A reminder of what caused the economic collapse of 2008: Democrat policies

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Jun 20, 2006
10,025
2,410
290
San Diego, CA
A summary I wrote more than four years ago. Even more timely today, with the Democrats re-starting the same policies that led to the economic crash of 2008: Millions of risky housing loans to people unlikely to be able to pay them back.

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

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

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

Here's a summary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


(to be continued)
 
Last edited:
(continued from above)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:rolleyes:

The buildup to the largest, deepest, widest and most complicated financial meltdown ever was due to far more than the actions of one political party. This was, and remains, a cultural issue, not a political issue, regardless of how much fun it is to point fingers at "the other guys".

.
 
It is absolutely necessary for Democrats to blame the financial collapse on some mysterious virus called "Wall Street Greed" that suddenly appeared during the Bush 43 presidency, going so far in this charade as to enact "reform" legislation (e.g., Dodd-Frank) which actually worsened the situation.

It may take a generation for agenda-driven economists and historians to feel it is safe enough to admit the obvious: This financial debacle was caused by government sponsorship of non-conforming home loans to non-credit worthy borrowers.
 
SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.
 
why did the Bush SEC hold back the regulations on WHO could be s broker at the banks for 8 to 9 years?


Why did they want the banks Brokers ( you know the people who sold the subprime laced securities that enabled the banks to sell at a profit the subprime they knew was TOO explosive to hold) to have NO RULES??????
 
This financial debacle was caused by government sponsorship of non-conforming home loans to non-credit worthy borrowers.

Absolutely true.

Not the entire story of the meltdown, of course, but certainly the snowball that started the DEBT avalanche that practically rolled over the world's banking system.
 
The recession was caused by the lack of oversight by the GOP who controlled by Congress, minus the Senate for one two-year term, from 1994 to 2006, with one Dem and one Pub president in their pockets.

The GOP is at fault, and that is how it is taught overwhelmingly in high school and college courses.

We can never let the neo-econs any more than the neo-cons or the social traditionalists control our GOP politics ever again.
 
Why did BUSH have to go on national Tv to say the economy was about to fail jsut a couple of days before the bank brokers would now have to be licensed?
 
Timing and Temporary Exemption
As adopted, Regulation R provides banks with a transitional exemption until the first day of their first fiscal year commencing after Sept. 30, 2008. This will give banks time to make any necessary changes in their systems and compliance programs and should ensure that banks have time to come into compliance with the Exchange Act provisions relating to the broker definition. This exemptive rule will become effective on the date that the Commission's current order expires, Sept. 28, 2007.
 
why did the Bush SEC hold back the regulations on WHO could be s broker at the banks for 8 to 9 years?


Why did they want the banks Brokers ( you know the people who sold the subprime laced securities that enabled the banks to sell at a profit the subprime they knew was TOO explosive to hold) to have NO RULES??????

Why did the Clinton SEC hold back the regulations for the first 14 months of those 8 years?
 
why did the Bush SEC hold back the regulations on WHO could be s broker at the banks for 8 to 9 years?


Why did they want the banks Brokers ( you know the people who sold the subprime laced securities that enabled the banks to sell at a profit the subprime they knew was TOO explosive to hold) to have NO RULES??????

Why did the Clinton SEC hold back the regulations for the first 14 months of those 8 years?

prove what you claim.

that law did not take effect then you fool
 
What's with these ridiculous talking points? Do you think that the (racist) GOP was behind this push to increase minority home ownership?
 
why did the Bush SEC hold back the regulations on WHO could be s broker at the banks for 8 to 9 years?


Why did they want the banks Brokers ( you know the people who sold the subprime laced securities that enabled the banks to sell at a profit the subprime they knew was TOO explosive to hold) to have NO RULES??????

Why did the Clinton SEC hold back the regulations for the first 14 months of those 8 years?

prove what you claim.

that law did not take effect then you fool


you just did it for me! :lmao:
 
why did the Bush SEC hold back the regulations on WHO could be s broker at the banks for 8 to 9 years?


Why did they want the banks Brokers ( you know the people who sold the subprime laced securities that enabled the banks to sell at a profit the subprime they knew was TOO explosive to hold) to have NO RULES??????

Would not have been an issue, were there not sub-prime mortgages to bundle. Lenders were forced to write sub-prime paper, but your big bugaboo is that they sold securities to mitigate their risk.

Please turn your rep back on. I desperately need to neg your silly ass.
 

Forum List

Back
Top