20 years, the percentage of conventional home-purchase mortgages made with the borrower putting 5 percent or less down more than tripled, from 8 percent in 1990 to 29 percent in 2007. Adding to the default risk: of these loans with 5 percent or less down, the average down payment declined from 5 percent to 3 percent of the loan’s value.


5. As for Fannie and Freddie, most of the loans with 5 percent or less down that they had acquired by 2005 had down payments of 3 percent or even no down payment at all. From 1992 to 2007, the two entities acquired over $3.1 trillion in low-down-payment or credit-impaired loans and private securities backed by credit-impaired loans—and these are performing horribly: the delinquency rate on Fannie’s and Freddie’s remaining $1.1 trillion in such high-risk loans is 15.5 percent as of this past June 30, about 6.5 times the rate on the entities’ traditionally underwritten loans. All this risky lending, of course, drove the nation’s homeownership rate up and inflated a housing-price bubble.


6. Taxpayers deserve to know why not one regulator had the common sense to track the performance of CRA loans. They also deserve to know why the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and other regulators appear to have no idea how trillions of dollars in CRA loans are performing now.


7. Incredibly, the House Financial Services Committee is considering legislation that would broaden the scope of the CRA. Before it takes any action on HR 1479—which would expand the CRA’s mandates from banks to bank subsidiaries, mortgage bankers, credit unions, insurance companies, and other nonbank financial institutions—the committee should demand that regulators request detailed CRA performance data from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as from the four banks that have announced 94 percent of the nation’s $6 trillion in CRA commitments: Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America. These six institutions should be able to provide performance information for an estimated 70 percent of outstanding CRA loans.





The Clinton administration changed this state of affairs dramatically. Ignoring the sweeping transformation of the banking industry since the CRA was passed, the Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A's for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count. Where and to whom have home loans been made?


Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation.


"To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application," advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, "lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations." By intervening—even just threatening to intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do."
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities



The CRA forced banks to give NINJA loans.
Or else.



BTW...
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Oh, my ... your own link!

“CRA was not the cause of the crisis”​

I love it when you rightards destroy your own arguments.

You can run but you can't hide.

I said this was the cause:

Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?


I said it here:

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.



That's the CliffNotes version.




Or...you could simply say Democrats.

Riiiiiight .... because it was really a law in place for 70 years which caused the crisis.

4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

Cite the bill(s) they blocked.......

BTW.....

Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Probably not, but that's like asking if the Twin Towers have collapsed had two commercial jets not been flown into them.

For 60+ years, the GSEs performed fine with no problems. It was only after the Federal Fund rate fell to under 2% in 2002 and then to 1% in 2003 that the floodgates of subprime loans opened.

THAT is what caused the collapse because so many people with little to no equity walked away from their mortgages (and second mortgages, in many cases) after their 1% ARMS quadrupled to more than 4% in 2006.

 

[Faun]

Y'all notice how PoliticalChic completely glossed over this without answering ...?

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech​

... given the venue at which he was speaking, whose policies for the explosive growth in home ownership was he giving credit to when he said, "our policies?"

What????

You're claiming that George Bush was a politician????

Shocking!




BTW, Uggg.....

Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

According to the PoliticalChic nutjob, Bush was telling the truth when he said Republican policies pushed home ownership to all-time highs before the housing markets crashed, but he was just lying about it after the housing markets crashed.

 

[Faun]

And I showed you a vast majority of the toxic loans which cratered the economy were not subjected to CRA regulations. 6% of higher priced residential toxic loans were CRA loans and zero percent of commercial toxic loans were CRA loans.

Edward Pinto

Edward Pinto, a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry, was the chief credit officer at Fannie Mae in the 1980s.

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic

So why is Congress thinking about expanding it?

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic


1. The question of how well CRA loans have performed is of vital importance because of the trillions of dollars in such lending. During the first 15 years of the act’s existence, total announced commitments under the CRA totaled $9 billion. But starting in 1992, volume exploded. Over the next 16 years, from 1992 to 2008, announced CRA commitments totaled $6 trillion. And incredible though it may seem, the same federal regulators who forced the CRA on banks have neglected to track the performance of trillions of dollars of loans made to satisfy it. But there is a strong prima facie case that they constitute toxic lending—that is, lending that leads to unsustainable loans, resulting in an unacceptable level of foreclosures.


2. …approximately 50 percent of CRA loans for single-family residences were nevertheless made to borrowers who made down payments of 5 percent or less or had low credit scores—characteristics that indicated high credit risk. Whether or not anyone called these loans “subprime,” in other words, the chances are good that many of them have defaulted or remain at high risk of doing so.


3. Though the feds, again, haven’t collected figures for CRA loans’ performance as a whole, we do have statistics from a few lenders that are troubling indeed. In Cleveland, Third Federal Savings and Loan has a 35 percent delinquency rate on its CRA-mandated “Home Today” loans, versus a 2 percent delinquency rate on its non–Home Today portfolio. Chicago’s Shorebank—the nation’s first community development bank, with largely CRA-related loans on its books—has a 19 percent delinquency and nonaccrual rate for its portfolio of first-mortgage loans for single-family residences. And Bank of America said in 2008 that while its CRA loans constituted 7 percent of its owned residential-mortgage portfolio, they represented 29 percent of that portfolio’s net losses.


4. Over the last 20 years, the percentage of conventional home-purchase mortgages made with the borrower putting 5 percent or less down more than tripled, from 8 percent in 1990 to 29 percent in 2007. Adding to the default risk: of these loans with 5 percent or less down, the average down payment declined from 5 percent to 3 percent of the loan’s value.


5. As for Fannie and Freddie, most of the loans with 5 percent or less down that they had acquired by 2005 had down payments of 3 percent or even no down payment at all. From 1992 to 2007, the two entities acquired over $3.1 trillion in low-down-payment or credit-impaired loans and private securities backed by credit-impaired loans—and these are performing horribly: the delinquency rate on Fannie’s and Freddie’s remaining $1.1 trillion in such high-risk loans is 15.5 percent as of this past June 30, about 6.5 times the rate on the entities’ traditionally underwritten loans. All this risky lending, of course, drove the nation’s homeownership rate up and inflated a housing-price bubble.


6. Taxpayers deserve to know why not one regulator had the common sense to track the performance of CRA loans. They also deserve to know why the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and other regulators appear to have no idea how trillions of dollars in CRA loans are performing now.


7. Incredibly, the House Financial Services Committee is considering legislation that would broaden the scope of the CRA. Before it takes any action on HR 1479—which would expand the CRA’s mandates from banks to bank subsidiaries, mortgage bankers, credit unions, insurance companies, and other nonbank financial institutions—the committee should demand that regulators request detailed CRA performance data from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as from the four banks that have announced 94 percent of the nation’s $6 trillion in CRA commitments: Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America. These six institutions should be able to provide performance information for an estimated 70 percent of outstanding CRA loans.





The Clinton administration changed this state of affairs dramatically. Ignoring the sweeping transformation of the banking industry since the CRA was passed, the Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A's for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count. Where and to whom have home loans been made?


Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation.


"To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application," advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, "lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations." By intervening—even just threatening to intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do."
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities



The CRA forced banks to give NINJA loans.
Or else.



BTW...
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Oh, my ... your own link!

“CRA was not the cause of the crisis”​

I love it when you rightards destroy your own arguments.

You can run but you can't hide.

I said this was the cause:

Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?


I said it here:

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.



That's the CliffNotes version.




Or...you could simply say Democrats.

Riiiiiight .... because it was really a law in place for 70 years which caused the crisis.

4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

Cite the bill(s) they blocked.......

BTW.....

Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Why no answer?

Cite the bill(s) they Frank and Dodd blocked.......

 

[PoliticalChic]

Edward Pinto

Edward Pinto, a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry, was the chief credit officer at Fannie Mae in the 1980s.

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic

So why is Congress thinking about expanding it?

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic


1. The question of how well CRA loans have performed is of vital importance because of the trillions of dollars in such lending. During the first 15 years of the act’s existence, total announced commitments under the CRA totaled $9 billion. But starting in 1992, volume exploded. Over the next 16 years, from 1992 to 2008, announced CRA commitments totaled $6 trillion. And incredible though it may seem, the same federal regulators who forced the CRA on banks have neglected to track the performance of trillions of dollars of loans made to satisfy it. But there is a strong prima facie case that they constitute toxic lending—that is, lending that leads to unsustainable loans, resulting in an unacceptable level of foreclosures.


2. …approximately 50 percent of CRA loans for single-family residences were nevertheless made to borrowers who made down payments of 5 percent or less or had low credit scores—characteristics that indicated high credit risk. Whether or not anyone called these loans “subprime,” in other words, the chances are good that many of them have defaulted or remain at high risk of doing so.


3. Though the feds, again, haven’t collected figures for CRA loans’ performance as a whole, we do have statistics from a few lenders that are troubling indeed. In Cleveland, Third Federal Savings and Loan has a 35 percent delinquency rate on its CRA-mandated “Home Today” loans, versus a 2 percent delinquency rate on its non–Home Today portfolio. Chicago’s Shorebank—the nation’s first community development bank, with largely CRA-related loans on its books—has a 19 percent delinquency and nonaccrual rate for its portfolio of first-mortgage loans for single-family residences. And Bank of America said in 2008 that while its CRA loans constituted 7 percent of its owned residential-mortgage portfolio, they represented 29 percent of that portfolio’s net losses.


4. Over the last 20 years, the percentage of conventional home-purchase mortgages made with the borrower putting 5 percent or less down more than tripled, from 8 percent in 1990 to 29 percent in 2007. Adding to the default risk: of these loans with 5 percent or less down, the average down payment declined from 5 percent to 3 percent of the loan’s value.


5. As for Fannie and Freddie, most of the loans with 5 percent or less down that they had acquired by 2005 had down payments of 3 percent or even no down payment at all. From 1992 to 2007, the two entities acquired over $3.1 trillion in low-down-payment or credit-impaired loans and private securities backed by credit-impaired loans—and these are performing horribly: the delinquency rate on Fannie’s and Freddie’s remaining $1.1 trillion in such high-risk loans is 15.5 percent as of this past June 30, about 6.5 times the rate on the entities’ traditionally underwritten loans. All this risky lending, of course, drove the nation’s homeownership rate up and inflated a housing-price bubble.


6. Taxpayers deserve to know why not one regulator had the common sense to track the performance of CRA loans. They also deserve to know why the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and other regulators appear to have no idea how trillions of dollars in CRA loans are performing now.


7. Incredibly, the House Financial Services Committee is considering legislation that would broaden the scope of the CRA. Before it takes any action on HR 1479—which would expand the CRA’s mandates from banks to bank subsidiaries, mortgage bankers, credit unions, insurance companies, and other nonbank financial institutions—the committee should demand that regulators request detailed CRA performance data from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as from the four banks that have announced 94 percent of the nation’s $6 trillion in CRA commitments: Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America. These six institutions should be able to provide performance information for an estimated 70 percent of outstanding CRA loans.





The Clinton administration changed this state of affairs dramatically. Ignoring the sweeping transformation of the banking industry since the CRA was passed, the Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A's for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count. Where and to whom have home loans been made?


Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation.


"To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application," advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, "lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations." By intervening—even just threatening to intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do."
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities



The CRA forced banks to give NINJA loans.
Or else.



BTW...
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Oh, my ... your own link!

“CRA was not the cause of the crisis”​

I love it when you rightards destroy your own arguments.

You can run but you can't hide.

I said this was the cause:

Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?


I said it here:

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.



That's the CliffNotes version.




Or...you could simply say Democrats.

Riiiiiight .... because it was really a law in place for 70 years which caused the crisis.

4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

Cite the bill(s) they blocked.......

BTW.....

Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Probably not, but that's like asking if the Twin Towers have collapsed had two commercial jets not been flown into them.

For 60+ years, the GSEs performed fine with no problems. It was only after the Federal Fund rate fell to under 2% in 2002 and then to 1% in 2003 that the floodgates of subprime loans opened.

THAT is what caused the collapse because so many people with little to no equity walked away from their mortgages (and second mortgages, in many cases) after their 1% ARMS quadrupled to more than 4% in 2006.

I asked this:
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?


And your response is correct.
"Probably not, but blah blah blah...."



So....we have stipulated that Democrats were the origin of the mortgage meltdown.
Henceforth, let's hear no more about any other provenance of the catastrophe.



Nor should we minimize its importance.
Franklin Roosevelt had no respect for our Founders, nor for the document that memorialized their view of America.....the Constitution.

By endorsing creeping communism....enforcing government occupation of the private economy without authority to do so, he gave us the this:

"... the total lost household wealth at $19.2 trillion. But that doesn’t take into account long-term effects of homeowners who may be less socially mobile — and therefore contribute less to the economy over time."
How Much Did the Financial Crisis Cost?


I hope that you recall this lesson when you enter the voting booth in November.

 

[Faun]

Here's another post PoliticalChic ignored. I'll repeat it with the hope she'll address it this time....

YOU made a point of how lower down payments "horribly" increased delinquency rates.

Yes, of course it did since once a homeowner with an adjustable rate mortgage saw their rates increase, they had virtually no equity built up in their home and virtually nothing to lose but credit by walking away from their loan.

but .... and here's the kicker, ya dumb bitch ... that was a centerpiece Of Bush's 2003 American Dream Downpayment Act, passed by a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President, which in some cases, resulted in HUD assisting with the entire down payment ... i.e., no down payment ....

President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003

One of the biggest hurdles to homeownership is getting money for a down payment. This administration has recognized that, and so today I'm honored to be here to sign a law that will help many low-income buyers to overcome that hurdle, and to achieve an important part of the American Dream.​

I've never seen anybody on the right condemn Bush and Republicans for the housing mess as much you are doing.

 

[Faun]

Oh, my ... your own link!

“CRA was not the cause of the crisis”​

I love it when you rightards destroy your own arguments.

You can run but you can't hide.

I said this was the cause:

Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?


I said it here:

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.



That's the CliffNotes version.




Or...you could simply say Democrats.

Riiiiiight .... because it was really a law in place for 70 years which caused the crisis.

4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

Cite the bill(s) they blocked.......

BTW.....

Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Probably not, but that's like asking if the Twin Towers have collapsed had two commercial jets not been flown into them.

For 60+ years, the GSEs performed fine with no problems. It was only after the Federal Fund rate fell to under 2% in 2002 and then to 1% in 2003 that the floodgates of subprime loans opened.

THAT is what caused the collapse because so many people with little to no equity walked away from their mortgages (and second mortgages, in many cases) after their 1% ARMS quadrupled to more than 4% in 2006.

I asked this:
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?


And your response is correct.
"Probably not, but blah blah blah...."



So....we have stipulated that Democrats were the origin of the mortgage meltdown.
Henceforth, let's hear no more about any other provenance of the catastrophe.



Nor should we minimize its importance.
Franklin Roosevelt had no respect for our Founders, nor for the document that memorialized their view of America.....the Constitution.

By endorsing creeping communism....enforcing government occupation of the private economy without authority to do so, he gave us the this:

"... the total lost household wealth at $19.2 trillion. But that doesn’t take into account long-term effects of homeowners who may be less socially mobile — and therefore contribute less to the economy over time."
How Much Did the Financial Crisis Cost?


I hope that you recall this lesson when you enter the voting booth in November.

You're completely demented. We established no such thing as, "Democrats were the origin of the mortgage meltdown."

Since the GSE's, which worked perfectly fine for more than 60 years, were not the cause of the meltdown. Nor were they the origin.

The GSE's worked fine until they found ways to abuse the GSE's (such as waiving down payments, allowing GSE's to cover 1% ARMs, etc...)

What was needed was reform.

The same reform even you point out Bush asked for throughout his presidency.

But that reform fell on deaf ears as the Congress, led mostly by Republicans, would not pass any reform. Not until Democrats took over the Congress in 2007 and 2008 did they pass GSE reform. Unfortunately, by then it was too late. The damage occurred years earlier when so many people took out subprime loans they could not afford when the Fed rate the prime rate.

And while you idiotically blame one member of the minority party in the House and one member of the minority party in the Senate, you ignore the stark reality that Republicans controlled both of those chambers during most of the critical years when the housing bubble ballooned to unsustainable heights.

Meanwhile, when challenged to cite the GSE reform bills they blocked -- you can't name one.

Maybe someday you'll come to understand why Republicans took on the lions share of the blame for the Great Recession.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You can run but you can't hide.

I said this was the cause:

Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?


I said it here:

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.



That's the CliffNotes version.




Or...you could simply say Democrats.

Riiiiiight .... because it was really a law in place for 70 years which caused the crisis.

4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

Cite the bill(s) they blocked.......

BTW.....

Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Probably not, but that's like asking if the Twin Towers have collapsed had two commercial jets not been flown into them.

For 60+ years, the GSEs performed fine with no problems. It was only after the Federal Fund rate fell to under 2% in 2002 and then to 1% in 2003 that the floodgates of subprime loans opened.

THAT is what caused the collapse because so many people with little to no equity walked away from their mortgages (and second mortgages, in many cases) after their 1% ARMS quadrupled to more than 4% in 2006.

I asked this:
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?


And your response is correct.
"Probably not, but blah blah blah...."



So....we have stipulated that Democrats were the origin of the mortgage meltdown.
Henceforth, let's hear no more about any other provenance of the catastrophe.



Nor should we minimize its importance.
Franklin Roosevelt had no respect for our Founders, nor for the document that memorialized their view of America.....the Constitution.

By endorsing creeping communism....enforcing government occupation of the private economy without authority to do so, he gave us the this:

"... the total lost household wealth at $19.2 trillion. But that doesn’t take into account long-term effects of homeowners who may be less socially mobile — and therefore contribute less to the economy over time."
How Much Did the Financial Crisis Cost?


I hope that you recall this lesson when you enter the voting booth in November.

You're completely demented. We established no such thing as, "Democrats were the origin of the mortgage meltdown."

Since the GSE's, which worked perfectly fine for more than 60 years, were not the cause of the meltdown. Nor were they the origin.

The GSE's worked fine until they found ways to abuse the GSE's (such as waiving down payments, allowing GSE's to cover 1% ARMs, etc...)

What was needed was reform.

The same reform even you point out Bush asked for throughout his presidency.

But that reform fell on deaf ears as the Congress, led mostly by Republicans, would not pass any reform. Not until Democrats took over the Congress in 2007 and 2008 did they pass GSE reform. Unfortunately, by then it was too late. The damage occurred years earlier when so many people took out subprime loans they could not afford when the Fed rate the prime rate.

And while you idiotically blame one member of the minority party in the House and one member of the minority party in the Senate, you ignore the stark reality that Republicans controlled both of those chambers during most of the critical years when the housing bubble ballooned to unsustainable heights.

Meanwhile, when challenged to cite the GSE reform bills they blocked -- you can't name one.

Maybe someday you'll come to understand why Republicans took on the lions share of the blame for the Great Recession.

I asked this:
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?


And your response was...
"Probably not, but blah blah blah...."


That's the case....isn't it.


Therefore.....I have been correct all along.
Democrat policy caused the mortgage meltdown.



What else is there to say?

 

[Faun]

Riiiiiight .... because it was really a law in place for 70 years which caused the crisis.



Cite the bill(s) they blocked.......

BTW.....

Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Probably not, but that's like asking if the Twin Towers have collapsed had two commercial jets not been flown into them.

For 60+ years, the GSEs performed fine with no problems. It was only after the Federal Fund rate fell to under 2% in 2002 and then to 1% in 2003 that the floodgates of subprime loans opened.

THAT is what caused the collapse because so many people with little to no equity walked away from their mortgages (and second mortgages, in many cases) after their 1% ARMS quadrupled to more than 4% in 2006.

I asked this:
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?


And your response is correct.
"Probably not, but blah blah blah...."



So....we have stipulated that Democrats were the origin of the mortgage meltdown.
Henceforth, let's hear no more about any other provenance of the catastrophe.



Nor should we minimize its importance.
Franklin Roosevelt had no respect for our Founders, nor for the document that memorialized their view of America.....the Constitution.

By endorsing creeping communism....enforcing government occupation of the private economy without authority to do so, he gave us the this:

"... the total lost household wealth at $19.2 trillion. But that doesn’t take into account long-term effects of homeowners who may be less socially mobile — and therefore contribute less to the economy over time."
How Much Did the Financial Crisis Cost?


I hope that you recall this lesson when you enter the voting booth in November.

You're completely demented. We established no such thing as, "Democrats were the origin of the mortgage meltdown."

Since the GSE's, which worked perfectly fine for more than 60 years, were not the cause of the meltdown. Nor were they the origin.

The GSE's worked fine until they found ways to abuse the GSE's (such as waiving down payments, allowing GSE's to cover 1% ARMs, etc...)

What was needed was reform.

The same reform even you point out Bush asked for throughout his presidency.

But that reform fell on deaf ears as the Congress, led mostly by Republicans, would not pass any reform. Not until Democrats took over the Congress in 2007 and 2008 did they pass GSE reform. Unfortunately, by then it was too late. The damage occurred years earlier when so many people took out subprime loans they could not afford when the Fed rate the prime rate.

And while you idiotically blame one member of the minority party in the House and one member of the minority party in the Senate, you ignore the stark reality that Republicans controlled both of those chambers during most of the critical years when the housing bubble ballooned to unsustainable heights.

Meanwhile, when challenged to cite the GSE reform bills they blocked -- you can't name one.

Maybe someday you'll come to understand why Republicans took on the lions share of the blame for the Great Recession.

I asked this:
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?


And your response was...
"Probably not, but blah blah blah...."


That's the case....isn't it.


Therefore.....I have been correct all along.
Democrat policy caused the mortgage meltdown.



What else is there to say?

We can say you're a dumb bitch for trying to blame the GSE's, which worked perfectly well for over 60 years, for the collapse.

That would be as if I build a house, and during the course of more than 60 years, several families live in it with no problems .... then it burns down one day because some schmuck, who never replaced the batteries in the smoke detector, falls asleep with a lit cigarette ... then you blame me for building the house to begin with.

Yep, you truly are as dumb as you sound in your posts.

 

[Faun]

I'm posting this now for a third time because PoliticalChic ignored it again.....

YOU made a point of how lower down payments "horribly" increased delinquency rates.

Yes, of course it did since once a homeowner with an adjustable rate mortgage saw their rates increase, they had virtually no equity built up in their home and virtually nothing to lose but credit by walking away from their loan.

but .... and here's the kicker, ya dumb bitch ... that was a centerpiece Of Bush's 2003 American Dream Downpayment Act, passed by a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President, which in some cases, resulted in HUD assisting with the entire down payment ... i.e., no down payment ....

President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003

One of the biggest hurdles to homeownership is getting money for a down payment. This administration has recognized that, and so today I'm honored to be here to sign a law that will help many low-income buyers to overcome that hurdle, and to achieve an important part of the American Dream.​

I've never seen anybody on the right condemn Bush and Republicans for the housing mess as much you are doing.

 

[Faun]

I'm also posting this for the third time because PoliticalChic is ignoring this one too.....

You idiotically blamed one member of the minority party in the House and one member of the minority party in the Senate, you ignore the stark reality that Republicans controlled both of those chambers during most of the critical years when the housing bubble ballooned to unsustainable heights.

Meanwhile, when challenged to cite the GSE reform bills they blocked -- you can't name one.

Cite the bills they blocked or you expose yourself as the imbecile I note you to be. :thupL

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Little-Acorn]

Thanks Trump, for destroying the GOP


Nice try... but Trump isn't the one destroying the Republican party.

The destruction started decades ago, long before Trump ever appeared on the scene. And it's been consistently done by the "leaders" of the Republican party - the RINOS and other liberals who have been joining the Repub party ever since the Democrats started sliding ever more left for nearly 50 years.

They tried to enact amnesty (under various guises) for illegal aliens when most Republicans opposed it, enacted new entitlements, and spent like drunken sailors even when they had both houses of Congress.

The Republicans who did those things are the ones destroying the Republican party. Every time they try to legislate against the will of their constituents, more normal Americans become disgusted with them, and decide to vote them out when possible.

That's why Trump and Cruz are doing so well: They promise people they will end those things. And more and more normal Americans are backing them as a result.

 

[Little-Acorn]

, you ignore the stark reality that Republicans controlled both of those chambers during most of the critical years when the housing bubble ballooned to unsustainable heights.

A summary I wrote more than six years ago. Even more timely today, with the Democrats re-starting the same policies that led to the economic crash of 2008: Millions of risky housing loans to people unlikely to be able to pay them back.

----------------------------------------

An hour-long program on the origins of the current financial crisis, was put together by Fox News in 2008. It contains a great many clips from various officials who were involved, interviews by news people, etc. They called it "Saving Our Economy". Someone put it on YouTube, in six segments. Go there and do a search on that title, and you should get all six segments. They vary from 5 to 10 minutes each, about 45 minutes running time total (no commercials).

It's an excellent explanation of how the crisis started, who did what, what the results were, etc. A real must-see.

Here's a summary:

-----------------------------------------

Sept. 23, 2008: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson: "The events leading us here began many years ago, starting with bad lending practices by banks and financial institutions, and by borrowers taking up mortgages they couldn't afford."

-----------------------------------------

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA, or "Fannie Mae") was created in 1938 during the Great Depression, to create a market for mortgages where they could be bought and sold.

In 1968, Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress spun off Fannie Mae so that it would not show up in the Federal budget. But the Federal govt was always there, ready to bail out Fannie Mae if problems happened. This enables Fannie Mae to offer lower rates for the mortgages it bought, since it was not taking the risks that other banks and institutions had to. In 1970, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") was formed, to create competition for Fannie Mae, since ordinary banks could NOT compete with the government-backed rates they offered.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. It made sure banks were lending to people of all colors and income levels. But things quickly began going off the rails, as activist groups found a new weapon in the law: The could start suing lenders for discrimination if they didn't lend to enough minority families, regardless of the families' ability to pay the loans back as promised. Banks began making riskier and riskier loans for fear of having to fight expensive lawsuits.

Community groups began bullying the banks, especially one called the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now ("ACORN"). It hired several specialized lawyers, including a young man named Barack Obama, to teach its employees how to go to the homes of bank CEOs and senior officers, harassing and publicly embarrassing them while remaining within the limits of local law to avoid prosecution. At one point, ACORN brought a lawsuit against a thrift merger in Illinois, insisting that the lending institutions had not made as many loans to minorities as ACORN thought they should. The bank replied that such loans would be financially irresponsible, and would put ALL the bank's customers at unacceptable risk. ACORN prevailed in court, and banks began making more and more risky loans to home buyers who could have never qualified for those loans under ordinary circumstances.

In late 2000, in the last days of the Clinton administration, the government ordered Fannie and Freddie to increase the numbers of these risky ("sub-prime") mortgages they were buying from banks and lending institutions across the country. They did, lowering their rates and buying more and more, until fully half their portfolios consisted of these risky sub-prime mortgages, combined and packaged in various ways.

The Bush administration raised red flags starting in April 2001. Their 2002 Budget Request declared that the size of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is "a potential problem" because financial trouble in either one of them "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets".

In 2003, the White House warning about Fannie and Freddie, was upgraded to a "Systemic Risk that could spread beyond just the housing sector".

As Fannie and Freddie continued to lower their rates and buy mortgages, lenders made more and more mortgages to buyers with questionable ability to pay, safe in the knowledge that they could immediately turn around and sell the mortgages to the government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie, thus avoiding any consequences if the loans were later defaulted. They were happy to make more and more such mortgages, collecting fees for each and selling the mortgages to F&F.

Countrywide Financial chairman Angelo Mazzillo literally started screaming at Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot, when Gigot asked him about the wisdom of making so many loans to buyers unlikely to pay them back. Mazzillo insisted loudly that Gigot had no idea what he was talking about, did not understand the first thing about mortgage lending, etc., etc. He failed, however, to answer any of Gigot's questions in even the simplest terms or explain why they were "wrong".


(to be continued)

 

[Little-Acorn]

(continued from above)


In Fall 2003, the Bush Admin was pushing Congress hard to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise Fannie and Freddie, both Government Sponsored Entities, or GSEs.

At a Congressional hearing on Sept 10, 2003, John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury stated: "We need a strong, world-class regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of the GSE's, and the safety and soundness of their financial activities."

At that same hearing, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank (D-MA) defended his practices with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis."

Frank said the Fed Govt should be encouraging F&F to do more to get low-income families into homes:
"The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up a possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury - which I do not see, I think we see entities which are fundamentally sound financially and can withstand some of the disaster scenarios - the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of 'affordable housing' ".

The top executives at F&F began cooking their books, exaggerating their sales in their quarterly reports, so that the company officials could claim they had met their companies' sales targets, and thus collect huge salary bonuses. They were finally caught in 2004. Several of them stepped down, but none was every punished, or even charged. One of them, Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae, later gave financial and housing advice to the campaign of Presidential contender Barack Obama.

At a House Financial Services Committee Hearing on Feb. 17, 2005, Alan Greenspan warned against one of the fundamental ideas of modern liberalism, the idea of putting all our eggs in one basket by concentrating financial activity into just a few big agencies in central government: "... Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."
He later added at another hearing on April 6, 2005: "If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis."

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) ignored any possibility the F&F might be in trouble at that hearing, and simply pointed to the advantages some people had gotten from the government's activities: "I think Fannie and Freddie ... are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world... if you look over the last 20 or whatever years, they have done a very, very good job."
Schumer also complained, "Things are good in the housing market. Why are people entertaining radical change?"

On April 7, 2005, Treasury Secretary John Snow warned again: "These large portfolios, unchecked in their growth over the last decade or so, pose a real problem." The Senate Banking Committee adopted strong regulation that would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from acquiring these bad mortgages. All of the Republicans on the committee voted for it, and all the Democrats voted against it, and it passed out of the committee on a straight party-line vote. But Democrats then filibustered the bill on the Senate floor, preventing it from being brought to a vote.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was active in making campaign contributions to politicians, from money that ostensibly was for low-income mortgages. The top two recipients were:

Christopher Dodd (D-CT): $165,000
Barack Obama (D-IL): $126,000

The highest-receiving Republican was Bob Bennett (R-UT), who got $108,000. Further down the list was John McCain (R-AZ), who accepted $25,000.

On May 25, 2006 in the Senate, John McCain (R-AZ) sounded more warnings over the huge size and lack of discipline in the government companies, and sponsored a bill to regulate the companies more firmly: "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market... the GSEs need to be reformed without delay." McCain's bill was voted out of committee on a straight party-line vote: All Republicans voted for it, and all Democrats voted against. Democrats then announced they would filibuster the bill in the Senate, as they had the previous year's regulatory legislation. Republicans knew they did not have enough votes to achieve the 60% needed, and so never brought the bill to the Senate floor.

By the beginning of 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had bought up over $4 trillion in mortgages, roughly one-quarter of which was risky sub-prime mortgage paper. With interest rates rising, these rickety homeowners started defaulting on their loans. Only about 2% of them defaulted by January 2008, but the effect was disastrous. Banks began to get leery of lending money to each other, knowing that their fellow banks held substantial assets that might default and become worthless, thus making the banks unable to pay back their loans to each other.

Banks and lending institutions began collapsing or seeking emergency help: Countrywide Financial, Lehman Brothers, insurer AIG, Bear Stearns, IndyMac bank, etc. buckled to their knees as paralysis spread. The huge numbers of risky subprime mortgages, had become like a "poison pill" that choked the institutions that had swallowed them. The Fed finally took over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the damage had long been done.

Congress appropriated nearly $1 trillion in emergency funds to loan to, or otherwise prop up, failing financial institutions. But none of the original legislation that had spurred decades of risky lending, has been repealed in all the "bailout" frenzy, and as of this writing (in 2008) there are no bills pending to do so.

 

[Slyhunter]

Thanks Trump, for destroying the GOP


Nice try... but Trump isn't the one destroying the Republican party.

The destruction started decades ago, long before Trump ever appeared on the scene. And it's been consistently done by the "leaders" of the Republican party - the RINOS and other liberals who have been joining the Repub party ever since the Democrats started sliding ever more left for nearly 50 years.

They tried to enact amnesty (under various guises) for illegal aliens when most Republicans opposed it, enacted new entitlements, and spent like drunken sailors even when they had both houses of Congress.

The Republicans who did those things are the ones destroying the Republican party. Every time they try to legislate against the will of their constituents, more normal Americans become disgusted with them, and decide to vote them out when possible.

That's why Trump and Cruz are doing so well: They promise people they will end those things. And more and more normal Americans are backing them as a result.

OMG an on topic post. I think I'm going to faint.

 

[Faun]

(continued from above)


In Fall 2003, the Bush Admin was pushing Congress hard to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise Fannie and Freddie, both Government Sponsored Entities, or GSEs.

At a Congressional hearing on Sept 10, 2003, John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury stated: "We need a strong, world-class regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of the GSE's, and the safety and soundness of their financial activities."

At that same hearing, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank (D-MA) defended his practices with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis."

Frank said the Fed Govt should be encouraging F&F to do more to get low-income families into homes:
"The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up a possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury - which I do not see, I think we see entities which are fundamentally sound financially and can withstand some of the disaster scenarios - the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of 'affordable housing' ".

The top executives at F&F began cooking their books, exaggerating their sales in their quarterly reports, so that the company officials could claim they had met their companies' sales targets, and thus collect huge salary bonuses. They were finally caught in 2004. Several of them stepped down, but none was every punished, or even charged. One of them, Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae, later gave financial and housing advice to the campaign of Presidential contender Barack Obama.

At a House Financial Services Committee Hearing on Feb. 17, 2005, Alan Greenspan warned against one of the fundamental ideas of modern liberalism, the idea of putting all our eggs in one basket by concentrating financial activity into just a few big agencies in central government: "... Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."
He later added at another hearing on April 6, 2005: "If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis."

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) ignored any possibility the F&F might be in trouble at that hearing, and simply pointed to the advantages some people had gotten from the government's activities: "I think Fannie and Freddie ... are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world... if you look over the last 20 or whatever years, they have done a very, very good job."
Schumer also complained, "Things are good in the housing market. Why are people entertaining radical change?"

On April 7, 2005, Treasury Secretary John Snow warned again: "These large portfolios, unchecked in their growth over the last decade or so, pose a real problem." The Senate Banking Committee adopted strong regulation that would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from acquiring these bad mortgages. All of the Republicans on the committee voted for it, and all the Democrats voted against it, and it passed out of the committee on a straight party-line vote. But Democrats then filibustered the bill on the Senate floor, preventing it from being brought to a vote.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was active in making campaign contributions to politicians, from money that ostensibly was for low-income mortgages. The top two recipients were:

Christopher Dodd (D-CT): $165,000
Barack Obama (D-IL): $126,000

The highest-receiving Republican was Bob Bennett (R-UT), who got $108,000. Further down the list was John McCain (R-AZ), who accepted $25,000.

On May 25, 2006 in the Senate, John McCain (R-AZ) sounded more warnings over the huge size and lack of discipline in the government companies, and sponsored a bill to regulate the companies more firmly: "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market... the GSEs need to be reformed without delay." McCain's bill was voted out of committee on a straight party-line vote: All Republicans voted for it, and all Democrats voted against. Democrats then announced they would filibuster the bill in the Senate, as they had the previous year's regulatory legislation. Republicans knew they did not have enough votes to achieve the 60% needed, and so never brought the bill to the Senate floor.

By the beginning of 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had bought up over $4 trillion in mortgages, roughly one-quarter of which was risky sub-prime mortgage paper. With interest rates rising, these rickety homeowners started defaulting on their loans. Only about 2% of them defaulted by January 2008, but the effect was disastrous. Banks began to get leery of lending money to each other, knowing that their fellow banks held substantial assets that might default and become worthless, thus making the banks unable to pay back their loans to each other.

Banks and lending institutions began collapsing or seeking emergency help: Countrywide Financial, Lehman Brothers, insurer AIG, Bear Stearns, IndyMac bank, etc. buckled to their knees as paralysis spread. The huge numbers of risky subprime mortgages, had become like a "poison pill" that choked the institutions that had swallowed them. The Fed finally took over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the damage had long been done.

Congress appropriated nearly $1 trillion in emergency funds to loan to, or otherwise prop up, failing financial institutions. But none of the original legislation that had spurred decades of risky lending, has been repealed in all the "bailout" frenzy, and as of this writing (in 2008) there are no bills pending to do so.

Amazingly, you somehow managed to miss...

Bush's American Dream Downpayment Act

Bush's 5.5 million-household increase in home ownership plans

That Republicans controlled the House from 2001 through 2006 and the Senate for the first half of 2001 and from 2003 through 2006 -- yet you somehow blame Democrats from the minority party who did not block any GSE reform legislation.

You seem to be blaming a 70 year old law (FM) .... and a 40 year old law (CRA) ... but are unaware that zero percent of the commercial toxic loans were CRA loans, only 6% of the higher priced residential toxic loans were CRA loans, and that 80% of the lenders were not regulated by CRA loans at all.

And finally, the numbers don't reflect the dates you point to. The subprime bubble burst out of control between 2002 and 2003...

But I suppose that's what happens when your source is Fox News.

 

[Faun]

I'm posting this now for a fourth time because PoliticalChic ignored it again.....

YOU made a point of how lower down payments "horribly" increased delinquency rates.

Yes, of course it did since once a homeowner with an adjustable rate mortgage saw their rates increase, they had virtually no equity built up in their home and virtually nothing to lose but credit by walking away from their loan.

but .... and here's the kicker, ya dumb bitch ... that was a centerpiece Of Bush's 2003 American Dream Downpayment Act, passed by a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President, which in some cases, resulted in HUD assisting with the entire down payment ... i.e., no down payment ....

President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003

One of the biggest hurdles to homeownership is getting money for a down payment. This administration has recognized that, and so today I'm honored to be here to sign a law that will help many low-income buyers to overcome that hurdle, and to achieve an important part of the American Dream.​

I've never seen anybody on the right condemn Bush and Republicans for the housing mess as much you are doing.

_____________________________________________​

I'm also posting this for the fourth time because PoliticalChic is ignoring this one too.....

You idiotically blamed one member of the minority party in the House and one member of the minority party in the Senate, you ignore the stark reality that Republicans controlled both of those chambers during most of the critical years when the housing bubble ballooned to unsustainable heights.

Meanwhile, when challenged to cite the GSE reform bills they blocked -- you can't name one.

Cite the bills they blocked or you expose yourself as the imbecile I note you to be. :thupL

_____________________________________________​

I won't post these again -- if PoliticalBitch still refuses to answer after 4 attempts, she clearly can't answer and I will graciously accept her surrender....