Trump blames Obama for doubling the debt

[francoHFW]

Fannie & Freddie participated in the practice.

If F& F were in such bad shape, Why did Bush wanted F & F to buy questionable mortgages from other lenders. Are you calling your hedfor GW an idiot?

Fannie & Freddie participated in the practice.

F&F bought and securitized tons of shitty mortgages.

Why did Bush wanted F & F to buy questionable mortgages from other lenders.

He took Clinton's bad idea and made it worse.

Signing a Republican bill does not make it Clinton's idea, Dupe.

The bad idea was getting HUD to push Fannie and Freddie to buy more subprime and Alt-A mortgages.

From 1994 to 2003, Fannie and Freddie’s purchases of mortgages, as a percentage of all mortgage originations, increased from 37% to an all-time high of 57%, effectively cornering the conventional conforming market. With leverage ratios that averaged 75-to-1, and funds raised with implicit government backing, the GSEs were pouring money into the housing market. This in itself would have driven the housing bubble.
But it also appears that, perhaps as early as 1993, Fannie Mae began to offer easy financing terms and lowered its loan standards in order to meet congressionally mandated affordable housing goals and fulfill the company’s trillion-dollar commitment. For example, in each of the years 2000 and 2001, the first years for which data are available, 18% of Fannie’s originations–totaling $157 billion–were loans with FICO scores of less than 660 (the federal regulators’ cut-off point for defining subprime loans). There is no equivalent data available for Freddie, but it is likely that its purchases were proportionately the same, amounting to an estimated $120 billion.
These sums would have swamped originations by the traditional subprime lenders, which probably totaled $119 billion in these two years. Data for Alt-A loans before 2005 are unavailable, but the fact that that Fannie and Freddie now hold 60% of all outstanding Alt-A loans provides a strong indication of the purchases they were making for many earlier years.


The GSE’s purchases of all mortgages slowed in 2004, as they worked to overcome their accounting scandals, but in late 2004 they returned to the market with a vengeance. Late that year, their chairmen were telling meetings of mortgage originators that the GSEs were eager to purchase subprime and other nonprime loans.
This set off a frenzy of subprime and Alt-A mortgage origination, in which–as incredible as it seems–Fannie and Freddie were competing with Wall Street and one another for low-quality loans. Even when they were not the purchasers, the GSEs were Wall Street’s biggest customers, often buying the AAA tranches of subprime and Alt-A pools that Wall Street put together. By 2007 they held $227 billion (one in six loans) in these nonprime pools, and approximately $1.6 trillion in low-quality loans altogether.
From 2005 through 2007, the GSEs purchased over $1 trillion in subprime and Alt-A loans, driving up the housing bubble and driving down mortgage quality. During these years, HUD’s regulations required that 55% of all GSE purchases be affordable, including 25% made to low- and very low-income borrowers. Housing bubbles are nothing new. We and other countries have had them before. The reason that the most recent bubble created a worldwide financial crisis is that it was inflated with low-quality loans required by government mandate. The fact that the same government must now come to the rescue is no reason for gratitude.


A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble

And then the problems started in 2003 thanks to corrupt and incompetent GOP regulators. Zzzzzzzzz

How were the Dem scandals at Fannie and Freddie the fault of the GOP? DERP!

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fannie & Freddie participated in the practice.

F&F bought and securitized tons of shitty mortgages.

Why did Bush wanted F & F to buy questionable mortgages from other lenders.

He took Clinton's bad idea and made it worse.

Signing a Republican bill does not make it Clinton's idea, Dupe.

The bad idea was getting HUD to push Fannie and Freddie to buy more subprime and Alt-A mortgages.

From 1994 to 2003, Fannie and Freddie’s purchases of mortgages, as a percentage of all mortgage originations, increased from 37% to an all-time high of 57%, effectively cornering the conventional conforming market. With leverage ratios that averaged 75-to-1, and funds raised with implicit government backing, the GSEs were pouring money into the housing market. This in itself would have driven the housing bubble.
But it also appears that, perhaps as early as 1993, Fannie Mae began to offer easy financing terms and lowered its loan standards in order to meet congressionally mandated affordable housing goals and fulfill the company’s trillion-dollar commitment. For example, in each of the years 2000 and 2001, the first years for which data are available, 18% of Fannie’s originations–totaling $157 billion–were loans with FICO scores of less than 660 (the federal regulators’ cut-off point for defining subprime loans). There is no equivalent data available for Freddie, but it is likely that its purchases were proportionately the same, amounting to an estimated $120 billion.
These sums would have swamped originations by the traditional subprime lenders, which probably totaled $119 billion in these two years. Data for Alt-A loans before 2005 are unavailable, but the fact that that Fannie and Freddie now hold 60% of all outstanding Alt-A loans provides a strong indication of the purchases they were making for many earlier years.


The GSE’s purchases of all mortgages slowed in 2004, as they worked to overcome their accounting scandals, but in late 2004 they returned to the market with a vengeance. Late that year, their chairmen were telling meetings of mortgage originators that the GSEs were eager to purchase subprime and other nonprime loans.
This set off a frenzy of subprime and Alt-A mortgage origination, in which–as incredible as it seems–Fannie and Freddie were competing with Wall Street and one another for low-quality loans. Even when they were not the purchasers, the GSEs were Wall Street’s biggest customers, often buying the AAA tranches of subprime and Alt-A pools that Wall Street put together. By 2007 they held $227 billion (one in six loans) in these nonprime pools, and approximately $1.6 trillion in low-quality loans altogether.
From 2005 through 2007, the GSEs purchased over $1 trillion in subprime and Alt-A loans, driving up the housing bubble and driving down mortgage quality. During these years, HUD’s regulations required that 55% of all GSE purchases be affordable, including 25% made to low- and very low-income borrowers. Housing bubbles are nothing new. We and other countries have had them before. The reason that the most recent bubble created a worldwide financial crisis is that it was inflated with low-quality loans required by government mandate. The fact that the same government must now come to the rescue is no reason for gratitude.


A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble

And then the problems started in 2003 thanks to corrupt and incompetent GOP regulators. Zzzzzzzzz

How were the Dem scandals at Fannie and Freddie the fault of the GOP? DERP!

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

Keep ignoring Fannie, Freddie and HUD.
Silly twat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fannie & Freddie participated in the practice.

F&F bought and securitized tons of shitty mortgages.

Why did Bush wanted F & F to buy questionable mortgages from other lenders.

He took Clinton's bad idea and made it worse.

Signing a Republican bill does not make it Clinton's idea, Dupe.

The bad idea was getting HUD to push Fannie and Freddie to buy more subprime and Alt-A mortgages.

From 1994 to 2003, Fannie and Freddie’s purchases of mortgages, as a percentage of all mortgage originations, increased from 37% to an all-time high of 57%, effectively cornering the conventional conforming market. With leverage ratios that averaged 75-to-1, and funds raised with implicit government backing, the GSEs were pouring money into the housing market. This in itself would have driven the housing bubble.
But it also appears that, perhaps as early as 1993, Fannie Mae began to offer easy financing terms and lowered its loan standards in order to meet congressionally mandated affordable housing goals and fulfill the company’s trillion-dollar commitment. For example, in each of the years 2000 and 2001, the first years for which data are available, 18% of Fannie’s originations–totaling $157 billion–were loans with FICO scores of less than 660 (the federal regulators’ cut-off point for defining subprime loans). There is no equivalent data available for Freddie, but it is likely that its purchases were proportionately the same, amounting to an estimated $120 billion.
These sums would have swamped originations by the traditional subprime lenders, which probably totaled $119 billion in these two years. Data for Alt-A loans before 2005 are unavailable, but the fact that that Fannie and Freddie now hold 60% of all outstanding Alt-A loans provides a strong indication of the purchases they were making for many earlier years.


The GSE’s purchases of all mortgages slowed in 2004, as they worked to overcome their accounting scandals, but in late 2004 they returned to the market with a vengeance. Late that year, their chairmen were telling meetings of mortgage originators that the GSEs were eager to purchase subprime and other nonprime loans.
This set off a frenzy of subprime and Alt-A mortgage origination, in which–as incredible as it seems–Fannie and Freddie were competing with Wall Street and one another for low-quality loans. Even when they were not the purchasers, the GSEs were Wall Street’s biggest customers, often buying the AAA tranches of subprime and Alt-A pools that Wall Street put together. By 2007 they held $227 billion (one in six loans) in these nonprime pools, and approximately $1.6 trillion in low-quality loans altogether.
From 2005 through 2007, the GSEs purchased over $1 trillion in subprime and Alt-A loans, driving up the housing bubble and driving down mortgage quality. During these years, HUD’s regulations required that 55% of all GSE purchases be affordable, including 25% made to low- and very low-income borrowers. Housing bubbles are nothing new. We and other countries have had them before. The reason that the most recent bubble created a worldwide financial crisis is that it was inflated with low-quality loans required by government mandate. The fact that the same government must now come to the rescue is no reason for gratitude.


A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble

And then the problems started in 2003 thanks to corrupt and incompetent GOP regulators. Zzzzzzzzz

How were the Dem scandals at Fannie and Freddie the fault of the GOP? DERP!

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

The desire to have earnings conform to some pre-existing plan is a recipe for trouble at a large corporation. One of the most damning segments of the OFHEO report (see Pages 7-12) discusses how, in order to be perceived as low risk, Fannie felt it had to present regular earnings growth. The meeting of earnings goals was so crucial that bonuses for top executives were pegged to them. In 1998, bonuses were based on hitting targets: earnings of $3.13 a share for the minimum bonus, $3.18 for the target bonus, and $3.23 or above for the maximum bonus. "Remarkably the 1998 EPS number turned out to be $3.2309," OFHEO deadpans. In order to meet the target, OFHEO suggests, Fannie Mae may have improperly deferred some $200 million in expenses

The real scandal at Fannie Mae.

I realize you're a fucking moron, but Clinton was President in 1998. Dupe

 

[francoHFW]

Signing a Republican bill does not make it Clinton's idea, Dupe.

The bad idea was getting HUD to push Fannie and Freddie to buy more subprime and Alt-A mortgages.

From 1994 to 2003, Fannie and Freddie’s purchases of mortgages, as a percentage of all mortgage originations, increased from 37% to an all-time high of 57%, effectively cornering the conventional conforming market. With leverage ratios that averaged 75-to-1, and funds raised with implicit government backing, the GSEs were pouring money into the housing market. This in itself would have driven the housing bubble.
But it also appears that, perhaps as early as 1993, Fannie Mae began to offer easy financing terms and lowered its loan standards in order to meet congressionally mandated affordable housing goals and fulfill the company’s trillion-dollar commitment. For example, in each of the years 2000 and 2001, the first years for which data are available, 18% of Fannie’s originations–totaling $157 billion–were loans with FICO scores of less than 660 (the federal regulators’ cut-off point for defining subprime loans). There is no equivalent data available for Freddie, but it is likely that its purchases were proportionately the same, amounting to an estimated $120 billion.
These sums would have swamped originations by the traditional subprime lenders, which probably totaled $119 billion in these two years. Data for Alt-A loans before 2005 are unavailable, but the fact that that Fannie and Freddie now hold 60% of all outstanding Alt-A loans provides a strong indication of the purchases they were making for many earlier years.


The GSE’s purchases of all mortgages slowed in 2004, as they worked to overcome their accounting scandals, but in late 2004 they returned to the market with a vengeance. Late that year, their chairmen were telling meetings of mortgage originators that the GSEs were eager to purchase subprime and other nonprime loans.
This set off a frenzy of subprime and Alt-A mortgage origination, in which–as incredible as it seems–Fannie and Freddie were competing with Wall Street and one another for low-quality loans. Even when they were not the purchasers, the GSEs were Wall Street’s biggest customers, often buying the AAA tranches of subprime and Alt-A pools that Wall Street put together. By 2007 they held $227 billion (one in six loans) in these nonprime pools, and approximately $1.6 trillion in low-quality loans altogether.
From 2005 through 2007, the GSEs purchased over $1 trillion in subprime and Alt-A loans, driving up the housing bubble and driving down mortgage quality. During these years, HUD’s regulations required that 55% of all GSE purchases be affordable, including 25% made to low- and very low-income borrowers. Housing bubbles are nothing new. We and other countries have had them before. The reason that the most recent bubble created a worldwide financial crisis is that it was inflated with low-quality loans required by government mandate. The fact that the same government must now come to the rescue is no reason for gratitude.


A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble

And then the problems started in 2003 thanks to corrupt and incompetent GOP regulators. Zzzzzzzzz

How were the Dem scandals at Fannie and Freddie the fault of the GOP? DERP!

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

The desire to have earnings conform to some pre-existing plan is a recipe for trouble at a large corporation. One of the most damning segments of the OFHEO report (see Pages 7-12) discusses how, in order to be perceived as low risk, Fannie felt it had to present regular earnings growth. The meeting of earnings goals was so crucial that bonuses for top executives were pegged to them. In 1998, bonuses were based on hitting targets: earnings of $3.13 a share for the minimum bonus, $3.18 for the target bonus, and $3.23 or above for the maximum bonus. "Remarkably the 1998 EPS number turned out to be $3.2309," OFHEO deadpans. In order to meet the target, OFHEO suggests, Fannie Mae may have improperly deferred some $200 million in expenses

The real scandal at Fannie Mae.

I realize you're a fucking moron, but Clinton was President in 1998. Dupe

Signing a Republican bill does not make it Clinton's idea, Dupe.

The bad idea was getting HUD to push Fannie and Freddie to buy more subprime and Alt-A mortgages.

From 1994 to 2003, Fannie and Freddie’s purchases of mortgages, as a percentage of all mortgage originations, increased from 37% to an all-time high of 57%, effectively cornering the conventional conforming market. With leverage ratios that averaged 75-to-1, and funds raised with implicit government backing, the GSEs were pouring money into the housing market. This in itself would have driven the housing bubble.
But it also appears that, perhaps as early as 1993, Fannie Mae began to offer easy financing terms and lowered its loan standards in order to meet congressionally mandated affordable housing goals and fulfill the company’s trillion-dollar commitment. For example, in each of the years 2000 and 2001, the first years for which data are available, 18% of Fannie’s originations–totaling $157 billion–were loans with FICO scores of less than 660 (the federal regulators’ cut-off point for defining subprime loans). There is no equivalent data available for Freddie, but it is likely that its purchases were proportionately the same, amounting to an estimated $120 billion.
These sums would have swamped originations by the traditional subprime lenders, which probably totaled $119 billion in these two years. Data for Alt-A loans before 2005 are unavailable, but the fact that that Fannie and Freddie now hold 60% of all outstanding Alt-A loans provides a strong indication of the purchases they were making for many earlier years.


The GSE’s purchases of all mortgages slowed in 2004, as they worked to overcome their accounting scandals, but in late 2004 they returned to the market with a vengeance. Late that year, their chairmen were telling meetings of mortgage originators that the GSEs were eager to purchase subprime and other nonprime loans.
This set off a frenzy of subprime and Alt-A mortgage origination, in which–as incredible as it seems–Fannie and Freddie were competing with Wall Street and one another for low-quality loans. Even when they were not the purchasers, the GSEs were Wall Street’s biggest customers, often buying the AAA tranches of subprime and Alt-A pools that Wall Street put together. By 2007 they held $227 billion (one in six loans) in these nonprime pools, and approximately $1.6 trillion in low-quality loans altogether.
From 2005 through 2007, the GSEs purchased over $1 trillion in subprime and Alt-A loans, driving up the housing bubble and driving down mortgage quality. During these years, HUD’s regulations required that 55% of all GSE purchases be affordable, including 25% made to low- and very low-income borrowers. Housing bubbles are nothing new. We and other countries have had them before. The reason that the most recent bubble created a worldwide financial crisis is that it was inflated with low-quality loans required by government mandate. The fact that the same government must now come to the rescue is no reason for gratitude.


A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble

And then the problems started in 2003 thanks to corrupt and incompetent GOP regulators. Zzzzzzzzz

How were the Dem scandals at Fannie and Freddie the fault of the GOP? DERP!

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

The desire to have earnings conform to some pre-existing plan is a recipe for trouble at a large corporation. One of the most damning segments of the OFHEO report (see Pages 7-12) discusses how, in order to be perceived as low risk, Fannie felt it had to present regular earnings growth. The meeting of earnings goals was so crucial that bonuses for top executives were pegged to them. In 1998, bonuses were based on hitting targets: earnings of $3.13 a share for the minimum bonus, $3.18 for the target bonus, and $3.23 or above for the maximum bonus. "Remarkably the 1998 EPS number turned out to be $3.2309," OFHEO deadpans. In order to meet the target, OFHEO suggests, Fannie Mae may have improperly deferred some $200 million in expenses

The real scandal at Fannie Mae.

I realize you're a fucking moron, but Clinton was President in 1998. Dupe

And he signed that GOP Bill

Signing a Republican bill does not make it Clinton's idea, Dupe.

The bad idea was getting HUD to push Fannie and Freddie to buy more subprime and Alt-A mortgages.

From 1994 to 2003, Fannie and Freddie’s purchases of mortgages, as a percentage of all mortgage originations, increased from 37% to an all-time high of 57%, effectively cornering the conventional conforming market. With leverage ratios that averaged 75-to-1, and funds raised with implicit government backing, the GSEs were pouring money into the housing market. This in itself would have driven the housing bubble.
But it also appears that, perhaps as early as 1993, Fannie Mae began to offer easy financing terms and lowered its loan standards in order to meet congressionally mandated affordable housing goals and fulfill the company’s trillion-dollar commitment. For example, in each of the years 2000 and 2001, the first years for which data are available, 18% of Fannie’s originations–totaling $157 billion–were loans with FICO scores of less than 660 (the federal regulators’ cut-off point for defining subprime loans). There is no equivalent data available for Freddie, but it is likely that its purchases were proportionately the same, amounting to an estimated $120 billion.
These sums would have swamped originations by the traditional subprime lenders, which probably totaled $119 billion in these two years. Data for Alt-A loans before 2005 are unavailable, but the fact that that Fannie and Freddie now hold 60% of all outstanding Alt-A loans provides a strong indication of the purchases they were making for many earlier years.


The GSE’s purchases of all mortgages slowed in 2004, as they worked to overcome their accounting scandals, but in late 2004 they returned to the market with a vengeance. Late that year, their chairmen were telling meetings of mortgage originators that the GSEs were eager to purchase subprime and other nonprime loans.
This set off a frenzy of subprime and Alt-A mortgage origination, in which–as incredible as it seems–Fannie and Freddie were competing with Wall Street and one another for low-quality loans. Even when they were not the purchasers, the GSEs were Wall Street’s biggest customers, often buying the AAA tranches of subprime and Alt-A pools that Wall Street put together. By 2007 they held $227 billion (one in six loans) in these nonprime pools, and approximately $1.6 trillion in low-quality loans altogether.
From 2005 through 2007, the GSEs purchased over $1 trillion in subprime and Alt-A loans, driving up the housing bubble and driving down mortgage quality. During these years, HUD’s regulations required that 55% of all GSE purchases be affordable, including 25% made to low- and very low-income borrowers. Housing bubbles are nothing new. We and other countries have had them before. The reason that the most recent bubble created a worldwide financial crisis is that it was inflated with low-quality loans required by government mandate. The fact that the same government must now come to the rescue is no reason for gratitude.


A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble

And then the problems started in 2003 thanks to corrupt and incompetent GOP regulators. Zzzzzzzzz

How were the Dem scandals at Fannie and Freddie the fault of the GOP? DERP!

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

Keep ignoring Fannie, Freddie and HUD.
Silly twat.

Signing a Republican bill does not make it Clinton's idea, Dupe.

The bad idea was getting HUD to push Fannie and Freddie to buy more subprime and Alt-A mortgages.

From 1994 to 2003, Fannie and Freddie’s purchases of mortgages, as a percentage of all mortgage originations, increased from 37% to an all-time high of 57%, effectively cornering the conventional conforming market. With leverage ratios that averaged 75-to-1, and funds raised with implicit government backing, the GSEs were pouring money into the housing market. This in itself would have driven the housing bubble.
But it also appears that, perhaps as early as 1993, Fannie Mae began to offer easy financing terms and lowered its loan standards in order to meet congressionally mandated affordable housing goals and fulfill the company’s trillion-dollar commitment. For example, in each of the years 2000 and 2001, the first years for which data are available, 18% of Fannie’s originations–totaling $157 billion–were loans with FICO scores of less than 660 (the federal regulators’ cut-off point for defining subprime loans). There is no equivalent data available for Freddie, but it is likely that its purchases were proportionately the same, amounting to an estimated $120 billion.
These sums would have swamped originations by the traditional subprime lenders, which probably totaled $119 billion in these two years. Data for Alt-A loans before 2005 are unavailable, but the fact that that Fannie and Freddie now hold 60% of all outstanding Alt-A loans provides a strong indication of the purchases they were making for many earlier years.


The GSE’s purchases of all mortgages slowed in 2004, as they worked to overcome their accounting scandals, but in late 2004 they returned to the market with a vengeance. Late that year, their chairmen were telling meetings of mortgage originators that the GSEs were eager to purchase subprime and other nonprime loans.
This set off a frenzy of subprime and Alt-A mortgage origination, in which–as incredible as it seems–Fannie and Freddie were competing with Wall Street and one another for low-quality loans. Even when they were not the purchasers, the GSEs were Wall Street’s biggest customers, often buying the AAA tranches of subprime and Alt-A pools that Wall Street put together. By 2007 they held $227 billion (one in six loans) in these nonprime pools, and approximately $1.6 trillion in low-quality loans altogether.
From 2005 through 2007, the GSEs purchased over $1 trillion in subprime and Alt-A loans, driving up the housing bubble and driving down mortgage quality. During these years, HUD’s regulations required that 55% of all GSE purchases be affordable, including 25% made to low- and very low-income borrowers. Housing bubbles are nothing new. We and other countries have had them before. The reason that the most recent bubble created a worldwide financial crisis is that it was inflated with low-quality loans required by government mandate. The fact that the same government must now come to the rescue is no reason for gratitude.


A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble

And then the problems started in 2003 thanks to corrupt and incompetent GOP regulators. Zzzzzzzzz

How were the Dem scandals at Fannie and Freddie the fault of the GOP? DERP!

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

Keep ignoring Fannie, Freddie and HUD.
Silly twat.

Fannie and Freddie share of the market went from 70 to 30%in 2003 because Bush Regulators let the private Lenders go Wild. For the billionth time, dupe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The bad idea was getting HUD to push Fannie and Freddie to buy more subprime and Alt-A mortgages.

From 1994 to 2003, Fannie and Freddie’s purchases of mortgages, as a percentage of all mortgage originations, increased from 37% to an all-time high of 57%, effectively cornering the conventional conforming market. With leverage ratios that averaged 75-to-1, and funds raised with implicit government backing, the GSEs were pouring money into the housing market. This in itself would have driven the housing bubble.
But it also appears that, perhaps as early as 1993, Fannie Mae began to offer easy financing terms and lowered its loan standards in order to meet congressionally mandated affordable housing goals and fulfill the company’s trillion-dollar commitment. For example, in each of the years 2000 and 2001, the first years for which data are available, 18% of Fannie’s originations–totaling $157 billion–were loans with FICO scores of less than 660 (the federal regulators’ cut-off point for defining subprime loans). There is no equivalent data available for Freddie, but it is likely that its purchases were proportionately the same, amounting to an estimated $120 billion.
These sums would have swamped originations by the traditional subprime lenders, which probably totaled $119 billion in these two years. Data for Alt-A loans before 2005 are unavailable, but the fact that that Fannie and Freddie now hold 60% of all outstanding Alt-A loans provides a strong indication of the purchases they were making for many earlier years.


The GSE’s purchases of all mortgages slowed in 2004, as they worked to overcome their accounting scandals, but in late 2004 they returned to the market with a vengeance. Late that year, their chairmen were telling meetings of mortgage originators that the GSEs were eager to purchase subprime and other nonprime loans.
This set off a frenzy of subprime and Alt-A mortgage origination, in which–as incredible as it seems–Fannie and Freddie were competing with Wall Street and one another for low-quality loans. Even when they were not the purchasers, the GSEs were Wall Street’s biggest customers, often buying the AAA tranches of subprime and Alt-A pools that Wall Street put together. By 2007 they held $227 billion (one in six loans) in these nonprime pools, and approximately $1.6 trillion in low-quality loans altogether.
From 2005 through 2007, the GSEs purchased over $1 trillion in subprime and Alt-A loans, driving up the housing bubble and driving down mortgage quality. During these years, HUD’s regulations required that 55% of all GSE purchases be affordable, including 25% made to low- and very low-income borrowers. Housing bubbles are nothing new. We and other countries have had them before. The reason that the most recent bubble created a worldwide financial crisis is that it was inflated with low-quality loans required by government mandate. The fact that the same government must now come to the rescue is no reason for gratitude.


A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble

And then the problems started in 2003 thanks to corrupt and incompetent GOP regulators. Zzzzzzzzz

How were the Dem scandals at Fannie and Freddie the fault of the GOP? DERP!

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

The desire to have earnings conform to some pre-existing plan is a recipe for trouble at a large corporation. One of the most damning segments of the OFHEO report (see Pages 7-12) discusses how, in order to be perceived as low risk, Fannie felt it had to present regular earnings growth. The meeting of earnings goals was so crucial that bonuses for top executives were pegged to them. In 1998, bonuses were based on hitting targets: earnings of $3.13 a share for the minimum bonus, $3.18 for the target bonus, and $3.23 or above for the maximum bonus. "Remarkably the 1998 EPS number turned out to be $3.2309," OFHEO deadpans. In order to meet the target, OFHEO suggests, Fannie Mae may have improperly deferred some $200 million in expenses

The real scandal at Fannie Mae.

I realize you're a fucking moron, but Clinton was President in 1998. Dupe

The bad idea was getting HUD to push Fannie and Freddie to buy more subprime and Alt-A mortgages.

From 1994 to 2003, Fannie and Freddie’s purchases of mortgages, as a percentage of all mortgage originations, increased from 37% to an all-time high of 57%, effectively cornering the conventional conforming market. With leverage ratios that averaged 75-to-1, and funds raised with implicit government backing, the GSEs were pouring money into the housing market. This in itself would have driven the housing bubble.
But it also appears that, perhaps as early as 1993, Fannie Mae began to offer easy financing terms and lowered its loan standards in order to meet congressionally mandated affordable housing goals and fulfill the company’s trillion-dollar commitment. For example, in each of the years 2000 and 2001, the first years for which data are available, 18% of Fannie’s originations–totaling $157 billion–were loans with FICO scores of less than 660 (the federal regulators’ cut-off point for defining subprime loans). There is no equivalent data available for Freddie, but it is likely that its purchases were proportionately the same, amounting to an estimated $120 billion.
These sums would have swamped originations by the traditional subprime lenders, which probably totaled $119 billion in these two years. Data for Alt-A loans before 2005 are unavailable, but the fact that that Fannie and Freddie now hold 60% of all outstanding Alt-A loans provides a strong indication of the purchases they were making for many earlier years.


The GSE’s purchases of all mortgages slowed in 2004, as they worked to overcome their accounting scandals, but in late 2004 they returned to the market with a vengeance. Late that year, their chairmen were telling meetings of mortgage originators that the GSEs were eager to purchase subprime and other nonprime loans.
This set off a frenzy of subprime and Alt-A mortgage origination, in which–as incredible as it seems–Fannie and Freddie were competing with Wall Street and one another for low-quality loans. Even when they were not the purchasers, the GSEs were Wall Street’s biggest customers, often buying the AAA tranches of subprime and Alt-A pools that Wall Street put together. By 2007 they held $227 billion (one in six loans) in these nonprime pools, and approximately $1.6 trillion in low-quality loans altogether.
From 2005 through 2007, the GSEs purchased over $1 trillion in subprime and Alt-A loans, driving up the housing bubble and driving down mortgage quality. During these years, HUD’s regulations required that 55% of all GSE purchases be affordable, including 25% made to low- and very low-income borrowers. Housing bubbles are nothing new. We and other countries have had them before. The reason that the most recent bubble created a worldwide financial crisis is that it was inflated with low-quality loans required by government mandate. The fact that the same government must now come to the rescue is no reason for gratitude.


A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble

And then the problems started in 2003 thanks to corrupt and incompetent GOP regulators. Zzzzzzzzz

How were the Dem scandals at Fannie and Freddie the fault of the GOP? DERP!

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

The desire to have earnings conform to some pre-existing plan is a recipe for trouble at a large corporation. One of the most damning segments of the OFHEO report (see Pages 7-12) discusses how, in order to be perceived as low risk, Fannie felt it had to present regular earnings growth. The meeting of earnings goals was so crucial that bonuses for top executives were pegged to them. In 1998, bonuses were based on hitting targets: earnings of $3.13 a share for the minimum bonus, $3.18 for the target bonus, and $3.23 or above for the maximum bonus. "Remarkably the 1998 EPS number turned out to be $3.2309," OFHEO deadpans. In order to meet the target, OFHEO suggests, Fannie Mae may have improperly deferred some $200 million in expenses

The real scandal at Fannie Mae.

I realize you're a fucking moron, but Clinton was President in 1998. Dupe

And he signed that GOP Bill

The bad idea was getting HUD to push Fannie and Freddie to buy more subprime and Alt-A mortgages.

From 1994 to 2003, Fannie and Freddie’s purchases of mortgages, as a percentage of all mortgage originations, increased from 37% to an all-time high of 57%, effectively cornering the conventional conforming market. With leverage ratios that averaged 75-to-1, and funds raised with implicit government backing, the GSEs were pouring money into the housing market. This in itself would have driven the housing bubble.
But it also appears that, perhaps as early as 1993, Fannie Mae began to offer easy financing terms and lowered its loan standards in order to meet congressionally mandated affordable housing goals and fulfill the company’s trillion-dollar commitment. For example, in each of the years 2000 and 2001, the first years for which data are available, 18% of Fannie’s originations–totaling $157 billion–were loans with FICO scores of less than 660 (the federal regulators’ cut-off point for defining subprime loans). There is no equivalent data available for Freddie, but it is likely that its purchases were proportionately the same, amounting to an estimated $120 billion.
These sums would have swamped originations by the traditional subprime lenders, which probably totaled $119 billion in these two years. Data for Alt-A loans before 2005 are unavailable, but the fact that that Fannie and Freddie now hold 60% of all outstanding Alt-A loans provides a strong indication of the purchases they were making for many earlier years.


The GSE’s purchases of all mortgages slowed in 2004, as they worked to overcome their accounting scandals, but in late 2004 they returned to the market with a vengeance. Late that year, their chairmen were telling meetings of mortgage originators that the GSEs were eager to purchase subprime and other nonprime loans.
This set off a frenzy of subprime and Alt-A mortgage origination, in which–as incredible as it seems–Fannie and Freddie were competing with Wall Street and one another for low-quality loans. Even when they were not the purchasers, the GSEs were Wall Street’s biggest customers, often buying the AAA tranches of subprime and Alt-A pools that Wall Street put together. By 2007 they held $227 billion (one in six loans) in these nonprime pools, and approximately $1.6 trillion in low-quality loans altogether.
From 2005 through 2007, the GSEs purchased over $1 trillion in subprime and Alt-A loans, driving up the housing bubble and driving down mortgage quality. During these years, HUD’s regulations required that 55% of all GSE purchases be affordable, including 25% made to low- and very low-income borrowers. Housing bubbles are nothing new. We and other countries have had them before. The reason that the most recent bubble created a worldwide financial crisis is that it was inflated with low-quality loans required by government mandate. The fact that the same government must now come to the rescue is no reason for gratitude.


A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble

And then the problems started in 2003 thanks to corrupt and incompetent GOP regulators. Zzzzzzzzz

How were the Dem scandals at Fannie and Freddie the fault of the GOP? DERP!

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

Keep ignoring Fannie, Freddie and HUD.
Silly twat.

The bad idea was getting HUD to push Fannie and Freddie to buy more subprime and Alt-A mortgages.

From 1994 to 2003, Fannie and Freddie’s purchases of mortgages, as a percentage of all mortgage originations, increased from 37% to an all-time high of 57%, effectively cornering the conventional conforming market. With leverage ratios that averaged 75-to-1, and funds raised with implicit government backing, the GSEs were pouring money into the housing market. This in itself would have driven the housing bubble.
But it also appears that, perhaps as early as 1993, Fannie Mae began to offer easy financing terms and lowered its loan standards in order to meet congressionally mandated affordable housing goals and fulfill the company’s trillion-dollar commitment. For example, in each of the years 2000 and 2001, the first years for which data are available, 18% of Fannie’s originations–totaling $157 billion–were loans with FICO scores of less than 660 (the federal regulators’ cut-off point for defining subprime loans). There is no equivalent data available for Freddie, but it is likely that its purchases were proportionately the same, amounting to an estimated $120 billion.
These sums would have swamped originations by the traditional subprime lenders, which probably totaled $119 billion in these two years. Data for Alt-A loans before 2005 are unavailable, but the fact that that Fannie and Freddie now hold 60% of all outstanding Alt-A loans provides a strong indication of the purchases they were making for many earlier years.


The GSE’s purchases of all mortgages slowed in 2004, as they worked to overcome their accounting scandals, but in late 2004 they returned to the market with a vengeance. Late that year, their chairmen were telling meetings of mortgage originators that the GSEs were eager to purchase subprime and other nonprime loans.
This set off a frenzy of subprime and Alt-A mortgage origination, in which–as incredible as it seems–Fannie and Freddie were competing with Wall Street and one another for low-quality loans. Even when they were not the purchasers, the GSEs were Wall Street’s biggest customers, often buying the AAA tranches of subprime and Alt-A pools that Wall Street put together. By 2007 they held $227 billion (one in six loans) in these nonprime pools, and approximately $1.6 trillion in low-quality loans altogether.
From 2005 through 2007, the GSEs purchased over $1 trillion in subprime and Alt-A loans, driving up the housing bubble and driving down mortgage quality. During these years, HUD’s regulations required that 55% of all GSE purchases be affordable, including 25% made to low- and very low-income borrowers. Housing bubbles are nothing new. We and other countries have had them before. The reason that the most recent bubble created a worldwide financial crisis is that it was inflated with low-quality loans required by government mandate. The fact that the same government must now come to the rescue is no reason for gratitude.


A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble

And then the problems started in 2003 thanks to corrupt and incompetent GOP regulators. Zzzzzzzzz

How were the Dem scandals at Fannie and Freddie the fault of the GOP? DERP!

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

Keep ignoring Fannie, Freddie and HUD.
Silly twat.

Fannie and Freddie share of the market went from 70 to 30%in 2003 because Bush Regulators let the private Lenders go Wild. For the billionth time, dupe.

And he signed that GOP Bill

Which bill caused the Dems at Fannie and Freddie to commit fraud? Link?

 

[Redfish]

the democrats in congress authorized and funded those fiascos, both parties are to blame. deal with reality and stop the partisan bullshit

Funded? How were they funded?

The vote was the Iraq resolution which said Bush would use all other options prior to invasion. The majority of Democrats in the House voted no while nearly every Republican aid yes. Nearly all the no votes in the Senate were Democrat.

Furthermore their vote was based on the Bush Administration assessment which said the Iran could shortly have a nuke & sell it to terrorists. I think it was " The smoking gun might be in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Blaming Congress for believing the White House lies is chickenshit.

Everyone believed that Saddam had WMDs, the UN, the UK, the EU, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Germany, France, Spain, Jordan, etc. It wasn't a Bush lie, it was a common belief started by the UN. It is very possible that those weapons did exist and were sent to Syria where Assad used the gas ones on his own people.

Congress did provide funding for the Iraq fiasco and both parties voted for it. It was a stupid waste of money and lives, but it wasn't just Bush, they all have blood on their hands.

Since you brought up white house lies, how about these?

If you like your plan you can keep it
the average family will save $2500 per year
it was caused by a video
I never sent any classified material on my private server


Did you believe those lies?

Lets take a look.

There is a grandfather clause in the ACA that said any policy in effect at the bill's signing can continue. So the plan did allow for people to keep their plan except the insurance companies opted not to continue to offer them. Blame the insurance companies.

The plan to which Obama said about the $2500 was the plan he had during the campaign. It was not the plan passed by congress. That said, the ACA did save many families that $2500 & more not just through the exchanges but through lowering the rate pf premium increases. My family saved almost $11K the first year alone.

The video had been just translated & broadcast on an Arab network & did cause rioting in several Muslim cities the same day as the Benghazi attacks. Any reporting to the video being the cause was clarified with statements that this was preliminary & the investigation continued. If this video caused rioting other places, maybe you can tell us why Benghazi was immune?

Hillary said she never sent any properly marked classified material & Comey said she didn't.

See, they weren't lies but merely indications of just how duped you are.

total left wing talking point BS.

Obozo was selling his plan on a lie, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Sure, if you are getting it free its great, for everyone else is sucks.

the video did not cause the Benghazi attacks, that has been well established, even Hillary now admits it. Why cant you?

Data does not have to be marked classified in order to BE classified. Anyone who has ever held a security clearance knows that is one of the first things they drum into your head. Actually Comey did say that she sent classified data on her unsecure server, see the Gowdy/Comey exchange.

Yes, they were all lies. Why is OK with you when your dem masters lie to you?

I just proved they were not lies but hey, when you are as fucking stupid & duped as you, I didn't think you would be able to learn the facts.


Look, low life lying POS. Hillary said she did not send any properly marked e-mails therefore it is not a lie. So quit dancing & running way from your post like a whiny little girl. You people are such chickenshits.

There are many agencies that can classify something as classified.

anyone who has ever had a security clearance knows that data does not have to be MARKED classified in order to BE classified. I held top secret and SAP clearances, if I did what she did I would be typing this from a federal prison.

Even her boy Comey testified that she sent classified data on her unsecure illegal server. But I get it, you know more than all of them. Get your head out of her fat ass and deal with reality..

 

[francoHFW]

And then the problems started in 2003 thanks to corrupt and incompetent GOP regulators. Zzzzzzzzz

How were the Dem scandals at Fannie and Freddie the fault of the GOP? DERP!

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

The desire to have earnings conform to some pre-existing plan is a recipe for trouble at a large corporation. One of the most damning segments of the OFHEO report (see Pages 7-12) discusses how, in order to be perceived as low risk, Fannie felt it had to present regular earnings growth. The meeting of earnings goals was so crucial that bonuses for top executives were pegged to them. In 1998, bonuses were based on hitting targets: earnings of $3.13 a share for the minimum bonus, $3.18 for the target bonus, and $3.23 or above for the maximum bonus. "Remarkably the 1998 EPS number turned out to be $3.2309," OFHEO deadpans. In order to meet the target, OFHEO suggests, Fannie Mae may have improperly deferred some $200 million in expenses

The real scandal at Fannie Mae.

I realize you're a fucking moron, but Clinton was President in 1998. Dupe

And then the problems started in 2003 thanks to corrupt and incompetent GOP regulators. Zzzzzzzzz

How were the Dem scandals at Fannie and Freddie the fault of the GOP? DERP!

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

The desire to have earnings conform to some pre-existing plan is a recipe for trouble at a large corporation. One of the most damning segments of the OFHEO report (see Pages 7-12) discusses how, in order to be perceived as low risk, Fannie felt it had to present regular earnings growth. The meeting of earnings goals was so crucial that bonuses for top executives were pegged to them. In 1998, bonuses were based on hitting targets: earnings of $3.13 a share for the minimum bonus, $3.18 for the target bonus, and $3.23 or above for the maximum bonus. "Remarkably the 1998 EPS number turned out to be $3.2309," OFHEO deadpans. In order to meet the target, OFHEO suggests, Fannie Mae may have improperly deferred some $200 million in expenses

The real scandal at Fannie Mae.

I realize you're a fucking moron, but Clinton was President in 1998. Dupe

And he signed that GOP Bill

And then the problems started in 2003 thanks to corrupt and incompetent GOP regulators. Zzzzzzzzz

How were the Dem scandals at Fannie and Freddie the fault of the GOP? DERP!

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

Keep ignoring Fannie, Freddie and HUD.
Silly twat.

And then the problems started in 2003 thanks to corrupt and incompetent GOP regulators. Zzzzzzzzz

How were the Dem scandals at Fannie and Freddie the fault of the GOP? DERP!

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

Keep ignoring Fannie, Freddie and HUD.
Silly twat.

Fannie and Freddie share of the market went from 70 to 30%in 2003 because Bush Regulators let the private Lenders go Wild. For the billionth time, dupe.

And he signed that GOP Bill

Which bill caused the Dems at Fannie and Freddie to commit fraud? Link?

When you lose an argument, why not an irrelevant distraction? 200 million in a 2 trillion-dollar boondoggle it's just that period. start another thread.

 

[francoHFW]

Funded? How were they funded?

The vote was the Iraq resolution which said Bush would use all other options prior to invasion. The majority of Democrats in the House voted no while nearly every Republican aid yes. Nearly all the no votes in the Senate were Democrat.

Furthermore their vote was based on the Bush Administration assessment which said the Iran could shortly have a nuke & sell it to terrorists. I think it was " The smoking gun might be in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Blaming Congress for believing the White House lies is chickenshit.

Everyone believed that Saddam had WMDs, the UN, the UK, the EU, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Germany, France, Spain, Jordan, etc. It wasn't a Bush lie, it was a common belief started by the UN. It is very possible that those weapons did exist and were sent to Syria where Assad used the gas ones on his own people.

Congress did provide funding for the Iraq fiasco and both parties voted for it. It was a stupid waste of money and lives, but it wasn't just Bush, they all have blood on their hands.

Since you brought up white house lies, how about these?

If you like your plan you can keep it
the average family will save $2500 per year
it was caused by a video
I never sent any classified material on my private server


Did you believe those lies?

Lets take a look.

There is a grandfather clause in the ACA that said any policy in effect at the bill's signing can continue. So the plan did allow for people to keep their plan except the insurance companies opted not to continue to offer them. Blame the insurance companies.

The plan to which Obama said about the $2500 was the plan he had during the campaign. It was not the plan passed by congress. That said, the ACA did save many families that $2500 & more not just through the exchanges but through lowering the rate pf premium increases. My family saved almost $11K the first year alone.

The video had been just translated & broadcast on an Arab network & did cause rioting in several Muslim cities the same day as the Benghazi attacks. Any reporting to the video being the cause was clarified with statements that this was preliminary & the investigation continued. If this video caused rioting other places, maybe you can tell us why Benghazi was immune?

Hillary said she never sent any properly marked classified material & Comey said she didn't.

See, they weren't lies but merely indications of just how duped you are.

total left wing talking point BS.

Obozo was selling his plan on a lie, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Sure, if you are getting it free its great, for everyone else is sucks.

the video did not cause the Benghazi attacks, that has been well established, even Hillary now admits it. Why cant you?

Data does not have to be marked classified in order to BE classified. Anyone who has ever held a security clearance knows that is one of the first things they drum into your head. Actually Comey did say that she sent classified data on her unsecure server, see the Gowdy/Comey exchange.

Yes, they were all lies. Why is OK with you when your dem masters lie to you?

I just proved they were not lies but hey, when you are as fucking stupid & duped as you, I didn't think you would be able to learn the facts.


Look, low life lying POS. Hillary said she did not send any properly marked e-mails therefore it is not a lie. So quit dancing & running way from your post like a whiny little girl. You people are such chickenshits.

There are many agencies that can classify something as classified.

anyone who has ever had a security clearance knows that data does not have to be MARKED classified in order to BE classified. I held top secret and SAP clearances, if I did what she did I would be typing this from a federal prison.

Even her boy Comey testified that she sent classified data on her unsecure illegal server. But I get it, you know more than all of them. Get your head out of her fat ass and deal with reality..

She was cleared for classified information and so were the people that she was emailing and her server was the only one around that wasn't hacked...hence you're totally full of crap as usual. Plus if you look at the emails it's hard to see why they were even classified... Change the channel, hater dupe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How were the Dem scandals at Fannie and Freddie the fault of the GOP? DERP!

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

The desire to have earnings conform to some pre-existing plan is a recipe for trouble at a large corporation. One of the most damning segments of the OFHEO report (see Pages 7-12) discusses how, in order to be perceived as low risk, Fannie felt it had to present regular earnings growth. The meeting of earnings goals was so crucial that bonuses for top executives were pegged to them. In 1998, bonuses were based on hitting targets: earnings of $3.13 a share for the minimum bonus, $3.18 for the target bonus, and $3.23 or above for the maximum bonus. "Remarkably the 1998 EPS number turned out to be $3.2309," OFHEO deadpans. In order to meet the target, OFHEO suggests, Fannie Mae may have improperly deferred some $200 million in expenses

The real scandal at Fannie Mae.

I realize you're a fucking moron, but Clinton was President in 1998. Dupe

How were the Dem scandals at Fannie and Freddie the fault of the GOP? DERP!

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

The desire to have earnings conform to some pre-existing plan is a recipe for trouble at a large corporation. One of the most damning segments of the OFHEO report (see Pages 7-12) discusses how, in order to be perceived as low risk, Fannie felt it had to present regular earnings growth. The meeting of earnings goals was so crucial that bonuses for top executives were pegged to them. In 1998, bonuses were based on hitting targets: earnings of $3.13 a share for the minimum bonus, $3.18 for the target bonus, and $3.23 or above for the maximum bonus. "Remarkably the 1998 EPS number turned out to be $3.2309," OFHEO deadpans. In order to meet the target, OFHEO suggests, Fannie Mae may have improperly deferred some $200 million in expenses

The real scandal at Fannie Mae.

I realize you're a fucking moron, but Clinton was President in 1998. Dupe

And he signed that GOP Bill

How were the Dem scandals at Fannie and Freddie the fault of the GOP? DERP!

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

Keep ignoring Fannie, Freddie and HUD.
Silly twat.

How were the Dem scandals at Fannie and Freddie the fault of the GOP? DERP!

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

Keep ignoring Fannie, Freddie and HUD.
Silly twat.

Fannie and Freddie share of the market went from 70 to 30%in 2003 because Bush Regulators let the private Lenders go Wild. For the billionth time, dupe.

And he signed that GOP Bill

Which bill caused the Dems at Fannie and Freddie to commit fraud? Link?

When you lose an argument, why not an irrelevant distraction? 200 million in a 2 trillion-dollar boondoggle it's just that period. start another thread.

When you lose an argument, why not an irrelevant distraction? 200 million

They inflated their earnings by $200 million in order to maximize their bonuses.
They should have done jail time. Only a moron like you would call it irrelevant.

Only a moron like you would look at a fraud committed by Dems during the
Clinton administration and blame Bush.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Everyone believed that Saddam had WMDs, the UN, the UK, the EU, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Germany, France, Spain, Jordan, etc. It wasn't a Bush lie, it was a common belief started by the UN. It is very possible that those weapons did exist and were sent to Syria where Assad used the gas ones on his own people.

Congress did provide funding for the Iraq fiasco and both parties voted for it. It was a stupid waste of money and lives, but it wasn't just Bush, they all have blood on their hands.

Since you brought up white house lies, how about these?

If you like your plan you can keep it
the average family will save $2500 per year
it was caused by a video
I never sent any classified material on my private server


Did you believe those lies?

Lets take a look.

There is a grandfather clause in the ACA that said any policy in effect at the bill's signing can continue. So the plan did allow for people to keep their plan except the insurance companies opted not to continue to offer them. Blame the insurance companies.

The plan to which Obama said about the $2500 was the plan he had during the campaign. It was not the plan passed by congress. That said, the ACA did save many families that $2500 & more not just through the exchanges but through lowering the rate pf premium increases. My family saved almost $11K the first year alone.

The video had been just translated & broadcast on an Arab network & did cause rioting in several Muslim cities the same day as the Benghazi attacks. Any reporting to the video being the cause was clarified with statements that this was preliminary & the investigation continued. If this video caused rioting other places, maybe you can tell us why Benghazi was immune?

Hillary said she never sent any properly marked classified material & Comey said she didn't.

See, they weren't lies but merely indications of just how duped you are.

total left wing talking point BS.

Obozo was selling his plan on a lie, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Sure, if you are getting it free its great, for everyone else is sucks.

the video did not cause the Benghazi attacks, that has been well established, even Hillary now admits it. Why cant you?

Data does not have to be marked classified in order to BE classified. Anyone who has ever held a security clearance knows that is one of the first things they drum into your head. Actually Comey did say that she sent classified data on her unsecure server, see the Gowdy/Comey exchange.

Yes, they were all lies. Why is OK with you when your dem masters lie to you?

I just proved they were not lies but hey, when you are as fucking stupid & duped as you, I didn't think you would be able to learn the facts.


Look, low life lying POS. Hillary said she did not send any properly marked e-mails therefore it is not a lie. So quit dancing & running way from your post like a whiny little girl. You people are such chickenshits.

There are many agencies that can classify something as classified.

anyone who has ever had a security clearance knows that data does not have to be MARKED classified in order to BE classified. I held top secret and SAP clearances, if I did what she did I would be typing this from a federal prison.

Even her boy Comey testified that she sent classified data on her unsecure illegal server. But I get it, you know more than all of them. Get your head out of her fat ass and deal with reality..

She was cleared for classified information and so were the people that she was emailing and her server was the only one around that wasn't hacked...hence you're totally full of crap as usual. Plus if you look at the emails it's hard to see why they were even classified... Change the channel, hater dupe.

She was cleared for classified information and so were the people that she was emailing

Did Anthony Weiner have the Top Secret clearance to access Hillary's emails?

 

[francoHFW]

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

The desire to have earnings conform to some pre-existing plan is a recipe for trouble at a large corporation. One of the most damning segments of the OFHEO report (see Pages 7-12) discusses how, in order to be perceived as low risk, Fannie felt it had to present regular earnings growth. The meeting of earnings goals was so crucial that bonuses for top executives were pegged to them. In 1998, bonuses were based on hitting targets: earnings of $3.13 a share for the minimum bonus, $3.18 for the target bonus, and $3.23 or above for the maximum bonus. "Remarkably the 1998 EPS number turned out to be $3.2309," OFHEO deadpans. In order to meet the target, OFHEO suggests, Fannie Mae may have improperly deferred some $200 million in expenses

The real scandal at Fannie Mae.

I realize you're a fucking moron, but Clinton was President in 1998. Dupe

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

The desire to have earnings conform to some pre-existing plan is a recipe for trouble at a large corporation. One of the most damning segments of the OFHEO report (see Pages 7-12) discusses how, in order to be perceived as low risk, Fannie felt it had to present regular earnings growth. The meeting of earnings goals was so crucial that bonuses for top executives were pegged to them. In 1998, bonuses were based on hitting targets: earnings of $3.13 a share for the minimum bonus, $3.18 for the target bonus, and $3.23 or above for the maximum bonus. "Remarkably the 1998 EPS number turned out to be $3.2309," OFHEO deadpans. In order to meet the target, OFHEO suggests, Fannie Mae may have improperly deferred some $200 million in expenses

The real scandal at Fannie Mae.

I realize you're a fucking moron, but Clinton was President in 1998. Dupe

And he signed that GOP Bill

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

Keep ignoring Fannie, Freddie and HUD.
Silly twat.

You are a total moron. Congratulations.

Keep ignoring Fannie, Freddie and HUD.
Silly twat.

Fannie and Freddie share of the market went from 70 to 30%in 2003 because Bush Regulators let the private Lenders go Wild. For the billionth time, dupe.

And he signed that GOP Bill

Which bill caused the Dems at Fannie and Freddie to commit fraud? Link?

When you lose an argument, why not an irrelevant distraction? 200 million in a 2 trillion-dollar boondoggle it's just that period. start another thread.

When you lose an argument, why not an irrelevant distraction? 200 million

They inflated their earnings by $200 million in order to maximize their bonuses.
They should have done jail time. Only a moron like you would call it irrelevant.

Only a moron like you would look at a fraud committed by Dems during the
Clinton administration and blame Bush.

It has nothing to do where the depression we were discussing or the OP... Who says they were Democrats?

 

[francoHFW]

Lets take a look.

There is a grandfather clause in the ACA that said any policy in effect at the bill's signing can continue. So the plan did allow for people to keep their plan except the insurance companies opted not to continue to offer them. Blame the insurance companies.

The plan to which Obama said about the $2500 was the plan he had during the campaign. It was not the plan passed by congress. That said, the ACA did save many families that $2500 & more not just through the exchanges but through lowering the rate pf premium increases. My family saved almost $11K the first year alone.

The video had been just translated & broadcast on an Arab network & did cause rioting in several Muslim cities the same day as the Benghazi attacks. Any reporting to the video being the cause was clarified with statements that this was preliminary & the investigation continued. If this video caused rioting other places, maybe you can tell us why Benghazi was immune?

Hillary said she never sent any properly marked classified material & Comey said she didn't.

See, they weren't lies but merely indications of just how duped you are.

total left wing talking point BS.

Obozo was selling his plan on a lie, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Sure, if you are getting it free its great, for everyone else is sucks.

the video did not cause the Benghazi attacks, that has been well established, even Hillary now admits it. Why cant you?

Data does not have to be marked classified in order to BE classified. Anyone who has ever held a security clearance knows that is one of the first things they drum into your head. Actually Comey did say that she sent classified data on her unsecure server, see the Gowdy/Comey exchange.

Yes, they were all lies. Why is OK with you when your dem masters lie to you?

I just proved they were not lies but hey, when you are as fucking stupid & duped as you, I didn't think you would be able to learn the facts.


Look, low life lying POS. Hillary said she did not send any properly marked e-mails therefore it is not a lie. So quit dancing & running way from your post like a whiny little girl. You people are such chickenshits.

There are many agencies that can classify something as classified.

anyone who has ever had a security clearance knows that data does not have to be MARKED classified in order to BE classified. I held top secret and SAP clearances, if I did what she did I would be typing this from a federal prison.

Even her boy Comey testified that she sent classified data on her unsecure illegal server. But I get it, you know more than all of them. Get your head out of her fat ass and deal with reality..

She was cleared for classified information and so were the people that she was emailing and her server was the only one around that wasn't hacked...hence you're totally full of crap as usual. Plus if you look at the emails it's hard to see why they were even classified... Change the channel, hater dupe.

She was cleared for classified information and so were the people that she was emailing

Did Anthony Weiner have the Top Secret clearance to access Hillary's emails?

Hillary wasn't emailing him... And by that time everybody in the country had seen those emails... By the way they also knew they were crap unless of course they were watching Fox and whatever else you watch, dupe

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The desire to have earnings conform to some pre-existing plan is a recipe for trouble at a large corporation. One of the most damning segments of the OFHEO report (see Pages 7-12) discusses how, in order to be perceived as low risk, Fannie felt it had to present regular earnings growth. The meeting of earnings goals was so crucial that bonuses for top executives were pegged to them. In 1998, bonuses were based on hitting targets: earnings of $3.13 a share for the minimum bonus, $3.18 for the target bonus, and $3.23 or above for the maximum bonus. "Remarkably the 1998 EPS number turned out to be $3.2309," OFHEO deadpans. In order to meet the target, OFHEO suggests, Fannie Mae may have improperly deferred some $200 million in expenses

The real scandal at Fannie Mae.

I realize you're a fucking moron, but Clinton was President in 1998. Dupe

The desire to have earnings conform to some pre-existing plan is a recipe for trouble at a large corporation. One of the most damning segments of the OFHEO report (see Pages 7-12) discusses how, in order to be perceived as low risk, Fannie felt it had to present regular earnings growth. The meeting of earnings goals was so crucial that bonuses for top executives were pegged to them. In 1998, bonuses were based on hitting targets: earnings of $3.13 a share for the minimum bonus, $3.18 for the target bonus, and $3.23 or above for the maximum bonus. "Remarkably the 1998 EPS number turned out to be $3.2309," OFHEO deadpans. In order to meet the target, OFHEO suggests, Fannie Mae may have improperly deferred some $200 million in expenses

The real scandal at Fannie Mae.

I realize you're a fucking moron, but Clinton was President in 1998. Dupe

And he signed that GOP Bill

Keep ignoring Fannie, Freddie and HUD.
Silly twat.

Keep ignoring Fannie, Freddie and HUD.
Silly twat.

Fannie and Freddie share of the market went from 70 to 30%in 2003 because Bush Regulators let the private Lenders go Wild. For the billionth time, dupe.

And he signed that GOP Bill

Which bill caused the Dems at Fannie and Freddie to commit fraud? Link?

When you lose an argument, why not an irrelevant distraction? 200 million in a 2 trillion-dollar boondoggle it's just that period. start another thread.

When you lose an argument, why not an irrelevant distraction? 200 million

They inflated their earnings by $200 million in order to maximize their bonuses.
They should have done jail time. Only a moron like you would call it irrelevant.

Only a moron like you would look at a fraud committed by Dems during the
Clinton administration and blame Bush.

It has nothing to do where the depression we were discussing or the OP... Who says they were Democrats?

I'm shocked that you know so little about Fannie and Freddie.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

total left wing talking point BS.

Obozo was selling his plan on a lie, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Sure, if you are getting it free its great, for everyone else is sucks.

the video did not cause the Benghazi attacks, that has been well established, even Hillary now admits it. Why cant you?

Data does not have to be marked classified in order to BE classified. Anyone who has ever held a security clearance knows that is one of the first things they drum into your head. Actually Comey did say that she sent classified data on her unsecure server, see the Gowdy/Comey exchange.

Yes, they were all lies. Why is OK with you when your dem masters lie to you?

I just proved they were not lies but hey, when you are as fucking stupid & duped as you, I didn't think you would be able to learn the facts.


Look, low life lying POS. Hillary said she did not send any properly marked e-mails therefore it is not a lie. So quit dancing & running way from your post like a whiny little girl. You people are such chickenshits.

There are many agencies that can classify something as classified.

anyone who has ever had a security clearance knows that data does not have to be MARKED classified in order to BE classified. I held top secret and SAP clearances, if I did what she did I would be typing this from a federal prison.

Even her boy Comey testified that she sent classified data on her unsecure illegal server. But I get it, you know more than all of them. Get your head out of her fat ass and deal with reality..

She was cleared for classified information and so were the people that she was emailing and her server was the only one around that wasn't hacked...hence you're totally full of crap as usual. Plus if you look at the emails it's hard to see why they were even classified... Change the channel, hater dupe.

She was cleared for classified information and so were the people that she was emailing

Did Anthony Weiner have the Top Secret clearance to access Hillary's emails?

Hillary wasn't emailing him... And by that time everybody in the country had seen those emails... By the way they also knew they were crap unless of course they were watching Fox and whatever else you watch, dupe

Hillary wasn't emailing him...

Then how did her emails get on his laptop?

 

[RealDave]

And he signed that GOP Bill
Fannie and Freddie share of the market went from 70 to 30%in 2003 because Bush Regulators let the private Lenders go Wild. For the billionth time, dupe.

And he signed that GOP Bill

Which bill caused the Dems at Fannie and Freddie to commit fraud? Link?

When you lose an argument, why not an irrelevant distraction? 200 million in a 2 trillion-dollar boondoggle it's just that period. start another thread.

When you lose an argument, why not an irrelevant distraction? 200 million

They inflated their earnings by $200 million in order to maximize their bonuses.
They should have done jail time. Only a moron like you would call it irrelevant.

Only a moron like you would look at a fraud committed by Dems during the
Clinton administration and blame Bush.

It has nothing to do where the depression we were discussing or the OP... Who says they were Democrats?

I'm shocked that you know so little about Fannie and Freddie.

I am shocked that a person who claims o be a economy expert ca make so many rely stupid posts.
There are plenty of bills that have been signed into law as compromises. The idea that you blame Clinton for signing a bill that contained items pushed by Republicans is further proof of your ignorance. In reality, you are blaming Clinton for not stopping the Republicans instead of blaming the Republicans.

 

[RealDave]

Funded? How were they funded?

The vote was the Iraq resolution which said Bush would use all other options prior to invasion. The majority of Democrats in the House voted no while nearly every Republican aid yes. Nearly all the no votes in the Senate were Democrat.

Furthermore their vote was based on the Bush Administration assessment which said the Iran could shortly have a nuke & sell it to terrorists. I think it was " The smoking gun might be in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Blaming Congress for believing the White House lies is chickenshit.

Everyone believed that Saddam had WMDs, the UN, the UK, the EU, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Germany, France, Spain, Jordan, etc. It wasn't a Bush lie, it was a common belief started by the UN. It is very possible that those weapons did exist and were sent to Syria where Assad used the gas ones on his own people.

Congress did provide funding for the Iraq fiasco and both parties voted for it. It was a stupid waste of money and lives, but it wasn't just Bush, they all have blood on their hands.

Since you brought up white house lies, how about these?

If you like your plan you can keep it
the average family will save $2500 per year
it was caused by a video
I never sent any classified material on my private server


Did you believe those lies?

Lets take a look.

There is a grandfather clause in the ACA that said any policy in effect at the bill's signing can continue. So the plan did allow for people to keep their plan except the insurance companies opted not to continue to offer them. Blame the insurance companies.

The plan to which Obama said about the $2500 was the plan he had during the campaign. It was not the plan passed by congress. That said, the ACA did save many families that $2500 & more not just through the exchanges but through lowering the rate pf premium increases. My family saved almost $11K the first year alone.

The video had been just translated & broadcast on an Arab network & did cause rioting in several Muslim cities the same day as the Benghazi attacks. Any reporting to the video being the cause was clarified with statements that this was preliminary & the investigation continued. If this video caused rioting other places, maybe you can tell us why Benghazi was immune?

Hillary said she never sent any properly marked classified material & Comey said she didn't.

See, they weren't lies but merely indications of just how duped you are.

total left wing talking point BS.

Obozo was selling his plan on a lie, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Sure, if you are getting it free its great, for everyone else is sucks.

the video did not cause the Benghazi attacks, that has been well established, even Hillary now admits it. Why cant you?

Data does not have to be marked classified in order to BE classified. Anyone who has ever held a security clearance knows that is one of the first things they drum into your head. Actually Comey did say that she sent classified data on her unsecure server, see the Gowdy/Comey exchange.

Yes, they were all lies. Why is OK with you when your dem masters lie to you?

I just proved they were not lies but hey, when you are as fucking stupid & duped as you, I didn't think you would be able to learn the facts.


Look, low life lying POS. Hillary said she did not send any properly marked e-mails therefore it is not a lie. So quit dancing & running way from your post like a whiny little girl. You people are such chickenshits.

There are many agencies that can classify something as classified.

anyone who has ever had a security clearance knows that data does not have to be MARKED classified in order to BE classified. I held top secret and SAP clearances, if I did what she did I would be typing this from a federal prison.

Even her boy Comey testified that she sent classified data on her unsecure illegal server. But I get it, you know more than all of them. Get your head out of her fat ass and deal with reality..

Funny chit. Are you claiming to have security clearance? And you don't know the correct protocol for handling it? Really?

They mark classified information in a particular way for a reason.

 

[RealDave]

B*******. Bailouts for Fannie and Freddie whereabout 1/4 of it, because they sold good subprime, many fewer toxic assets. It was all Countryside AIG and crony Bush regulators from 2003 to 2006. Try some real news sometime jackass.

Bailouts for Fannie and Freddie whereabout 1/4 of it

Huh?

because they sold good subprime

They were buyers you twat. HUD required Fannie and Freddie to make up to 55% of their mortgage purchases from the "affordable" subprime side of the market.

It was all Countryside AIG and crony Bush regulators from 2003 to 2006.

Countrywide, you stupid knob. Fannie Mae was the largest buyer of Countrywide mortgages.

Though Fannie and Freddie were involved with so many subprime mortgages, they only got one quarter of the bailouts, so obviously they were involved with Worthy applicants. Unlike those who dealt with Countrywide Etc and GOP crony regulators... Want a diagram?

Though Fannie and Freddie were involved with so many subprime mortgages

Over $1 trillion, by 2002.

Though Fannie and Freddie were involved with so many subprime mortgages, they only got one quarter of the bailouts,

I know, 2 companies that got nearly $200 billion. Hardly anything. DERP!

Unlike those who dealt with Countrywide

Like Fannie and Freddie dealt? LOL!

Fannie & Freddie participated in the practice.

If F& F were in such bad shape, Why did Bush wanted F & F to buy questionable mortgages from other lenders. Are you calling your hedfor GW an idiot?

Fannie & Freddie participated in the practice.

F&F bought and securitized tons of shitty mortgages.

Why did Bush wanted F & F to buy questionable mortgages from other lenders.

He took Clinton's bad idea and made it worse.

See, you agreed with my post the F & F participated.
This was in 2008, what Clinton idea was that? When did Clinton want F & F o buy bad mortgages prior to 2001?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And he signed that GOP Bill

Which bill caused the Dems at Fannie and Freddie to commit fraud? Link?

When you lose an argument, why not an irrelevant distraction? 200 million in a 2 trillion-dollar boondoggle it's just that period. start another thread.

When you lose an argument, why not an irrelevant distraction? 200 million

They inflated their earnings by $200 million in order to maximize their bonuses.
They should have done jail time. Only a moron like you would call it irrelevant.

Only a moron like you would look at a fraud committed by Dems during the
Clinton administration and blame Bush.

It has nothing to do where the depression we were discussing or the OP... Who says they were Democrats?

I'm shocked that you know so little about Fannie and Freddie.

I am shocked that a person who claims o be a economy expert ca make so many rely stupid posts.
There are plenty of bills that have been signed into law as compromises. The idea that you blame Clinton for signing a bill that contained items pushed by Republicans is further proof of your ignorance. In reality, you are blaming Clinton for not stopping the Republicans instead of blaming the Republicans.

The idea that you blame Clinton for signing a bill that contained items pushed by Republicans

Hey, moron, we're talking about the Fannie and Freddie accounting scandals.
Nothing to do with the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bailouts for Fannie and Freddie whereabout 1/4 of it

Huh?

because they sold good subprime

They were buyers you twat. HUD required Fannie and Freddie to make up to 55% of their mortgage purchases from the "affordable" subprime side of the market.

It was all Countryside AIG and crony Bush regulators from 2003 to 2006.

Countrywide, you stupid knob. Fannie Mae was the largest buyer of Countrywide mortgages.

Though Fannie and Freddie were involved with so many subprime mortgages, they only got one quarter of the bailouts, so obviously they were involved with Worthy applicants. Unlike those who dealt with Countrywide Etc and GOP crony regulators... Want a diagram?

Though Fannie and Freddie were involved with so many subprime mortgages

Over $1 trillion, by 2002.

Though Fannie and Freddie were involved with so many subprime mortgages, they only got one quarter of the bailouts,

I know, 2 companies that got nearly $200 billion. Hardly anything. DERP!

Unlike those who dealt with Countrywide

Like Fannie and Freddie dealt? LOL!

Fannie & Freddie participated in the practice.

If F& F were in such bad shape, Why did Bush wanted F & F to buy questionable mortgages from other lenders. Are you calling your hedfor GW an idiot?

Fannie & Freddie participated in the practice.

F&F bought and securitized tons of shitty mortgages.

Why did Bush wanted F & F to buy questionable mortgages from other lenders.

He took Clinton's bad idea and made it worse.

See, you agreed with my post the F & F participated.
This was in 2008, what Clinton idea was that? When did Clinton want F & F o buy bad mortgages prior to 2001?

See, you agreed with my post the F & F participated

Yes, everyone knows F&F participated. Except FrancoMoron

This was in 2008, what Clinton idea was that?

That the government should increase home ownership.
That HUD should mandate F&F buy lower quality mortgages.

Thus, almost two-thirds of all the bad mortgages in our financial system, many of which are now defaulting at unprecedented rates, were bought by government agencies or required by government regulations.

The role of the FHA is particularly difficult to fit into the narrative that the left has been selling. While it might be argued that Fannie and Freddie and insured banks were profit-seekers because they were shareholder-owned, what can explain the fact that the FHA—a government agency—was guaranteeing the same bad mortgages that the unregulated mortgage brokers were supposedly creating through predatory lending?

The answer, of course, is that it was government policy for these poor quality loans to be made. Since the early 1990s, the government has been attempting to expand home ownership in full disregard of the prudent lending principles that had previously governed the U.S. mortgage market. Now the motives of the GSEs fall into place. Fannie and Freddie were subject to "affordable housing" regulations, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which required them to buy mortgages made to home buyers who were at or below the median income. This quota began at 30% of all purchases in the early 1990s, and was gradually ratcheted up until it called for 55% of all mortgage purchases to be "affordable" in 2007, including 25% that had to be made to low-income home buyers.

How The Government Caused The Mortgage Crisis

And there’s no doubt Fannie Mae’s managers used the company’s special government relationship to their advantage. For years, the company had used its ostensible affordable housing mission to fend off efforts to fully privatize its operations. Fannie’s brass shored up their political cover in 1992 when they successfully lobbied Congress for explicit affordable housing goals.

In fact, The New York Times reported (in 1991) that the GSEs literally wrote much of the bill that required HUD to establish three explicit affordable housing goals for the GSEs.

Soon after, Fannie partnered with President Bill Clinton in what should be the textbook case for why it is so important to keep government officials out of the private sector. Clinton’s 1994 National Partners in Homeownership, a private–public cooperative, arbitrarily set a goal of raising the U.S. homeownership rate from 64 percent to 70 percent by 2000.

To complete its part of the deal, Fannie Mae announced its Trillion Dollar Commitment, a program that earmarked $1 trillion for affordable housing between 1994 and 2000.

Government Policies Caused The Financial Crisis And Made the Recession Worse

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007. As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks,

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

 

[francoHFW]

Though Fannie and Freddie were involved with so many subprime mortgages, they only got one quarter of the bailouts, so obviously they were involved with Worthy applicants. Unlike those who dealt with Countrywide Etc and GOP crony regulators... Want a diagram?

Though Fannie and Freddie were involved with so many subprime mortgages

Over $1 trillion, by 2002.

Though Fannie and Freddie were involved with so many subprime mortgages, they only got one quarter of the bailouts,

I know, 2 companies that got nearly $200 billion. Hardly anything. DERP!

Unlike those who dealt with Countrywide

Like Fannie and Freddie dealt? LOL!

Fannie & Freddie participated in the practice.

If F& F were in such bad shape, Why did Bush wanted F & F to buy questionable mortgages from other lenders. Are you calling your hedfor GW an idiot?

Fannie & Freddie participated in the practice.

F&F bought and securitized tons of shitty mortgages.

Why did Bush wanted F & F to buy questionable mortgages from other lenders.

He took Clinton's bad idea and made it worse.

See, you agreed with my post the F & F participated.
This was in 2008, what Clinton idea was that? When did Clinton want F & F o buy bad mortgages prior to 2001?

See, you agreed with my post the F & F participated

Yes, everyone knows F&F participated. Except FrancoMoron

This was in 2008, what Clinton idea was that?

That the government should increase home ownership.
That HUD should mandate F&F buy lower quality mortgages.

Thus, almost two-thirds of all the bad mortgages in our financial system, many of which are now defaulting at unprecedented rates, were bought by government agencies or required by government regulations.

The role of the FHA is particularly difficult to fit into the narrative that the left has been selling. While it might be argued that Fannie and Freddie and insured banks were profit-seekers because they were shareholder-owned, what can explain the fact that the FHA—a government agency—was guaranteeing the same bad mortgages that the unregulated mortgage brokers were supposedly creating through predatory lending?

The answer, of course, is that it was government policy for these poor quality loans to be made. Since the early 1990s, the government has been attempting to expand home ownership in full disregard of the prudent lending principles that had previously governed the U.S. mortgage market. Now the motives of the GSEs fall into place. Fannie and Freddie were subject to "affordable housing" regulations, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which required them to buy mortgages made to home buyers who were at or below the median income. This quota began at 30% of all purchases in the early 1990s, and was gradually ratcheted up until it called for 55% of all mortgage purchases to be "affordable" in 2007, including 25% that had to be made to low-income home buyers.

How The Government Caused The Mortgage Crisis

And there’s no doubt Fannie Mae’s managers used the company’s special government relationship to their advantage. For years, the company had used its ostensible affordable housing mission to fend off efforts to fully privatize its operations. Fannie’s brass shored up their political cover in 1992 when they successfully lobbied Congress for explicit affordable housing goals.

In fact, The New York Times reported (in 1991) that the GSEs literally wrote much of the bill that required HUD to establish three explicit affordable housing goals for the GSEs.

Soon after, Fannie partnered with President Bill Clinton in what should be the textbook case for why it is so important to keep government officials out of the private sector. Clinton’s 1994 National Partners in Homeownership, a private–public cooperative, arbitrarily set a goal of raising the U.S. homeownership rate from 64 percent to 70 percent by 2000.

To complete its part of the deal, Fannie Mae announced its Trillion Dollar Commitment, a program that earmarked $1 trillion for affordable housing between 1994 and 2000.

Government Policies Caused The Financial Crisis And Made the Recession Worse

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007. As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks,

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

So why were the Great majority of bailouts for private lending institutions and insurers, not Fannie and Freddie? Your figures are fos. Problem was not subprime mortgages, the problem was Bad subprime Mortgages Allowed by Bush regulators