A reminder of how democrats led us to this mess

[Tehon]

When people making $50K in a good year can qualify for a $600K home, why would a bank or a loan shark for that matter approve the loan unless they knew they would have a back up??

You need to understand the layers that were created to mitigate risk from faulty loans. The loan originator doesn't need to service the loan, they sell it and it gets packaged with other loans in a Mortgage Backed Security. In this way there is no risk to the loan originator so why would they care if the loan fails?

 

[Bfgrn]

When people making $50K in a good year can qualify for a $600K home, why would a bank or a loan shark for that matter approve the loan unless they knew they would have a back up??

ALL of those crazy loans were backed by private non agency MBS...virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

Go make a $15K loan to a guy that can barely meet his $1,000 used car payment and see how much you are fueled by greed? What is your back up if they default?

Is this stuff too hard for you to understand?

 

[Bfgrn]

There is no question the taxpayer payed for the excesses of wall street, completely unrelated to F&F.

You are absolutely right. The financial crisis had nothing to do with average American workers buying a homestead. This was not a poor man's crime, it was a rich man's, Wall Street crime.

What role did Fannie and Freddie play in inflating the housing bubble of the mid- to late-2000s?

Contrary to conservative talking points, the answer is very little. During the bubble, loan originators backed by Wall Street capital began operating beyond the Fannie and Freddie system that had been working for decades by peddling large quantities of high-risk subprime mortgages with terms and features that drastically increased the chance of default. Many of those loans were predatory products such as hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages with balloon payments that required serial refinancing, or negative amortization, mortgages that increased the unpaid balance over time.

Wall Street firms such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns packaged these high-risk loans into securities, got the credit-rating agencies to bless them, and then passed them along to investors, who were often unaware or misinformed of the underlying risks. It was the poor performance of the loans in these “private-label” securities—those not owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie—that led to the financial meltdown, according to the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, among other independent researchers.

In fact, Fannie and Freddie lost market share as the bubble grew: The companies backed roughly half of all home-loan originations in 2002 but just 30 percent in 2005 and 2006. In an ill-fated effort to win back market share, Fannie and Freddie made a few tragic mistakes. Starting in 2006 and 2007—just as the housing bubble was reaching its peak—Fannie and Freddie increased their leverage and began investing in certain subprime securities that credit agencies incorrectly deemed low-risk. Fannie and Freddie also lowered the underwriting standards in their securitization business, purchasing and securitizing so-called Alt-A loans. While Alt-A loans typically went to borrowers with good credit and relatively high income, they required little or no income documentation, opening the door to fraud (which was often perpetrated by the mortgage broker rather than the homebuyer).

These decisions eventually contributed to the companies’ massive losses, but all this happened far too late to be a primary cause of the housing crisis.

 

[Bfgrn]

Did affordable housing goals for Fannie and Freddie play any role in the subprime crisis?

No.

In 1992 Congress established the “affordable housing goals,” which were numerical targets for the share of Fannie- and Freddie-backed lending that went to low-income and minority borrowers. For years conservative analysts have falsely pointed to these goals as a catalyst for the housing crisis, claiming they pushed Fannie and Freddie to take on unprecedented levels of risk, creating a bubble and a bust in the subprime housing market that sparked the financial catastrophe.

That’s simply not true. A recent study from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis found that the affordable housing goals had no observable impact on the volume, price, or default rates of subprime loans during the crisis, even after controlling for the loan size, loan type, borrower characteristics, and other factors. Federal Reserve Economist Neil Bhutta reached a similar conclusion in 2009, finding that the affordable housing goals had a negligible effect on Fannie and Freddie lending during the housing bubble.

That shouldn’t come as a surprise. Fannie and Freddie did not securitize any loans that met the industry definition of “subprime,” and the loans in their riskier securities—commonly identified as “subprime-like” or “subprime equivalent”—experienced delinquency rates that mirrored the prime market. The Alt-A loans that drove their losses were typically made to higher-income households and thus did not qualify for the affordable housing goals. While Fannie and Freddie did hold some subprime mortgage-backed securities in their investment portfolios—many of which qualified for the affordable housing goals—these investments lagged behind the rest of the market and made up only a tiny fraction of total subprime lending during the housing bubble.

 

[Dad2three]

Coupled with that reading is the Corruption and bastardization of The Community Reinvestment Act

WOW, you are rolling out every single false narrative created...

Fannie and Freddie were not the cause of the meltdown, private lenders were. And the CRA had absolutely nothing to do with it.

When people making $50K in a good year can qualify for a $600K home, why would a bank or a loan shark for that matter approve the loan unless they knew they would have a back up??

BECAUSE 80% OF THE LOANS WERE DONE THROUGH MORTGAGE BROKERS WHO SOLD THE LOANS YOU DUMBFUKK!

 

[Dad2three]

Coupled with that reading is the Corruption and bastardization of The Community Reinvestment Act

WOW, you are rolling out every single false narrative created...

Fannie and Freddie were not the cause of the meltdown, private lenders were. And the CRA had absolutely nothing to do with it.

When people making $50K in a good year can qualify for a $600K home, why would a bank or a loan shark for that matter approve the loan unless they knew they would have a back up??

The right wing ideology, at its roots, is based on fear instead of reason


One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.

To create buyers out of unqualified buyers, banks literally stopped checking income in addition to using teaser rates and initial ARM rates to put people in homes they couldn't afford

WHY? BECAUSE THEY NO LONGER HELD THE LOANS, THEY BUNDLED THEM INTO MBS'S AND CREATED CDO's AND SOLD THEM TO PENSION FUNDS, INSURANCE COMPS, Gov't's and BRIBED the rating agencies for AAA ratings!

 

[Dad2three]

When people making $50K in a good year can qualify for a $600K home, why would a bank or a loan shark for that matter approve the loan unless they knew they would have a back up??

ALL of those crazy loans were backed by private non agency MBS...virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

Go make a $15K loan to a guy that can barely meet his $1,000 used car payment and see how much you are fueled by greed? What is your back up if they default?

WHAT FUKKN DEFAULT? THEY SOLD THE GAWDDAM LOANS, BUNDLED AND HAD THEM RATED AAA. JEEZUS KRIST DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED EVEN A LIL BIT?

The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement.

 

[sealybobo]

Dispute it

If you don't worship unregulated free market capitalism does that make you a traitor to America? Are you being dramatic?

But notice you worship your ism? Wow! Do you worship God or capitalism more?

The scary thing about this is that Republicans were calling for more regulation of Fannie and Freddie and Democrats were screaming, "leave it alone." Why was that? Perhaps these organizations are good crony vehicles.

If your understanding of facts were accurate you might be half right.

 

[Tehon]

A reminder of how Bush led us to this mess.

 

[Tehon]

And here is Bush as he realizes the house of cards that he built is falling. Among other things he said the role of government is limited and can't be used to bail out homeowners, that after he unleashed the sub prime lenders on them and before he bailed out the banks.

 

[LeftofLeft]

When people making $50K in a good year can qualify for a $600K home, why would a bank or a loan shark for that matter approve the loan unless they knew they would have a back up??

ALL of those crazy loans were backed by private non agency MBS...virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

Go make a $15K loan to a guy that can barely meet his $1,000 used car payment and see how much you are fueled by greed? What is your back up if they default?

WHAT FUKKN DEFAULT? THEY SOLD THE GAWDDAM LOANS, BUNDLED AND HAD THEM RATED AAA. JEEZUS KRIST DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED EVEN A LIL BIT?

The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement.

I am fully aware of the bundling and what happened.

 

[Dad2three]

When people making $50K in a good year can qualify for a $600K home, why would a bank or a loan shark for that matter approve the loan unless they knew they would have a back up??

ALL of those crazy loans were backed by private non agency MBS...virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

Go make a $15K loan to a guy that can barely meet his $1,000 used car payment and see how much you are fueled by greed? What is your back up if they default?

WHAT FUKKN DEFAULT? THEY SOLD THE GAWDDAM LOANS, BUNDLED AND HAD THEM RATED AAA. JEEZUS KRIST DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED EVEN A LIL BIT?

The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement.

I am fully aware of the bundling and what happened.

APPARENTLY FUKKN NOT BUBS, YOU WONDERED WHY THE BANKS HANDED OUT A LOAN WITH ANYONE WITH A BREATH, UNLESS SOMEHOW GOV'T FORCED THEM, NOT RECOGNIZING THE GAME CHANGED TO JUST OFFLOADING TO OTHERS!

 

[LeftofLeft]

When people making $50K in a good year can qualify for a $600K home, why would a bank or a loan shark for that matter approve the loan unless they knew they would have a back up??

ALL of those crazy loans were backed by private non agency MBS...virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

Go make a $15K loan to a guy that can barely meet his $1,000 used car payment and see how much you are fueled by greed? What is your back up if they default?

WHAT FUKKN DEFAULT? THEY SOLD THE GAWDDAM LOANS, BUNDLED AND HAD THEM RATED AAA. JEEZUS KRIST DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED EVEN A LIL BIT?

The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement.

I am fully aware of the bundling and what happened.

APPARENTLY FUKKN NOT BUBS, YOU WONDERED WHY THE BANKS HANDED OUT A LOAN WITH ANYONE WITH A BREATH, UNLESS SOMEHOW GOV'T FORCED THEM, NOT RECOGNIZING THE GAME CHANGED TO JUST OFFLOADING TO OTHERS!

I never ignored nor denied bundling and offloading by the banks. You are ignoring what enabled banks to do that in the first place. All you keep doing is cutting and pasting symptoms and results and a periodic FUKK bomb and Bub.

 

[Dad2three]

ALL of those crazy loans were backed by private non agency MBS...virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

Go make a $15K loan to a guy that can barely meet his $1,000 used car payment and see how much you are fueled by greed? What is your back up if they default?

WHAT FUKKN DEFAULT? THEY SOLD THE GAWDDAM LOANS, BUNDLED AND HAD THEM RATED AAA. JEEZUS KRIST DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED EVEN A LIL BIT?

The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement.

I am fully aware of the bundling and what happened.

APPARENTLY FUKKN NOT BUBS, YOU WONDERED WHY THE BANKS HANDED OUT A LOAN WITH ANYONE WITH A BREATH, UNLESS SOMEHOW GOV'T FORCED THEM, NOT RECOGNIZING THE GAME CHANGED TO JUST OFFLOADING TO OTHERS!

I never ignored nor denied bundling and offloading by the banks. You are ignoring what enabled banks to do that in the first place. All you keep doing is cutting and pasting symptoms and results and a periodic FUKK bomb and Bub.

ENABLED? Let me guess, F/F who lost over 60% of loans they had in 2003 to the private markets 2004-2007? Even though Dubya FORCED them to get HEAVILY into the subprime mess!'

Dumbfuk, it WAS ENABLED BY DUBYA POLICIES, INCLUDING IGNORING REGULATOR WARNINGS, FIGHTING ALL 50 STATES WHO WANTED TO REIGN IN THE PREDATORY BANKSTERS!

 

[LeftofLeft]

Go make a $15K loan to a guy that can barely meet his $1,000 used car payment and see how much you are fueled by greed? What is your back up if they default?

WHAT FUKKN DEFAULT? THEY SOLD THE GAWDDAM LOANS, BUNDLED AND HAD THEM RATED AAA. JEEZUS KRIST DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED EVEN A LIL BIT?

The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement.

I am fully aware of the bundling and what happened.

APPARENTLY FUKKN NOT BUBS, YOU WONDERED WHY THE BANKS HANDED OUT A LOAN WITH ANYONE WITH A BREATH, UNLESS SOMEHOW GOV'T FORCED THEM, NOT RECOGNIZING THE GAME CHANGED TO JUST OFFLOADING TO OTHERS!

I never ignored nor denied bundling and offloading by the banks. You are ignoring what enabled banks to do that in the first place. All you keep doing is cutting and pasting symptoms and results and a periodic FUKK bomb and Bub.

ENABLED? Let me guess, F/F who lost over 60% of loans they had in 2003 to the private markets 2004-2007? Even though Dubya FORCED them to get HEAVILY into the subprime mess!'

Dumbfuk, it WAS ENABLED BY DUBYA POLICIES, INCLUDING IGNORING REGULATOR WARNINGS, FIGHTING ALL 50 STATES WHO WANTED TO REIGN IN THE PREDATORY BANKSTERS!

Who would ultimately get left holding the shit bag? Democrats were not worried and felt that Fannie and Freddie were sound, did not need fixing, leave them alone. Bush did not fight hard enough. Go back and read transcripts from Frank and Company.... They too are ignoring warnings.

 

[Dad2three]

WHAT FUKKN DEFAULT? THEY SOLD THE GAWDDAM LOANS, BUNDLED AND HAD THEM RATED AAA. JEEZUS KRIST DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED EVEN A LIL BIT?

The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement.

I am fully aware of the bundling and what happened.

APPARENTLY FUKKN NOT BUBS, YOU WONDERED WHY THE BANKS HANDED OUT A LOAN WITH ANYONE WITH A BREATH, UNLESS SOMEHOW GOV'T FORCED THEM, NOT RECOGNIZING THE GAME CHANGED TO JUST OFFLOADING TO OTHERS!

I never ignored nor denied bundling and offloading by the banks. You are ignoring what enabled banks to do that in the first place. All you keep doing is cutting and pasting symptoms and results and a periodic FUKK bomb and Bub.

ENABLED? Let me guess, F/F who lost over 60% of loans they had in 2003 to the private markets 2004-2007? Even though Dubya FORCED them to get HEAVILY into the subprime mess!'

Dumbfuk, it WAS ENABLED BY DUBYA POLICIES, INCLUDING IGNORING REGULATOR WARNINGS, FIGHTING ALL 50 STATES WHO WANTED TO REIGN IN THE PREDATORY BANKSTERS!

Who would ultimately get left holding the shit bag? Democrats were not worried and felt that Fannie and Freddie were sound, did not need fixing, leave them alone. Bush did not fight hard enough. Go back and read transcripts from Frank and Company.... They too are ignoring warnings.

Weird, you mean in 2003-2004 BEFORE DUBYA HOSED F/F Dems said they were OK? AND? Know who else was OK, BEFORE DUBYA CHEERED ON THE SUBPRIME BUBBLE? WAMU, AIG, ALL 5 INVESTMENT BANKS (3 TOTALLY GONE TODAY, OTHER 2 CHANGED CHARTERS/BOUGHT OUT), HUNDREDS OF BANKS


IT WAS DUBYA'S POLICIES THAT HOSED FANNIE/FREDIE YOU DUMBSHIT, I KEEP SHOWING YOU THAT. How fukkn crazy are you?






Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again


Testimony from DUBYA'S Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation's' of the GSE's 2004

Mr. BARNEY Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it

October 26, 2005

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers"


June 17, 2004

(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004

DUBYA CHANGED CLINTON'S 2000 RULE THAT RESTRICTED F/F FROM BUYING SUBPRIMES, HE UPPED THEIR GOALS FROM 50% TO 56% AND ALLOWED THE SUBPRIMES TO BE COUNTED TOWARDS THEN (OPPOSITE OF CLINTON) AND IN 2003 HE FORCED F/F TO PURCHASE $440 BILLION IN MBS'S FROM THE SECONDARY MARKET (BANKSTERS)



BUT NO, THOUGH BUSH CRUSHED F/F (AS REGULATOR), THE GSE'S DIDN'T CAUSE THE BUSH SUBPRIME CRISIS


FACTS on Dubya's great recession | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

WHAT FUKKN DEFAULT? THEY SOLD THE GAWDDAM LOANS, BUNDLED AND HAD THEM RATED AAA. JEEZUS KRIST DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED EVEN A LIL BIT?

The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement.

I am fully aware of the bundling and what happened.

APPARENTLY FUKKN NOT BUBS, YOU WONDERED WHY THE BANKS HANDED OUT A LOAN WITH ANYONE WITH A BREATH, UNLESS SOMEHOW GOV'T FORCED THEM, NOT RECOGNIZING THE GAME CHANGED TO JUST OFFLOADING TO OTHERS!

I never ignored nor denied bundling and offloading by the banks. You are ignoring what enabled banks to do that in the first place. All you keep doing is cutting and pasting symptoms and results and a periodic FUKK bomb and Bub.

ENABLED? Let me guess, F/F who lost over 60% of loans they had in 2003 to the private markets 2004-2007? Even though Dubya FORCED them to get HEAVILY into the subprime mess!'

Dumbfuk, it WAS ENABLED BY DUBYA POLICIES, INCLUDING IGNORING REGULATOR WARNINGS, FIGHTING ALL 50 STATES WHO WANTED TO REIGN IN THE PREDATORY BANKSTERS!

Who would ultimately get left holding the shit bag? Democrats were not worried and felt that Fannie and Freddie were sound, did not need fixing, leave them alone. Bush did not fight hard enough. Go back and read transcripts from Frank and Company.... They too are ignoring warnings.

DEMS PASSED REFORM IN THE HOUSE, IN 2005 WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FROM GOP, DUBYA OPPOSED IT. WHEN DEMS GOT CONTROL OF CONGRESS THEY PASSED GSE REFORM, BUT IT TOOK MONTHS TO GET DUBYA ON BOARD!!!

 

[imawhosure]

This guy is GREAT! He keeps cutting and pasting the same links, and is essentially asking you, "what do you believe, my leftist links, or your lying, deceitful, incompetent, eyes and ears!"

You have videos all over the place of this exchange that started the OP, including those of other democrats including Sheila, Jackson, Leigh I believe, calling Republicans racists because they wanted to regulate F and F.

The WHOLE government caused this problem, with Dad I agree on this; but when it was finally attempted to stop the madness, the Democrats stood in the way. It was their partial cash cow, and a huge political tool for them.

Politics suck, period! And if you notice, it is more than obvious WHO/WHOM wants to insure that real truth does not come out. Establishment Republicans have their own crosses to bear, but this is not one of them. Is there any wonder the independents are for people who were not in government before?

This election is going to be interesting, no matter how hard these Democratic shills try and tell you it is going to be easy-peezy for them. The more they scream, the more you know they are lying through their pearly whites.

 

[Tehon]

but when it was finally attempted to stop the madness, the Democrats stood in the way. It was their partial cash cow, and a huge political tool for them.

What final attempt and who attempted it? When? Specifics.

 

[Dad2three]

This guy is GREAT! He keeps cutting and pasting the same links, and is essentially asking you, "what do you believe, my leftist links, or your lying, deceitful, incompetent, eyes and ears!"

You have videos all over the place of this exchange that started the OP, including those of other democrats including Sheila, Jackson, Leigh I believe, calling Republicans racists because they wanted to regulate F and F.

The WHOLE government caused this problem, with Dad I agree on this; but when it was finally attempted to stop the madness, the Democrats stood in the way. It was their partial cash cow, and a huge political tool for them.

Politics suck, period! And if you notice, it is more than obvious WHO/WHOM wants to insure that real truth does not come out. Establishment Republicans have their own crosses to bear, but this is not one of them. Is there any wonder the independents are for people who were not in government before?

This election is going to be interesting, no matter how hard these Democratic shills try and tell you it is going to be easy-peezy for them. The more they scream, the more you know they are lying through their pearly whites.

Dems said there was nothing wrong wioth F/F in 2003-2004 hearings on the accounting scandals? JUST LIKE THE BUSH ADMIN SAID?

Testimony from DUBYA'S Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation's' of the GSE's 2004

Mr. BARNEY Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

(DUBYA ADMIN) Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it

CONTEXT DUMBASS

Dems didn't block ANYTHING, the Bush admin WAS THE REGULATOR OF F/F. Dubya/GOP didn't want to regulate F/F but destroy it's goals!


Can't refute what Dubya did huh, those "liberal" links? lol

PLEASE be specific though, what did the Dems stand in the way of, which bills and when EXACTLY? Not the 17 times Dubya "warned" the GOP CONGRESS, then went and FORCED THEM INTO BAD POLICY WITH HIS MANDATES???