Wanna See A Pathetic Excuse....

[Synthaholic]

Democrats.


1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.
He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.

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

3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA
Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.
Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.

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


That's the CliffNotes version.
I don't believe you can handle the details.

Hey PoliticalChic - the post right before yours...is it true?

Here it is again:

Obamaturd has spent more then any other president. It is a LIE by LIARS to say otherwise. LIAR!!!!

The bolded part. Is it true?

Now, why would you tag my post....and imply that you were about to respond to same....and then do a sleight of hand switch to some other post?


Ah.....I see....

Because you really can't respond to the veracity of my post, so you'd rather change the subject.


So....that throwing in of the towel means I win the point?

Good work.



And wise....because any study of history proves that Democrat/progressive/liberal policy is the cause of the financial crisis.

Isn't that true?

No. I am looking from some intellectual honesty from you.

And I note again that you let his post slide with no correction or rebuke for such egregious bullshit.

It is an easily proven fact that President Obama (praise be unto Him!) has spent less than anyone since President Eisenhower.

Now, do you concede that or not?

 

[Synthaholic]

From Forbes.com


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?



So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?


It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.


The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.


Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.


However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.

 

[boedicca]

Synthaholic is a big puzzy...it's such a puxxy I received a neg rep without a chance to properly respond in kind


step up to the plate synpuxxy

The Community Reinvestment Act did not run up the debt, putz.

Democrats.


1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.
He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.

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

3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA
Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.
Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.

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


That's the CliffNotes version.
I don't believe you can handle the details.

5. And Fannie Mae CEO James A. Johnson used the CRA provisions to lobby for Fannie to purchase massive amounts of subprime loans, and was paid over $200 million while cooking the books.

Fannie Mae?s Johnson Was ?Pied Piper,? Drove U.S. Off Housing Cliff: Books - Bloomberg

 

[Synthaholic]

Synthaholic is a big puzzy...it's such a puxxy I received a neg rep without a chance to properly respond in kind


step up to the plate synpuxxy

The Community Reinvestment Act did not run up the debt, putz.

Democrats.


1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.
He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.

Freddie/Fannie played a minor role in the meltdown. FAIL.

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

The CRA had little to do with the financial meltdown. FAIL.

3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA
Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.
Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.

See #2.

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

I don't know what you are specifically referring to. Please specifically cite.


You are equating a POTUS (Bush, Clinton, and in your deranged wingnut fantasy, Jimmy Carter) encouraging home-ownership with mortgage malpractice. As if one naturally follows the other. Yet you cannot show any government documents that encourage mortgage lenders to bend or break rules, or to manipulate the system in order to increase ownership.

 

[boilermaker55]

Yes you are a pathetic excuse and it is about time you recognized that you are a Pathetic excuse for a human being.

Wanna See A Pathetic Excuse....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hey PoliticalChic - the post right before yours...is it true?

Here it is again:

​

The bolded part. Is it true?

Now, why would you tag my post....and imply that you were about to respond to same....and then do a sleight of hand switch to some other post?


Ah.....I see....

Because you really can't respond to the veracity of my post, so you'd rather change the subject.


So....that throwing in of the towel means I win the point?

Good work.



And wise....because any study of history proves that Democrat/progressive/liberal policy is the cause of the financial crisis.

Isn't that true?

No. I am looking from some intellectual honesty from you.

And I note again that you let his post slide with no correction or rebuke for such egregious bullshit.

It is an easily proven fact that President Obama (praise be unto Him!) has spent less than anyone since President Eisenhower.

Now, do you concede that or not?

Stop begging.

No...I'm not allowing you to change the subject.

 

[Synthaholic]

Now, why would you tag my post....and imply that you were about to respond to same....and then do a sleight of hand switch to some other post?


Ah.....I see....

Because you really can't respond to the veracity of my post, so you'd rather change the subject.


So....that throwing in of the towel means I win the point?

Good work.



And wise....because any study of history proves that Democrat/progressive/liberal policy is the cause of the financial crisis.

Isn't that true?

No. I am looking from some intellectual honesty from you.

And I note again that you let his post slide with no correction or rebuke for such egregious bullshit.

It is an easily proven fact that President Obama (praise be unto Him!) has spent less than anyone since President Eisenhower.

Now, do you concede that or not?

Stop begging.

No...I'm not allowing you to change the subject.

Coward!

I addressed the subject in post #144. So that's another FAIL for you.

So, since I answered your post, you can now answer posts #141 & #142.

 

[PoliticalChic]

From Forbes.com


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?



So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?


It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.


The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.


Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.


However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.

What a fool you are.....

....and so easily led.


Did you know who wrote the piece...and why?


Rick Ungar is paid to post Leftist drivel.
It should be considered satire.

His tag at Forbes is "From the Left."
Go back and look at the article.
Dunce.


And you bought it like it was on sale!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Community Reinvestment Act did not run up the debt, putz.

Democrats.


1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.
He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.

Freddie/Fannie played a minor role in the meltdown. FAIL.




The CRA had little to do with the financial meltdown. FAIL.

3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA
Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.
Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.

See #2.

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

I don't know what you are specifically referring to. Please specifically cite.


You are equating a POTUS (Bush, Clinton, and in your deranged wingnut fantasy, Jimmy Carter) encouraging home-ownership with mortgage malpractice. As if one naturally follows the other. Yet you cannot show any government documents that encourage mortgage lenders to bend or break rules, or to manipulate the system in order to increase ownership.

You asked for it:

a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

c. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

d. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

e. Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.

f. Shortly after Cisneros announced his plan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agreed to begin buying loans under new, looser guidelines. Freddie Mac, for instance, started approving low-income buyers with bad credit histories or none at all, so long as they were current on rent and utilities payments. Freddie Mac also said that it would begin counting income from seasonal jobs and public assistance toward its income minimum, despite the FHA disaster of the sixties.

g. Freddie Mac began an “alternative qualifying” program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldn’t exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates.

h. Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA “among the most egregious redliners.”

i. Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the core of the subprime meltdown.

j. A 1998 sales pitch by a Bear Stearns managing director advised banks to begin packaging their loans to low-income borrowers into securities that the firm could sell. Forget traditional underwriting standards when considering these loans, the director advised. For a low-income borrower, he continued in all-too-familiar terms, owning a home was “a near-sacred obligation. A family will do almost anything to meet that monthly mortgage payment.” Bunk, says Stan Liebowitz, a professor of economics at the University of Texas: “The claim that lower-income homeowners are somehow different in their devotion to their home is a purely emotional claim with no evidence to support it.”

k. Any concern was quickly dismissed. When in early 2000 the FDIC proposed increasing capital requirements for lenders making “subprime” loans—loans to people with questionable credit, that is—Democratic representative Carolyn Maloney of New York told a congressional hearing that she feared that the step would dry up CRA loans. Her fellow New York Democrat John J. LaFalce urged regulators “not to be premature” in imposing new regulations.

l. In July 1999, HUD proposed new levels for Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s low-income lending; in September, Fannie Mae agreed to begin purchasing loans made to “borrowers with slightly impaired credit”—that is, with credit standards even lower than the government had been pushing for a generation.

m. In 2004 Congress pressed new affordable-housing goals on the two mortgage giants, which through 2007 purchased some $1 trillion in loans to lower- and moderate-income buyers. The buying spree helped spark a massive increase in securitization of mortgages to people with dubious credit.

n. In October 1994, Fannie Mae head James Johnson had reminded a banking convention that mortgages with small down payments had a much higher risk of defaulting. (A Duff & Phelps study found that they were nearly three times more likely to default than conventional mortgages.) Yet the very next month, Fannie Mae said that it expected to back loans to low-income home buyers with a 97 percent loan-to-value ratio—that is, loans in which the buyer puts down just 3 percent—as part of a commitment, made earlier that year to Congress, to purchase $1 trillion in affordable-housing mortgages by the end of the nineties. According to Edward Pinto, who served as the company’s chief credit officer, the program was the result of political pressure on Fannie Mae trumping lending standards.

o. In 1992, the Boston Fed produced an extraordinary 29-page document that codified the new lending wisdom. Conventional mortgage criteria, the report argued, might be “unintentionally biased” because they didn’t take into account “the economic culture of urban, lower-income and nontraditional customers.” Lenders should thus consider junking the industry’s traditional income-to-payments ratio and stop viewing an applicant’s “lack of credit history” as a “negative factor.” Further, if applicants had bad credit, banks should “consider extenuating circumstances”—even though a study by mortgage insurance companies would soon show, not surprisingly, that borrowers with no credit rating or a bad one were far more likely to default. If applicants didn’t have enough savings for a down payment, the Boston Fed urged, banks should allow loans from nonprofits or government assistance agencies to count toward one. A later study of Freddie Mac mortgages would find that a borrower who made a down payment with third-party funds was four times more likely to default, a reminder that traditional underwriting standards weren’t arbitrary but based on historical lending patterns.

p. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus launched Hogar in 2003, an initiative that pushed for easing lending standards for immigrants, including touting so-called seller-financed mortgages in which a builder provided down-payment aid to buyers via contributions to nonprofit groups. As a result, mortgage lending to Hispanics soared. And today, in districts where Hispanics make up at least 25 percent of the population, foreclosure rates are now nearly 50 percent higher than the national average, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.

q. Republicans and Democrats, meanwhile, have scrambled to reignite the housing market through ill-conceived tax credits and renewed federal subsidies for mortgages, including the Obama administration’s mortgage bailout plan, which recalls the New Deal’s HOLC. Behind these efforts is a fundamental misconception among politicians that housing drives the American economy and therefore demands subsidy at virtually any cost. Our praiseworthy initial efforts—to eliminate housing discrimination and provide all Americans an equal opportunity to buy a home—were eventually turned on their heads by advocates and politicians, who instead tried to ensure equality of outcomes.
Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009

Timeline shows Dems were warned:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM]Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Wanna See A Pathetic Excuse....

....for a President??

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Who elected this sad sack? - hilarious question

The halfwit white trash in fact or in spirit that re elected the most obviously failed president in US history in 2004 are DIRECTLY responsible for their current Lord and Master, Barack Hussein Obama. Had the dimsters of America not re elected Junebug Bush in 2004, there certainly would not have been a President Barack Hussein Obama in 2008.

Nice work, morons.

People that stupid deserve being rode hard and put away wet, something Obama appears to be doing a lot better than anything he has done for the economy or the people. About all that can be said is Obama's idiot-grade neocon nutballism is a clear step up from the criminal neocon nutballism of The Bush League.

 

[boilermaker55]

WOW! You are such a professional political individual and all the facts you have to back up this idiotic statement proves what you say.
Good work!

Who elected this sad sack? - hilarious question

The halfwit white trash in fact or in spirit that re elected the most obviously failed president in US history in 2004 are DIRECTLY responsible for their current Lord and Master, Barack Hussein Obama. Had the dimsters of America not re elected Junebug Bush in 2004, there certainly would not have been a President Barack Hussein Obama in 2008.

Nice work, morons.

People that stupid deserve being rode hard and put away wet, something Obama appears to be doing a lot better than anything he has done for the economy or the people. About all that can be said is Obama's idiot-grade neocon nutballism is a clear step up from the criminal neocon nutballism of The Bush League.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who elected this sad sack? - hilarious question

The halfwit white trash in fact or in spirit that re elected the most obviously failed president in US history in 2004 are DIRECTLY responsible for their current Lord and Master, Barack Hussein Obama. Had the dimsters of America not re elected Junebug Bush in 2004, there certainly would not have been a President Barack Hussein Obama in 2008.

Nice work, morons.

People that stupid deserve being rode hard and put away wet, something Obama appears to be doing a lot better than anything he has done for the economy or the people. About all that can be said is Obama's idiot-grade neocon nutballism is a clear step up from the criminal neocon nutballism of The Bush League.

You ready to retract your claim that I reported you to some administrator...and apologize?

 

[Synthaholic]

From Forbes.com


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?



So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?


It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.


The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.


Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.


However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.

What a fool you are.....

....and so easily led.


Did you know who wrote the piece...and why?


Rick Ungar is paid to post Leftist drivel.
It should be considered satire.

His tag at Forbes is "From the Left."
Go back and look at the article.
Dunce.


And you bought it like it was on sale!!!!

So, you attack the messenger because you cannot refute the message?

And on top of that, you are claiming that Forbes.com is not an accurate and reliable magazine when it comes to financial and economic matters?

Looks that way. That's two more massive FAILS on your part. You cannot disprove the fact that President Obama (praise be unto Him!) makes St. Ronnie Of The RKO Studio look like a big government spender, by comparison.

 

[Synthaholic]

Democrats.


1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.
He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.

Freddie/Fannie played a minor role in the meltdown. FAIL.




The CRA had little to do with the financial meltdown. FAIL.





See #2.

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

I don't know what you are specifically referring to. Please specifically cite.


You are equating a POTUS (Bush, Clinton, and in your deranged wingnut fantasy, Jimmy Carter) encouraging home-ownership with mortgage malpractice. As if one naturally follows the other. Yet you cannot show any government documents that encourage mortgage lenders to bend or break rules, or to manipulate the system in order to increase ownership.

You asked for it:

a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

c. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

d. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

e. Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.

f. Shortly after Cisneros announced his plan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agreed to begin buying loans under new, looser guidelines. Freddie Mac, for instance, started approving low-income buyers with bad credit histories or none at all, so long as they were current on rent and utilities payments. Freddie Mac also said that it would begin counting income from seasonal jobs and public assistance toward its income minimum, despite the FHA disaster of the sixties.

g. Freddie Mac began an “alternative qualifying” program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldn’t exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates.

h. Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA “among the most egregious redliners.”

i. Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the core of the subprime meltdown.

j. A 1998 sales pitch by a Bear Stearns managing director advised banks to begin packaging their loans to low-income borrowers into securities that the firm could sell. Forget traditional underwriting standards when considering these loans, the director advised. For a low-income borrower, he continued in all-too-familiar terms, owning a home was “a near-sacred obligation. A family will do almost anything to meet that monthly mortgage payment.” Bunk, says Stan Liebowitz, a professor of economics at the University of Texas: “The claim that lower-income homeowners are somehow different in their devotion to their home is a purely emotional claim with no evidence to support it.”

k. Any concern was quickly dismissed. When in early 2000 the FDIC proposed increasing capital requirements for lenders making “subprime” loans—loans to people with questionable credit, that is—Democratic representative Carolyn Maloney of New York told a congressional hearing that she feared that the step would dry up CRA loans. Her fellow New York Democrat John J. LaFalce urged regulators “not to be premature” in imposing new regulations.

l. In July 1999, HUD proposed new levels for Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s low-income lending; in September, Fannie Mae agreed to begin purchasing loans made to “borrowers with slightly impaired credit”—that is, with credit standards even lower than the government had been pushing for a generation.

m. In 2004 Congress pressed new affordable-housing goals on the two mortgage giants, which through 2007 purchased some $1 trillion in loans to lower- and moderate-income buyers. The buying spree helped spark a massive increase in securitization of mortgages to people with dubious credit.

n. In October 1994, Fannie Mae head James Johnson had reminded a banking convention that mortgages with small down payments had a much higher risk of defaulting. (A Duff & Phelps study found that they were nearly three times more likely to default than conventional mortgages.) Yet the very next month, Fannie Mae said that it expected to back loans to low-income home buyers with a 97 percent loan-to-value ratio—that is, loans in which the buyer puts down just 3 percent—as part of a commitment, made earlier that year to Congress, to purchase $1 trillion in affordable-housing mortgages by the end of the nineties. According to Edward Pinto, who served as the company’s chief credit officer, the program was the result of political pressure on Fannie Mae trumping lending standards.

o. In 1992, the Boston Fed produced an extraordinary 29-page document that codified the new lending wisdom. Conventional mortgage criteria, the report argued, might be “unintentionally biased” because they didn’t take into account “the economic culture of urban, lower-income and nontraditional customers.” Lenders should thus consider junking the industry’s traditional income-to-payments ratio and stop viewing an applicant’s “lack of credit history” as a “negative factor.” Further, if applicants had bad credit, banks should “consider extenuating circumstances”—even though a study by mortgage insurance companies would soon show, not surprisingly, that borrowers with no credit rating or a bad one were far more likely to default. If applicants didn’t have enough savings for a down payment, the Boston Fed urged, banks should allow loans from nonprofits or government assistance agencies to count toward one. A later study of Freddie Mac mortgages would find that a borrower who made a down payment with third-party funds was four times more likely to default, a reminder that traditional underwriting standards weren’t arbitrary but based on historical lending patterns.

p. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus launched Hogar in 2003, an initiative that pushed for easing lending standards for immigrants, including touting so-called seller-financed mortgages in which a builder provided down-payment aid to buyers via contributions to nonprofit groups. As a result, mortgage lending to Hispanics soared. And today, in districts where Hispanics make up at least 25 percent of the population, foreclosure rates are now nearly 50 percent higher than the national average, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.

q. Republicans and Democrats, meanwhile, have scrambled to reignite the housing market through ill-conceived tax credits and renewed federal subsidies for mortgages, including the Obama administration’s mortgage bailout plan, which recalls the New Deal’s HOLC. Behind these efforts is a fundamental misconception among politicians that housing drives the American economy and therefore demands subsidy at virtually any cost. Our praiseworthy initial efforts—to eliminate housing discrimination and provide all Americans an equal opportunity to buy a home—were eventually turned on their heads by advocates and politicians, who instead tried to ensure equality of outcomes.
Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009

Timeline shows Dems were warned:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM]Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube[/ame]

So you're claiming that the 2008 financial meltdown was caused by events in the 1970s and 1980s?

You are not very bright, are you? Is this the latest shit that Glenn Beck is shoveling?

 

[Sallow]

Obama is not responsible for anything adverse that happens. Not the TSA frisking 6 yr olds. Not this. It's always someone else's problem. Surprised he didnt blame Bush.

The TSA was formed after 2001 during the Bush administration.

About TSA | Transportation Security Administration

 

[Sallow]

From Forbes.com


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?



So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?


It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.


The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.


Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.


However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.

What a fool you are.....

....and so easily led.


Did you know who wrote the piece...and why?


Rick Ungar is paid to post Leftist drivel.
It should be considered satire.

His tag at Forbes is "From the Left."
Go back and look at the article.
Dunce.


And you bought it like it was on sale!!!!

It's math.

The bigger numbers mean they spent more.

You can see that, right?

 

[Synthaholic]

From Forbes.com


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?



So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?


It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.


The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.


Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.


However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.

What a fool you are.....

....and so easily led.


Did you know who wrote the piece...and why?


Rick Ungar is paid to post Leftist drivel.
It should be considered satire.

His tag at Forbes is "From the Left."
Go back and look at the article.
Dunce.


And you bought it like it was on sale!!!!

It's math.

The bigger numbers mean they spent more.

You can see that, right?

But it's "Liberal Math", where numbers add up, based on reality.

That's why she is so confused.

 

[Sallow]

What a fool you are.....

....and so easily led.


Did you know who wrote the piece...and why?


Rick Ungar is paid to post Leftist drivel.
It should be considered satire.

His tag at Forbes is "From the Left."
Go back and look at the article.
Dunce.


And you bought it like it was on sale!!!!

It's math.

The bigger numbers mean they spent more.

You can see that, right?

But it's "Liberal Math", where numbers add up, based on reality.

That's why she is so confused.

Well I bet she can count bullets.

It's the money thing she has problems with..

 

[NYcarbineer]

From Forbes.com


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?



So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?


It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.


The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.


Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.


However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.

What a fool you are.....

....and so easily led.


Did you know who wrote the piece...and why?


Rick Ungar is paid to post Leftist drivel.
It should be considered satire.

His tag at Forbes is "From the Left."
Go back and look at the article.
Dunce.


And you bought it like it was on sale!!!!

So everything this guy Ungar post can be dismissed as 'drivel' solely because he's partisan, in this case, from the left. That's your position.

Do you apply that same position to everything posted by someone from the right...

...starting with yourself?