This Film Review Belongs In 'Politics'!

"The Big Short is an entertaining movie, and it accurately describes important aspects of the housing bubble, but the film might give viewers the erroneous impression that private greed is the ultimate explanation. In reality, government intervention crippled the market’s normal mechanisms for limiting mistakes on the front end and heavily punishing mistakes on the back end."
Translation, the government FORCED the banks to lie cheat and steal. :cuckoo:

December 07, 2011
RUSH: But these financial houses were selling what they knew was worthless because they had been forced to make these loans by government in the first place, and they were selling worthless paper for high prices.
Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.
The CRA had nothing to do with Bush's housing bubble, and you well know it. The CRA was instituted to combat Red-Lining and required down payments from QUALIFIED buyers.

Bush on the other hand, in his campaign push to add 5.5 million new minority homeowners eliminated down payments and closing costs, allowed loans to borrowers with bad credit for more than the home was worth.

Bush owns the housing crash.

It was Bush's Dec 2003 American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) that changed the rules to allow no downpayment loans for more than the house was worth to people with bad credit who could not keep up with the payments and who were at least 20% below the standard of living for the neighborhood they were buying into.

The ADDI was passed in Dec 2003 and everything in housing started to go bad in 2004. Even your MessiahRushie admits 2004 was the turning point for the Bush Housing Crash.

July 7,2010
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: To illustrate my point even further: "Subprime mortgages accounted for 9 percent of all mortgage originations from 1996 through 2004." But that 9% became 21% from 2004 to 2006, 21% of all mortgages were subprime. Twenty-one percent of all mortgages were essentially money given away to people because they were loans made to people that everybody knew going in would never pay them back. And that 21% of the mortgage market being subprime equaled about $600,000 billion in 2006, which was at the time one-fifth of the US home loan market.

President Hosts Conference on Minority Homeownership

October 2002
I set an ambitious goal. It's one that I believe we can achieve. It's a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we'll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families. (Applause.)

USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership

Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership
By Thomas A. Fogarty, USA TODAY

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

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

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

The FHA isn't a direct lender, but guarantees loan payments for mortgages on moderately priced owner-occupied property. The FHA guarantee now permits private lenders to finance as much as 97% of the purchase price of a home for millions of low- and middle-income borrowers.

In the proposal soon to be delivered to Congress, Bush would allow the FHA to guarantee loans for the full purchase price of the home, plus down-payment costs. As a practical matter, the FHA would guarantee mortgages as high as 103% of the value of the underlying property.


See that!

I gave you the chance to prove you are educable....


.....but you failed.


So sad.
 
So you deny saying this about Social Security?

"...find the part of the enumerated powers of the federal government that gives it authority to write insurance for its citizens.


Or...admit that Liberal governance is lawless governance."


Comon, deny it. lol

Oops, I've shut her up on this topic. What do I win?


You win your usual prize....the pointy dunce cap.


Now get right back when you have that quote mentioning 'marriage' in the Constitution.

So you deny saying this about Social Security?

"...find the part of the enumerated powers of the federal government that gives it authority to write insurance for its citizens.


Or...admit that Liberal governance is lawless governance."


Comon, deny it. lol

Oops, I've shut her up on this topic. What do I win?


You win your usual prize....the pointy dunce cap.


Now get right back when you have that quote mentioning 'marriage' in the Constitution.

Why do you keep asking?


You mean you don't want folks to know why you're known as 'the NYLiar'?

Here's how 'marriage' is referenced in the Constitution:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You fancy yourself as one with good command of the English language, so observe from the above:

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]1. The reference to states making ANY law. 'ANY' is all inclusive. That includes marriage law.

2. The reference to ANY person. 'ANY' is all inclusive. That would include gays/same sex couples.

3. therefore,

a state cannot in ANY law deny ANY person within its jurisdiction EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.


See? The amendment clearly says that state marriage laws cannot violate the equal protection rights of the people of that state,

and, importantly to the fallacy of your ranting, it does so without having to specifically say the word marriage,

because the use of the English word 'any' includes marriage within its meaning in the above amendment.
[/FONT]



Now watch the correct usage of "So..."

So you cannot produce any actual mention of 'marriage' in the Constitution?

Let's review:

1. It is as I stated

2. You have illustrated why you are known as 'the NYLiar.'
 
"The Big Short is an entertaining movie, and it accurately describes important aspects of the housing bubble, but the film might give viewers the erroneous impression that private greed is the ultimate explanation. In reality, government intervention crippled the market’s normal mechanisms for limiting mistakes on the front end and heavily punishing mistakes on the back end."
Translation, the government FORCED the banks to lie cheat and steal. :cuckoo:

December 07, 2011
RUSH: But these financial houses were selling what they knew was worthless because they had been forced to make these loans by government in the first place, and they were selling worthless paper for high prices.
Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.
The CRA had nothing to do with Bush's housing bubble, and you well know it. The CRA was instituted to combat Red-Lining and required down payments from QUALIFIED buyers.

Bush on the other hand, in his campaign push to add 5.5 million new minority homeowners eliminated down payments and closing costs, allowed loans to borrowers with bad credit for more than the home was worth.

Bush owns the housing crash.

It was Bush's Dec 2003 American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) that changed the rules to allow no downpayment loans for more than the house was worth to people with bad credit who could not keep up with the payments and who were at least 20% below the standard of living for the neighborhood they were buying into.

The ADDI was passed in Dec 2003 and everything in housing started to go bad in 2004. Even your MessiahRushie admits 2004 was the turning point for the Bush Housing Crash.

July 7,2010
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: To illustrate my point even further: "Subprime mortgages accounted for 9 percent of all mortgage originations from 1996 through 2004." But that 9% became 21% from 2004 to 2006, 21% of all mortgages were subprime. Twenty-one percent of all mortgages were essentially money given away to people because they were loans made to people that everybody knew going in would never pay them back. And that 21% of the mortgage market being subprime equaled about $600,000 billion in 2006, which was at the time one-fifth of the US home loan market.

President Hosts Conference on Minority Homeownership

October 2002
I set an ambitious goal. It's one that I believe we can achieve. It's a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we'll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families. (Applause.)

USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership

Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership
By Thomas A. Fogarty, USA TODAY

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

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

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

The FHA isn't a direct lender, but guarantees loan payments for mortgages on moderately priced owner-occupied property. The FHA guarantee now permits private lenders to finance as much as 97% of the purchase price of a home for millions of low- and middle-income borrowers.

In the proposal soon to be delivered to Congress, Bush would allow the FHA to guarantee loans for the full purchase price of the home, plus down-payment costs. As a practical matter, the FHA would guarantee mortgages as high as 103% of the value of the underlying property.



BTW.....use the correct language: it wasn't "Bush's housing bubble."

It was Roosevelt's Mortgage Meltdown.



Simple enough to prove.....

Would it have occurred if Roosevelt hadn't imposed federal involvement in the private housing market?

That is the key question, and the one you Leftists run from.
 
Oops, I've shut her up on this topic. What do I win?


You win your usual prize....the pointy dunce cap.


Now get right back when you have that quote mentioning 'marriage' in the Constitution.

Oops, I've shut her up on this topic. What do I win?


You win your usual prize....the pointy dunce cap.


Now get right back when you have that quote mentioning 'marriage' in the Constitution.

Why do you keep asking?


You mean you don't want folks to know why you're known as 'the NYLiar'?

Here's how 'marriage' is referenced in the Constitution:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You fancy yourself as one with good command of the English language, so observe from the above:

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]1. The reference to states making ANY law. 'ANY' is all inclusive. That includes marriage law.

2. The reference to ANY person. 'ANY' is all inclusive. That would include gays/same sex couples.

3. therefore,

a state cannot in ANY law deny ANY person within its jurisdiction EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.


See? The amendment clearly says that state marriage laws cannot violate the equal protection rights of the people of that state,

and, importantly to the fallacy of your ranting, it does so without having to specifically say the word marriage,

because the use of the English word 'any' includes marriage within its meaning in the above amendment.
[/FONT]



Now watch the correct usage of "So..."

So you cannot produce any actual mention of 'marriage' in the Constitution?

Let's review:

1. It is as I stated

2. You have illustrated why you are known as 'the NYLiar.'

.

I just gave you the actual mention. The 14th Amendment refers to ALL STATE LAWS, all states have marriage laws,

therefore the Constitution refers to marriage in the 14th Amendment.

Go ask Kim Davis to explain it to you.

Now go find 'fetus' in the Constitution lolol
 
"The Big Short is an entertaining movie, and it accurately describes important aspects of the housing bubble, but the film might give viewers the erroneous impression that private greed is the ultimate explanation. In reality, government intervention crippled the market’s normal mechanisms for limiting mistakes on the front end and heavily punishing mistakes on the back end."
Translation, the government FORCED the banks to lie cheat and steal. :cuckoo:

December 07, 2011
RUSH: But these financial houses were selling what they knew was worthless because they had been forced to make these loans by government in the first place, and they were selling worthless paper for high prices.
Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.
The CRA had nothing to do with Bush's housing bubble, and you well know it. The CRA was instituted to combat Red-Lining and required down payments from QUALIFIED buyers.

Bush on the other hand, in his campaign push to add 5.5 million new minority homeowners eliminated down payments and closing costs, allowed loans to borrowers with bad credit for more than the home was worth.

Bush owns the housing crash.

It was Bush's Dec 2003 American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) that changed the rules to allow no downpayment loans for more than the house was worth to people with bad credit who could not keep up with the payments and who were at least 20% below the standard of living for the neighborhood they were buying into.

The ADDI was passed in Dec 2003 and everything in housing started to go bad in 2004. Even your MessiahRushie admits 2004 was the turning point for the Bush Housing Crash.

July 7,2010
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: To illustrate my point even further: "Subprime mortgages accounted for 9 percent of all mortgage originations from 1996 through 2004." But that 9% became 21% from 2004 to 2006, 21% of all mortgages were subprime. Twenty-one percent of all mortgages were essentially money given away to people because they were loans made to people that everybody knew going in would never pay them back. And that 21% of the mortgage market being subprime equaled about $600,000 billion in 2006, which was at the time one-fifth of the US home loan market.

President Hosts Conference on Minority Homeownership

October 2002
I set an ambitious goal. It's one that I believe we can achieve. It's a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we'll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families. (Applause.)

USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership

Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership
By Thomas A. Fogarty, USA TODAY

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

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

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

The FHA isn't a direct lender, but guarantees loan payments for mortgages on moderately priced owner-occupied property. The FHA guarantee now permits private lenders to finance as much as 97% of the purchase price of a home for millions of low- and middle-income borrowers.

In the proposal soon to be delivered to Congress, Bush would allow the FHA to guarantee loans for the full purchase price of the home, plus down-payment costs. As a practical matter, the FHA would guarantee mortgages as high as 103% of the value of the underlying property.



BTW.....use the correct language: it wasn't "Bush's housing bubble."

It was Roosevelt's Mortgage Meltdown.



Simple enough to prove.....

Would it have occurred if Roosevelt hadn't imposed federal involvement in the private housing market?

That is the key question, and the one you Leftists run from.

The meltdown was caused by private sector mortgage lenders, private sector mortgage purchasers, private sector credit rating companies, and private sector insurance sellers.
 
So you deny saying this about Social Security?

"...find the part of the enumerated powers of the federal government that gives it authority to write insurance for its citizens.


Or...admit that Liberal governance is lawless governance."


Comon, deny it. lol

Oops, I've shut her up on this topic. What do I win?


You win your usual prize....the pointy dunce cap.


Now get right back when you have that quote mentioning 'marriage' in the Constitution.

So you deny saying this about Social Security?

"...find the part of the enumerated powers of the federal government that gives it authority to write insurance for its citizens.


Or...admit that Liberal governance is lawless governance."


Comon, deny it. lol

Oops, I've shut her up on this topic. What do I win?


You win your usual prize....the pointy dunce cap.


Now get right back when you have that quote mentioning 'marriage' in the Constitution.

Why do you keep asking?


You mean you don't want folks to know why you're known as 'the NYLiar'?

Just for clarity, can you quote me saying that the word 'marriage' is in the text of the Constitution?

More stunned silence from PC. Awesome.
 
it wasn't "Bush's housing bubble."

It was Roosevelt's Mortgage Meltdown.
You get more stupid with each post! :cuckoo:


Now that I destroyed your earlier post....here's more of the education you've missed out on:
"New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003



WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae




 
Now that I destroyed your earlier post....here's more of the education you've missed out on:
"New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003



WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.
This is a perfect example of the unmitigated GALL of the Right when they LIE!
Bush OPPOSED the 2003 Oxley bill. That's right, Bush OPPOSED the bill you are trying to "educate" me with!!! :rofl::lmao:
Frank was a minority Party member who was POWERLESS to stop it. The GOP controlled Congress killed the bill in Committee!!!

And for good measure the GOP again killed the bill when Oxley reintroduced it in 2005.

http://democrats.financialservices....e_mortgage_lending/gses_subprime_timeline.pdf

2003‐05: The first effort during Republicans’ 12‐year control of Congress to reform the GSEs came in
2003, when then‐Financial Services Committee Chairman Mike Oxley (R‐OH) worked to pass a bill.
That
year, Oxley had scheduled a Financial Services Committee markup of the legislation, but had to cancel
the markup due to White House opposition.
The legislation would have established a stronger regulator
to ensure the GSEs’ safety and soundness. As CBS Marketwatch reported on October 7, 2003:

Strong opposition by the Bush administration forced a top Republican congressman to delay a
vote on a bill
that would create a new regulator for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac . . . The vote on Rep. Michael Oxley’s bill to reform oversight of government‐sponsored
entities including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was scheduled for Wednesday. Oxley, an Ohio
Republican, is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.xviii

In 2005 Oxley tried again and this time got a reform bill through the House. Democrats unanimously supported HR 1461 in the Financial Services Committee. A majority of Democrats supported it on the
floor, though Congressman Frank and others voted against it because of unrelated restrictions it placed on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
The bill passed the House, but the Bush administration and Senate Republicans opposed the Oxley bill. Senate Democrats offered the House‐passed Oxley bill in
that chamber, but Senate Republicans, who held the majority, lacked the votes to pass the bill. They
took no action on any bill.
 
Now that I destroyed your earlier post....here's more of the education you've missed out on:
"New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003



WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.
This is a perfect example of the unmitigated GALL of the Right when they LIE!
Bush OPPOSED the 2003 Oxley bill. That's right, Bush OPPOSED the bill you are trying to "educate" me with!!! :rofl::lmao:
Frank was a minority Party member who was POWERLESS to stop it. The GOP controlled Congress killed the bill in Committee!!!

And for good measure the GOP again killed the bill when Oxley reintroduced it in 2005.

http://democrats.financialservices....e_mortgage_lending/gses_subprime_timeline.pdf

2003‐05: The first effort during Republicans’ 12‐year control of Congress to reform the GSEs came in
2003, when then‐Financial Services Committee Chairman Mike Oxley (R‐OH) worked to pass a bill.
That
year, Oxley had scheduled a Financial Services Committee markup of the legislation, but had to cancel
the markup due to White House opposition.
The legislation would have established a stronger regulator
to ensure the GSEs’ safety and soundness. As CBS Marketwatch reported on October 7, 2003:

Strong opposition by the Bush administration forced a top Republican congressman to delay a
vote on a bill
that would create a new regulator for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac . . . The vote on Rep. Michael Oxley’s bill to reform oversight of government‐sponsored
entities including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was scheduled for Wednesday. Oxley, an Ohio
Republican, is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.xviii

In 2005 Oxley tried again and this time got a reform bill through the House. Democrats unanimously supported HR 1461 in the Financial Services Committee. A majority of Democrats supported it on the
floor, though Congressman Frank and others voted against it because of unrelated restrictions it placed on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
The bill passed the House, but the Bush administration and Senate Republicans opposed the Oxley bill. Senate Democrats offered the House‐passed Oxley bill in
that chamber, but Senate Republicans, who held the majority, lacked the votes to pass the bill. They
took no action on any bill.



What a perfect verification that you are no more than a brain-dead dupe of the Left.


"Seventeen.
That's how many times, according tothisWhite House statement (hat tipGateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


Congress has cooperated only once. In spring 2007, as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank likes to point out, the House did pass a bill in response. The Senate did not act until 2008; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd spent most of 2007 camped out in Iowa running for president. The legislation passed by Congress in 2008 enabled Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to put Fannie and Freddie into federal conservatorship this summer when they failed. But it didn't prevent them from spewing a huge amount of toxic waste, in the form of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, into our financial institutions from 2004 to 2007. "
Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac


In every direction one looks, it is Democrats who were responsible for the inception of the meltdown....and blocking every attempt to avoid it.

 
Now that I destroyed your earlier post....here's more of the education you've missed out on:
"New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003



WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.
This is a perfect example of the unmitigated GALL of the Right when they LIE!
Bush OPPOSED the 2003 Oxley bill. That's right, Bush OPPOSED the bill you are trying to "educate" me with!!! :rofl::lmao:
Frank was a minority Party member who was POWERLESS to stop it. The GOP controlled Congress killed the bill in Committee!!!

And for good measure the GOP again killed the bill when Oxley reintroduced it in 2005.

http://democrats.financialservices....e_mortgage_lending/gses_subprime_timeline.pdf

2003‐05: The first effort during Republicans’ 12‐year control of Congress to reform the GSEs came in
2003, when then‐Financial Services Committee Chairman Mike Oxley (R‐OH) worked to pass a bill.
That
year, Oxley had scheduled a Financial Services Committee markup of the legislation, but had to cancel
the markup due to White House opposition.
The legislation would have established a stronger regulator
to ensure the GSEs’ safety and soundness. As CBS Marketwatch reported on October 7, 2003:

Strong opposition by the Bush administration forced a top Republican congressman to delay a
vote on a bill
that would create a new regulator for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac . . . The vote on Rep. Michael Oxley’s bill to reform oversight of government‐sponsored
entities including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was scheduled for Wednesday. Oxley, an Ohio
Republican, is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.xviii

In 2005 Oxley tried again and this time got a reform bill through the House. Democrats unanimously supported HR 1461 in the Financial Services Committee. A majority of Democrats supported it on the
floor, though Congressman Frank and others voted against it because of unrelated restrictions it placed on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
The bill passed the House, but the Bush administration and Senate Republicans opposed the Oxley bill. Senate Democrats offered the House‐passed Oxley bill in
that chamber, but Senate Republicans, who held the majority, lacked the votes to pass the bill. They
took no action on any bill.
What a perfect verification that you are no more than a brain-dead dupe of the Left.

"Seventeen.
That's how many times, according tothisWhite House statement (hat tipGateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
ZERO.

That's how many times Bush and the GOP controlled House and Senate sent a bill to Bush to sign. All Bush did was "CALL" for tighter legislation while blocking any such legislation from ever passing.
 
Now that I destroyed your earlier post....here's more of the education you've missed out on:
"New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003



WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.
This is a perfect example of the unmitigated GALL of the Right when they LIE!
Bush OPPOSED the 2003 Oxley bill. That's right, Bush OPPOSED the bill you are trying to "educate" me with!!! :rofl::lmao:
Frank was a minority Party member who was POWERLESS to stop it. The GOP controlled Congress killed the bill in Committee!!!

And for good measure the GOP again killed the bill when Oxley reintroduced it in 2005.

http://democrats.financialservices....e_mortgage_lending/gses_subprime_timeline.pdf

2003‐05: The first effort during Republicans’ 12‐year control of Congress to reform the GSEs came in
2003, when then‐Financial Services Committee Chairman Mike Oxley (R‐OH) worked to pass a bill.
That
year, Oxley had scheduled a Financial Services Committee markup of the legislation, but had to cancel
the markup due to White House opposition.
The legislation would have established a stronger regulator
to ensure the GSEs’ safety and soundness. As CBS Marketwatch reported on October 7, 2003:

Strong opposition by the Bush administration forced a top Republican congressman to delay a
vote on a bill
that would create a new regulator for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac . . . The vote on Rep. Michael Oxley’s bill to reform oversight of government‐sponsored
entities including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was scheduled for Wednesday. Oxley, an Ohio
Republican, is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.xviii

In 2005 Oxley tried again and this time got a reform bill through the House. Democrats unanimously supported HR 1461 in the Financial Services Committee. A majority of Democrats supported it on the
floor, though Congressman Frank and others voted against it because of unrelated restrictions it placed on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
The bill passed the House, but the Bush administration and Senate Republicans opposed the Oxley bill. Senate Democrats offered the House‐passed Oxley bill in
that chamber, but Senate Republicans, who held the majority, lacked the votes to pass the bill. They
took no action on any bill.
What a perfect verification that you are no more than a brain-dead dupe of the Left.

"Seventeen.
That's how many times, according tothisWhite House statement (hat tipGateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
ZERO.

That's how many times Bush and the GOP controlled House and Senate sent a bill to Bush to sign. All Bush did was "CALL" for tighter legislation while blocking any such legislation from ever passing.


"All Bush did was "CALL" for tighter legislation while blocking any such legislation from ever passing."

You're lying.
The Democrat blocked any attempts to reign in the insanity.

2001

  • April:The Administration'sFY02 budgetdeclares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)
2002

  • May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003

  • February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

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

  • September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA)strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,"The New York Times, 9/11/03)

  • October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE)refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)

  • November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiwexplains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
2004

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

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

  • April: Rep. Frankignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue,"American Banker, 4/21/04)

  • June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodmanspotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman,House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
2005

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

  • July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reidrejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure,"United Press International, 7/28/05)
2007

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

  • August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Doddignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism,"The New York Times, 8/11/07)

  • December: President Bushagain warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)
2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • July:Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

  • September:Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, asSenator Doddquestions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover,"Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform
 
"All Bush did was "CALL" for tighter legislation while blocking any such legislation from ever passing."
You're lying.
The Democrat blocked any attempts to reign in the insanity.
Unlike you, I never lie.

The GOP controlled the House and Senate and therefore held the MAJORITY of seats on EVERY committee, and they KILLED every single bill IN COMMITTEE except one, the second Oxley bill in 2005 which got out of committee in the House with every Democratic committeeman voting for it and was passed by the House over Frank's objections with a majority of Democrats voting for it. But the GOP controlled Senate would not even bring it to the floor for a vote.
 
"All Bush did was "CALL" for tighter legislation while blocking any such legislation from ever passing."
You're lying.
The Democrat blocked any attempts to reign in the insanity.
Unlike you, I never lie.

The GOP controlled the House and Senate and therefore held the MAJORITY of seats on EVERY committee, and they KILLED every single bill IN COMMITTEE except one, the second Oxley bill in 2005 which got out of committee in the House with every Democratic committeeman voting for it and was passed by the House over Frank's objections with a majority of Democrats voting for it. But the GOP controlled Senate would not even bring it to the floor for a vote.


Of course you lie!

You have to, to shield the Democrat's whose policies and efforts brought about the mortgage meltdown.


"Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged."
Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
 
"Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged."
You just can't stop yourself from lying.

The bill died in the Senate Banking Committee where the GOP held the majority of the seats. So even if all the Dems voted against it, the GOP could still vote it out of committee, but they didn't because enough Republicans voted against it to kill it in committee!!!
 
"Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged."
You just can't stop yourself from lying.

The bill died in the Senate Banking Committee where the GOP held the majority of the seats. So even if all the Dems voted against it, the GOP could still vote it out of committee, but they didn't because enough Republicans voted against it to kill it in committee!!!


This is just too simple.

Try to answer honestly:

Would there have been a mortgage meltdown had not FDR enforced government occupation of the private home mortgage industry....


Hint: "The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, was founded in 1938 during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal."
Fannie Mae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
"Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged."
You just can't stop yourself from lying.

The bill died in the Senate Banking Committee where the GOP held the majority of the seats. So even if all the Dems voted against it, the GOP could still vote it out of committee, but they didn't because enough Republicans voted against it to kill it in committee!!!


This is just too simple.

Try to answer honestly:
Try not to change the subject away from your lies.
 
"Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged."
You just can't stop yourself from lying.

The bill died in the Senate Banking Committee where the GOP held the majority of the seats. So even if all the Dems voted against it, the GOP could still vote it out of committee, but they didn't because enough Republicans voted against it to kill it in committee!!!


This is just too simple.

Try to answer honestly:
Try not to change the subject away from your lies.


Would there have been a mortgage meltdown had not FDR enforced government occupation of the private home mortgage industry....?
Yes or no?


You can run, but you can't hide.

"The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, was founded in 1938 during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal."
Fannie Mae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


...and...the New Deal was an exact copy of Mussolini's Fascist economic policies.
 
If you see the movie, at the end the narrator discusses how the big whigs walk away Scott free and during any financial crisis the blame gets shifted somehow to immigrants, the poor, and for the first time teachers. That was a great line. Its true. Blame goes to the least culpable in society and idiots believe it. The conservative ideal...blame the poor, teachers, etc.
 

Forum List

Back
Top