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

[Truthmatters]

http://www.hcmp.com/web_documents/subprime_mortgage_crisis_securities_litigation.pdf


I. INTRODUCTION
The crash of the subprime lending market and the resulting credit crisis are now leading
to the biggest wave of financial litigation since the savings and loan debacle of the early 1990s.
Securities litigation accounts for a significant percentage of the subprime cases filed to date.
This paper will describe the alphabet soup of complex securities involved in subprime litigation;
chart the evolution of subprime mortgage financing and the current crisis; examine the emerging
claims and theories of liability in subprime securities litigation; and consider several early
subprime securities decisions.

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

And now the Democrats are doing the same things, all over again.

Here we go again....!

There are BROKER RULES NOW you idiot

 

[Publius1787]

refute any of these facts gilligan

I would present evidence; however, when I do you will just shake it off, ignore it, and say “He’s a con.” That’s not debate. That’s squirming around and it is neither honest nor fun. No matter what is presented to you, you will just attack the source of the information without touching the information itself. You have shown a pattern of this behavior and I am not interested in working to have an honest conversation only to see you show off your ignorance.

then link to me where you have done so in the past.

Ill go read it

Just look at how you reply to people. I'm all for calling someone a name or two but when I do I grant a reason for it via a claim and explanation. To you, by virtue of being a conservative we are all of the names you posted throughout this and other forums. You do not argue in good faith and you never concede a valid point but ignore them and see what else you can work with. Indeed, most people here do this. However, arguing with you is useless because everyone here knows that the CRA had something to do with the financial crisis, and thus, the only question is how much. If you cant at least concede that there is a problem.

This is garbage >>>> http://www.usmessageboard.com/7039432-post30.html

 

[edthecynic]

I would present evidence; however, when I do you will just shake it off, ignore it, and say “He’s a con.” That’s not debate. That’s squirming around and it is neither honest nor fun. No matter what is presented to you, you will just attack the source of the information without touching the information itself. You have shown a pattern of this behavior and I am not interested in working to have an honest conversation only to see you show off your ignorance.

then link to me where you have done so in the past.

Ill go read it

Just look at how you reply to people. I'm all for calling someone a name or two but when I do I grant a reason for it via a claim and explanation. To you, by virtue of being a conservative we are all of the names you posted throughout this and other forums. You do not argue in good faith and you never concede a valid point but ignore them and see what else you can work with. Indeed, most people here do this. However, arguing with you is useless because everyone here knows that the CRA had something to do with the financial crisis, and thus, the only question is how much.

New Study Blames Community Reinvestment Act For Mortgage Defaults - Investors.com

Invested Bigots Daily has no credibility, and your link is further proof of it.

CRA had nothing to do with Bush's housing crash. It was the high interest, high risk, high profit ARM loans to unqualified borrowers that caused Bush's housing crash. CRA loans only went to qualified borrowers and were only 2% over prime and if the borrower made their payments on time for two years the rate adjusted DOWN to prime. It was the ARMs that jacked UP their teaser rates that caused Bush's housing crash.

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

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

July 7,2010
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Actually, the root cause was Democrat FDR ignoring the United States Constitution, the document he has sworn to uphold, and dabbling in the private housing market via Fannie and Freddie.

Had he not done so, there would not have been a financial meltdown.

I suggest you read the Constitution prior to posting again.
It would save future embarrassment.

You are still in Mises Land, I see. Sad waste of talent, you.

 

[t_polkow]

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.

Actually, the root cause was Democrat FDR ignoring the United States Constitution, the document he has sworn to uphold, and dabbling in the private housing market via Fannie and Freddie.

Had he not done so, there would not have been a financial meltdown.

I suggest you read the Constitution prior to posting again.
It would save future embarrassment.

You are still in Mises Land, I see. Sad waste of talent, you.

She hasn't been in this country for long.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some day she will be allowed to go home.

 

[Ernie S.]

How much of the subprime was refis?

WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 3, 2007) - The percentage of subprime loans being used by first-time home buyers increased from 12 percent to 15 percent in the second half of 2006 according to the Mortgage Bankers Association's (MBA's) Subprime Mortgage Originations Survey released today. The percentage of subprime loans used for repeat and first-time home purchase increased from 46 percent to 47 percent.

Key findings from the survey include (percentages are based on dollar volume of originated loans):

- For the second half of 2006, 55 percent of subprime originations were for refinance purposes unchanged from the first half of 2006 (see Chart 1). Among subprime refinances, 87 percent were for cash-out purposes compared with 75 percent for the first half of 2006. However, in the first half of 2006, 12 percent of refinances were reported as "unknown" or "other purposes" and thus, the refinance for cash-out purposes in the first half of 2006 could very well be higher.

- Based on loan count, 32 percent of subprime purchase loans were made to a first-time home buyer, up from 25 percent in the first half of 2006.

 

[healthmyths]

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??????

The bill passed in 2007 leaving one year to do what you said was being done...subprime laced..

 

[healthmyths]

I am curious though as to why this event NEVER made it into the Fox presentation...

"The near economic collapse on Thursday (Sept 18,2008), at 11am the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the U.S., to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two.
The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide.
We were having an electronic run on the banks.
They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic out there.

If they had not done that, their estimation is that by 2pm that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the U.S., would have collapsed the entire economy of the U.S., and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.
It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it.
Index of /blog

 

[NYcarbineer]

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)

You lie.

2002 - June 17resident G.W. Bush sets goal of increasing minority home owners by at least 5.5 million by 2010 through tax credits, subsidies and a Fannie Mae commitment of $440 billion to establish NeighborWorks America with faith-based organizations.[34]

2003: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy $81 billion in subprime securities.[16]

2003 - December: President Bush signs the American Dream Downpayment Act to be implemented under the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The goal was to provide a maximum downpayment assistance grant of either $10,000 or six percent of the purchase price of the home, whichever was greater. In addition, the Bush Administration committed to reforming the homebuying process that would lower closing costs by approximately $700 per loan. It was said it would further stimulate homeownership for all Americans.[37]

2004 - HUD increased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac affordable-housing goals for next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent, stating they lagged behind the private market; from 2004 to 2006, they purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans.[16]

2004 - October:SEC effectively suspends net capital rule for five firms - Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley. Freed from government-imposed limits on the debt they can assume, they levered up 20, 30 and even 40 to 1.[39]

All of the above happening on Bush's watch with a GOP majority in Congress.

Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Little-Acorn]

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)

You lie.

If you can refute even one sentence in the post you quoted, I shall hear it gratefully.

Otherwise, I urge you to consider what a person who falsely accuses others of "lying", is called.

Back to the subject:
The pattern of Democrats overwhelmingly pushing for people unable to pay back housing loans, and consistently blocking Republicans from doing anything to stop them, is long, clear, and well estableshed, as I have documented.

And now we are seeing the current Democrat administration re-doing many of those exact actions they used in years past to cast this nation into one of the longest, deepest economic crashes in living memory.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-loans-to-people-with-weak-credit-again.html

.

Won't these people ever learn?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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)

You lie.

If you can refute even one sentence in the post you quoted, I shall hear it gratefully.

Otherwise, I urge you to consider what a person who falsely accuses others of "lying", is called.

Back to the subject:
The pattern of Democrats overwhelmingly pushing for people unable to pay back housing loans, and consistently blocking Republicans from doing anything to stop them, is long, clear, and well estableshed, as I have documented.

And now we are seeing the current Democrat administration re-doing many of those exact actions they used in years past to cast this nation into one of the longest, deepest economic crashes in living memory.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-loans-to-people-with-weak-credit-again.html

.

Won't these people ever learn?

You lied in your thread title you imbecile.

 

[Erand7899]

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??????

No one sold any securities or subprime mortgages to anyone but willing buyers. You are confusing two different problems. Although the housing meltdown contributed to and possibly even initiated the financial crisis, it was not the financial crisis. That crisis was averted through the TARP bailout of the banks. And, the problems that created the financial crisis have not been corrected in any way. It could happen again.

The housing meltdown did not take place overnight. It took place in fits and starts, from 2003 through 2007, when it took the final plunge. That plunge brought on a credit crunch, and resulted in a deep recession. A recession that we cannot seem to climb out of, thanks to the financial idiots we have in Washington.

 

[Mustang]

This is one of the reasons I won't vote for a Republican again for national office. If they can't face the truth about what went wrong (and their complicity in pushing policies which contributed to the problem), then I would be a fool to believe that they would face facts and fix the problems. No, they'll just point fingers at others. Then they'll embrace a 'solution' to the problems based on their ideological beliefs instead of pursuing an economic policy course correction based on proven pragmatic solutions which are supported by an analysis of the numbers as opposed to a political philosophy.

To put it more simply, anyone who expends SO MUCH energy trying to blame others while also attempting to absolve themselves of any responsibility is likely to care more about appearances than reality. And you can't fix problems if you're not willing to face reality.

 

[Black_Label]

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)

You lie.

If you can refute even one sentence in the post you quoted, I shall hear it gratefully.

Otherwise, I urge you to consider what a person who falsely accuses others of "lying", is called.

Back to the subject:
The pattern of Democrats overwhelmingly pushing for people unable to pay back housing loans, and consistently blocking Republicans from doing anything to stop them, is long, clear, and well estableshed, as I have documented.

And now we are seeing the current Democrat administration re-doing many of those exact actions they used in years past to cast this nation into one of the longest, deepest economic crashes in living memory.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-loans-to-people-with-weak-credit-again.html

.

Won't these people ever learn?

The radical right wing filth are 100% responsible for the economic crash. They let their big banker cronies run wild and to self regulate themselves, then when they completely destroyed the housing market, W and the GOP gave them 100's of billion of taxpayer dollars.

The GOP area bunch of idiots that hate america and only care about their cronies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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??????

No one sold any securities or subprime mortgages to anyone but willing buyers. You are confusing two different problems. Although the housing meltdown contributed to and possibly even initiated the financial crisis, it was not the financial crisis. That crisis was averted through the TARP bailout of the banks. And, the problems that created the financial crisis have not been corrected in any way. It could happen again.

The housing meltdown did not take place overnight. It took place in fits and starts, from 2003 through 2007, when it took the final plunge. That plunge brought on a credit crunch, and resulted in a deep recession. A recession that we cannot seem to climb out of, thanks to the financial idiots we have in Washington.

That recession was rooted in 1995 in the GOP congress with a compliant president. Nothing changed for 12 years.

Both parties are responsible, the conditions are occurring again, and we are removing our more at-risk properties at favorable prices.

Both parties had better realize another crunch is coming in the next 18 months.

 

[Little-Acorn]

You lie.

If you can refute even one sentence in the post you quoted, I shall hear it gratefully.

Otherwise, I urge you to consider what a person who falsely accuses others of "lying", is called.

Back to the subject:
The pattern of Democrats overwhelmingly pushing for people unable to pay back housing loans, and consistently blocking Republicans from doing anything to stop them, is long, clear, and well estableshed, as I have documented.

And now we are seeing the current Democrat administration re-doing many of those exact actions they used in years past to cast this nation into one of the longest, deepest economic crashes in living memory.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-loans-to-people-with-weak-credit-again.html

.

Won't these people ever learn?

The radical right wing filth are 100% responsible for the economic crash. They let their big banker cronies run wild

Have you noticed that the people who call the most names, spew the most smears, and tell the most lies, also offer the fewest facts (usually zero)?

Poor libbies - on the losing side of the argument evey time, with no relevant facts to support their agenda, so they do the most screaming instead. Who can blame the poor dears?

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you can refute even one sentence in the post you quoted, I shall hear it gratefully.

Otherwise, I urge you to consider what a person who falsely accuses others of "lying", is called.

Back to the subject:
The pattern of Democrats overwhelmingly pushing for people unable to pay back housing loans, and consistently blocking Republicans from doing anything to stop them, is long, clear, and well estableshed, as I have documented.

And now we are seeing the current Democrat administration re-doing many of those exact actions they used in years past to cast this nation into one of the longest, deepest economic crashes in living memory.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-loans-to-people-with-weak-credit-again.html

.

Won't these people ever learn?

The radical right wing filth are 100% responsible for the economic crash. They let their big banker cronies run wild

Have you noticed that the people who call the most names, spew the most smears, and tell the most lies, also offer the fewest facts (usually zero)?

Poor libbies - on the losing side of the argument evey time, so they do the most screaming. Who can blame the poor dears?

You are describing the far reactionary right more than the far left, acornhole. Poor lefties and righties, running around without their nuts.

 

[Black_Label]

If you can refute even one sentence in the post you quoted, I shall hear it gratefully.

Otherwise, I urge you to consider what a person who falsely accuses others of "lying", is called.

Back to the subject:
The pattern of Democrats overwhelmingly pushing for people unable to pay back housing loans, and consistently blocking Republicans from doing anything to stop them, is long, clear, and well estableshed, as I have documented.

And now we are seeing the current Democrat administration re-doing many of those exact actions they used in years past to cast this nation into one of the longest, deepest economic crashes in living memory.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-loans-to-people-with-weak-credit-again.html

.

Won't these people ever learn?

The radical right wing filth are 100% responsible for the economic crash. They let their big banker cronies run wild

Have you noticed that the people who call the most names, spew the most smears, and tell the most lies, also offer the fewest facts (usually zero)?

Poor libbies - on the losing side of the argument evey time, with no relevant facts to support their agenda, so they do the most screaming instead. Who can blame the poor dears?

That's right, I forget, the democrats had complete control of congress and the presidency when they passed for the big bankers to do whatever they wanted, signed off on two unpaid for wars, and bailed out the big bankers, where the GOP was prancing around on unicorns bringing world peace.