The rules were loosened and look at our 2008 recession.
Isn't that what Republicans are all about? Loosening regulations?
Who knew the bush era would send 750,000 jobs a month oversea?. It's why Obama won and ultimately what did Hillary in. Clinton signed NAFTA, remember?
But the mass exodus happened on bushs watch
You just posted before that, that they wouldn't loosen regulations. Which is it?
Loosen, not loosen? Make up your mind.
You're missing the point. To point back to the good old days of the 1990s and blame Clinton for loosening up regulations so that people could more easily get loans is stupid I'm sorry. You would have to ignore all the deviant shady shit that happened from 2000-2008. All the shit bush delay and hastert did. Only a brainwashed Republican would blame Clinton and Freddy and fanny.
Earlier I asked another con who said "both sides are to blame" for the recession and I asked them to tell me what bush did wrong. They wouldn't answer. So in reality "both sides are to blame" is like a child telling you they are sorry but not being able to say what they are sorry for. Tell me in your words what did Republicans do wrong to cause the recession?
The 2008 recession caused by Republicans? Lol! Clinton had as much to do with the Great Recession as Bush, in fact many people and laws had much to do with the Recession, but go ahead and spout your BS without proof.
BS
"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all time high." ~ George Bush, 2004 Republican National Convention acceptance speech
Democrats actions leading to Mortgage Collapse B.B.
From New York Times
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
From Bloomberg News
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs, ie Fannie, Freddie etc.)
Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs
Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Democrats of Financial Crisis; Meltdown
The Wall Street Journal Barney’s Rubble
Barney's Rubble
Mashup of Maxine Waters & Barney Frank - Then Vs. Now
The Bet That Blew Up Wall Street
Steve Kroft On Credit Default Swaps And Their Central Role In The Unfolding Economic Crisis
The Bet That Blew Up Wall Street
Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008 ALONE, here dating back to 2001! Duplicate of Whitehouse.archives
Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008 | Sweetness & Light
Utter nonsense...
Your first link was about Clinton putting pressure on the GSE's to extend credit to those who were close to qualifying, but fell short. The GSE's complied but built up their portfolios of AAA-rated PLS, which did not cause the bubble and subsequent crash.
Your second link goes to a non-existent page.
Your third link is about Bush warning the Congress to increase oversight of the GSE's, but the Congress, controlled mostly by Republicans, passed nothing until the 2007 Democrat-led House passed two such bills and in 2008, the Democrat-led Senate passed one of them to get it to Bush's desk.
Your 4th, 5th and 6th links are to 2 videos and one WSJ article about how Barney Frank fought against GSE reform. While it's true he did; it's also true that he did at a time when Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress and he was but one House member of the minority party and helpless to prevent the House from passing GSE reform. Which, by the way, the Republican-led House did pass one such bill in all those years and Bush ripped it up for being ineffective and not addressing the problem.
Your 7th link blames the Republican-led Congress.
Your 8th link is about the same story as your 3rd link.
And again, we have Bush and Republicans taking credit for the boom before blaming Democrats for the bust...
"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all time high." ~ George Bush, 2004 Republican National Convention acceptance speech
Your intentioned ignorance is amusing. Republicans were to blame for not standing up to the Democrats.
LMAO!
Who said Republicans were to blame for not standing up to Demcorats??
Republicans didn't have to stand up to Democrats --
they controlled the Congress. They're to blame for not passing much needed GSE reform. During the 108th and 109th sessions of Congress, they controlled both chambers of Congress and the Executive branch.They controlled every committee and they controlled the floor of the Senate.
They didn't have to stand up to Democrats (and by Democrats, we're talking about Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and Christopher Dodd) -- all they had to do was pass a ******* bill that Democrats didn't filibuster in the Senate and couldn't block in the House.
NO ONE is blaming Fannie and Freddie. They are an inanimate object. They received directives from the Congressional oversight committees headed by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. At the time, Barney's lover was on the board of directors of Fannie Mae. The more loans they bought, the bigger his bonus.
Now you're flat out lying. Neither Frank nor Dodd controlled any such committees until 2007. Again ... in 2006, Republicans chaired ALL Congressional committees.
You need to do a bit of research before you start calling names. You obviously do not know much about Washington if you believe or feign belief that someone NOT in the majority, does not wield tremendous power.
I realize that despite the FACTS, you would rather die than admit you are wrong. That's fine.
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
Commentary by Kevin Hassett
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.
Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.
But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.
In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.
The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.
Turning Point
Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison,
the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet
in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at
khassett@aei.org
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis - Club Cobra
