Liberals what de regulation did bush do to cause the housing crises?

[JRK]

As much as I can't stand Obama and his total lack of leadership and for those of you needing a link he left for vacation without a plan for jobs which seems to be pretty important to a lot of Americans.

In the end we the voters are at fault. We have elected a bunch of greedy idiots in Washington and we need to replace everyone inside the belt way with new blood and term limits.

I could not agree more
we have reps that are taking pictures of there junk
hiding thousands in there freezer
letting there kids pimp out there cars tax payers provide, drive them and sell drugs out of them
its nuts

 

[drsmith1072]

Really??

So you buy a 100k house, put 5k down and then use the house as collateral for a credit card in which you rack up 60k in debt but pay minimum payments but then you finally default on the house and the card and you believe that has no impact on our economy???

CRA was effective long before the subprime market existed. CRA was passed in 1977 to correct the longstanding problem of redlining – the lack of lending in low and moderate income communities and in communities of color. CRA has been on the books for three decades, while the lending practices that created this crisis didn’t exist until the past five years.

Most subprime lenders weren’t covered under CRA. The predominant players in the subprime market – mortgage brokers, mortgage companies and the Wall Street investment banks that provided the financing – aren’t covered under CRA. Finance company affiliates of major banks also participated heavily, but are only included in CRA to the extent their bank parents choose them to be. In fact, many banks shifted the most risky lending – the loans at the root cause of this current crisis -- to affiliates to escape CRA requirements and regulatory oversight.

Wall Street created the demand for riskier loans. The subprime market is the result of loans made without regard to the borrower’s ability to repay the loan and with little or no documentation of income. Lenders chose to engage in risky underwriting practices because Wall Street was eager for high-interest investments, not because of CRA.

Regulatory oversight and accountability was missing. The lack of regulation in the subprime market made it easy for subprime lenders to undercut responsible lending. Because lenders used artificially low initial payments and passed the loans onto investors while hiding the disastrous consequences coming down the line, many borrowers found themselves in loans that were ultimately unaffordable. In many communities, particularly communities of color, subprime lenders were often the only ones serving the community. Had regulators leveled the playing field through common sense underwriting requirements and more vigorously enforced CRA requirements instead of allowing a race to the bottom, this crisis would have been averted.

The majority of subprime loans went to white borrowers. It is true that African-American and Latino families disproportionately received ruinous subprime loans, but the majority of total loans were made to non-Latino white families. According to data from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) from 2005-2007, 58% of higher-cost loans went to white borrowers, with 18% to African-American borrowers and Latino borrowers each.



House Financial Services Committee

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | McClatchy

Apparently no one understands..

Then you tell me shit I already know, just with a twist of liberalism.

Of course the fools clueless on this issue DON'T OWN HOMES or AREN'T AMERICANS...

I know all about the CRA....

Unfucking believable...

When you apply for a credit card does the application NOT ask you if you own a home or not???

Take a hint from someone you have a lot in common with.

Well thats nice.

When you're ready to come out of denial land and grow the **** up, feel free to comment.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bush wasn't a legislative "de-regulator", he was one that gutted the agencies that oversaw regulation. Additionally he appointed people to head these agencies that either had no idea what they were doing, or looked the other way while some very serious calamities were in the works.

Excuse me?

"These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis," -- Barney Frank (D-MA)

 

[BoycottTheday]

I hear this is a good read

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Endangerment-Outsized-Corruption-Armageddon/dp/0805091203/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311304350&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon (9780805091205): Gretchen Morgenson, Joshua Rosner: Books[/ame]

 

[JRK]

CRA was effective long before the subprime market existed. CRA was passed in 1977 to correct the longstanding problem of redlining – the lack of lending in low and moderate income communities and in communities of color. CRA has been on the books for three decades, while the lending practices that created this crisis didn’t exist until the past five years.

Most subprime lenders weren’t covered under CRA. The predominant players in the subprime market – mortgage brokers, mortgage companies and the Wall Street investment banks that provided the financing – aren’t covered under CRA. Finance company affiliates of major banks also participated heavily, but are only included in CRA to the extent their bank parents choose them to be. In fact, many banks shifted the most risky lending – the loans at the root cause of this current crisis -- to affiliates to escape CRA requirements and regulatory oversight.

Wall Street created the demand for riskier loans. The subprime market is the result of loans made without regard to the borrower’s ability to repay the loan and with little or no documentation of income. Lenders chose to engage in risky underwriting practices because Wall Street was eager for high-interest investments, not because of CRA.

Regulatory oversight and accountability was missing. The lack of regulation in the subprime market made it easy for subprime lenders to undercut responsible lending. Because lenders used artificially low initial payments and passed the loans onto investors while hiding the disastrous consequences coming down the line, many borrowers found themselves in loans that were ultimately unaffordable. In many communities, particularly communities of color, subprime lenders were often the only ones serving the community. Had regulators leveled the playing field through common sense underwriting requirements and more vigorously enforced CRA requirements instead of allowing a race to the bottom, this crisis would have been averted.

The majority of subprime loans went to white borrowers. It is true that African-American and Latino families disproportionately received ruinous subprime loans, but the majority of total loans were made to non-Latino white families. According to data from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) from 2005-2007, 58% of higher-cost loans went to white borrowers, with 18% to African-American borrowers and Latino borrowers each.



House Financial Services Committee

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | McClatchy

Apparently no one understands..

Then you tell me shit I already know, just with a twist of liberalism.

Of course the fools clueless on this issue DON'T OWN HOMES or AREN'T AMERICANS...

I know all about the CRA....

Unfucking believable...

When you apply for a credit card does the application NOT ask you if you own a home or not???

Take a hint from someone you have a lot in common with.

Well thats nice.

When you're ready to come out of denial land and grow the **** up, feel free to comment.

loans were made that were not paid back
this was caused because people borrowed more money than they could pay back or, they were flipping houses and when the bottom fell out, they just walked away
Now I still to this day have not figured out what GWB did to cause that
It also amazes me that anyone would blame the president of the US on joe smith giving jim smith a loan that joe later walks away from

 

[jillian]

The community reinvestment act is to blame for the housing bubble...

not even close... there was nothing in the CRA requiring banks to lend money to unqualified borrowers. all it did was stop redlining, which basically was banks not lending in minority areas, no matter how qualified the borrowers.

them bundling bad debt and playing a shell game among themselves was the problem.

then they encouraged borrowers to overextend and take out the equity from their homes..

they'd say, refinance... then put the money into fixing up the house.. .it will increase the value of the house. then they'd give them ARM's and say, don't worry... as soon as the rate balloons, we'll refi you again.

so what happened to these borrowers five years later when the rate exploided, is that the value had dropped out of the market as the banks started to implode, and money dried up.. so you had people who now owed more on their houses than the houses were worth so they couldn't refi... they couldn't afford to pay... and they had a property that sucked away all of their life savings.

i know that it behooves extremists to look for simple and simplistic answers, but there was a lot of failure that led to the crash... mostly from not enforcing bank regs.

Your saying the CRA had nothing to do with it, but your saying that allowing these banks to bundle these loans up caused it?

GREED caused this mess and nothing else
People made those choices to purchase and to make the loan
Did you do it?
I did not

greed? sure. everyone was greedy... but the banks were the ones who held all the cards. and once they were deregulated, the boys went to town. i think the CRA was the least of it

did i make those choices. no, but i'm very very fiscally conservative and refused to incur debt for housing that would cost me more than 30% of our net pay. i have a co-op that's paid off. but i did an awful lot of closings during that time and i saw what was going on.

 

[jillian]

The law was passed with close to a 90% approval in the house and
read it your self
The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[9][13] On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8,[14][15] and by the House 362-57.[16][17] The legislation was signed into law by President Clinton on November 12, 1999.[18]
[edit]
Gramm

good la also
YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY

You cannot blame one person or one party, but, as Harry T. said the buck stops in the oval office. Once a president takes the oath of office, everything that happens, happens on his watch (I wonder if all the wannabee candidates for POTUS in 2012 really understand this?).

One can make a moral judgements on an individual's behavior, and select groups attempt to make laws to control that behavior all the time: Prop 8 in CA; outlawing abortion; allowing the production and sale of tobacco and prostitution are examples of moral judgments.

Of course making laws doesn't change the behavior of all, even the most ardent libertarian understands the need for rules under some circumstances. Ethical and moral relativism is reality, human nature being as it is. Those who hold to a strict code of moral behavior have either defined acts as moral or not for themselves or accepted the authority of somone else, making moral judgments subjective.

Was attempting to make home ownership for all a moral judgment? Did the failure of the policy mean those who supported the initial policy were morally corrupt? Are those who manipulated the original goal for profit morally corrupt, or is that simply business, and business ethics differ from other forms of behavioral codes?

At the end of the day people caused these issues, not laws most of the time
Obama is the exception

He said he was going to transform us, and he is right

and the above is useless and meaningless rightwingnut rhetoric.

carry on.

 

[yidnar]

Bush wasn't a legislative "de-regulator", he was one that gutted the agencies that oversaw regulation. Additionally he appointed people to head these agencies that either had no idea what they were doing, or looked the other way while some very serious calamities were in the works.

how much money did you leave the banks holding when your gay bar went out business deadbeat!!

 

[JRK]

not even close... there was nothing in the CRA requiring banks to lend money to unqualified borrowers. all it did was stop redlining, which basically was banks not lending in minority areas, no matter how qualified the borrowers.

them bundling bad debt and playing a shell game among themselves was the problem.

then they encouraged borrowers to overextend and take out the equity from their homes..

they'd say, refinance... then put the money into fixing up the house.. .it will increase the value of the house. then they'd give them ARM's and say, don't worry... as soon as the rate balloons, we'll refi you again.

so what happened to these borrowers five years later when the rate exploided, is that the value had dropped out of the market as the banks started to implode, and money dried up.. so you had people who now owed more on their houses than the houses were worth so they couldn't refi... they couldn't afford to pay... and they had a property that sucked away all of their life savings.

i know that it behooves extremists to look for simple and simplistic answers, but there was a lot of failure that led to the crash... mostly from not enforcing bank regs.

Your saying the CRA had nothing to do with it, but your saying that allowing these banks to bundle these loans up caused it?

GREED caused this mess and nothing else
People made those choices to purchase and to make the loan
Did you do it?
I did not

greed? sure. everyone was greedy... but the banks were the ones who held all the cards. and once they were deregulated, the boys went to town. i think the CRA was the least of it

did i make those choices. no, but i'm very very fiscally conservative and refused to incur debt for housing that would cost me more than 30% of our net pay. i have a co-op that's paid off. but i did an awful lot of closings during that time and i saw what was going on.

what de regulation?
this was the subject matter of the thread

 

[CryingKoala]

The question is dishonest in its presentation. It was the lack of regulation from the outset which caused the housing crisis not deregulation.

The financial ratings industry (Moodys, Standards and Poors...) are still unregulated. Government expected the industry to police itself. What happened was those companies were thoroughly compromised. They rated bundled toxic radioactive shit debts of mortgage backed securities as AAA or related level. This allowed banks and trading companies to market them to institutions, pension funds and mutual fund managers. This caused the securities market to go down at the same time as the housing meltdown. The securities market is known for being a complementary market to real estate. When one goes down the other rises. Since housing debt had wormed into the debt for the securities market, they both collapsed at the same time. This undermined the basis for virtually all middle class wealth.

This is not the first time that industry self-policing failed due to lack of betrayal of trust. The fall of Enron and Worldcom illustrated that the industry controlled auditing procedures allegedly designed to protect investors could be subverted. Arthur Andersen, one of the 5 near monopolistic auditing companies aided and abetted the plundering of corporate assets and violated its duties to the shareholders of its clients.

The only reason the housing bust didn't hit the South (sans Florida) as badly as the rest of the nation is because home lending there is some of the most rigorously regulated in the country. Perry dodged the bullet in Texas for precisely that reason.

 

[JRK]

The question is dishonest in its presentation. It was the lack of regulation from the outset which caused the housing crisis not deregulation.

The financial ratings industry (Moodys, Standards and Poors...) are still unregulated. Government expected the industry to police itself. What happened was those companies were thoroughly compromised. They rated bundled toxic radioactive shit debts of mortgage backed securities as AAA or related level. This allowed banks and trading companies to market them to institutions, pension funds and mutual fund managers. This caused the securities market to go down at the same time as the housing meltdown. The securities market is known for being a complementary market to real estate. When one goes down the other rises. Since housing debt had wormed into the debt for the securities market, they both collapsed at the same time. This undermined the basis for virtually all middle class wealth.

This is not the first time that industry self-policing failed due to lack of betrayal of trust. The fall of Enron and Worldcom illustrated that the industry controlled auditing procedures allegedly designed to protect investors could be subverted. Arthur Andersen, one of the 5 near monopolistic auditing companies aided and abetted the plundering of corporate assets and violated its duties to the shareholders of its clients.

The only reason the housing bust didn't hit the South (sans Florida) as badly as the rest of the nation is because home lending there is some of the most rigorously regulated in the country. Perry dodged the bullet in Texas for precisely that reason.

WHAT?
The question is spot on
no regulation changes were made except
Sarbanes
which prevented the firms in question to lie
and by the way
I was working in Ga in 2008 when the housing prices plummeted
do not tell me the south was not harmed
I have friends that were thinking seriously about walking away from there 500,000 homes brcause they become 350,000 $ homes
what you do not understand is the economy is in the shape it is because people lost there assets to borrow money
It is one of the the root causes to this mess

 

[CryingKoala]

The question is dishonest in its presentation. It was the lack of regulation from the outset which caused the housing crisis not deregulation.

The financial ratings industry (Moodys, Standards and Poors...) are still unregulated. Government expected the industry to police itself. What happened was those companies were thoroughly compromised. They rated bundled toxic radioactive shit debts of mortgage backed securities as AAA or related level. This allowed banks and trading companies to market them to institutions, pension funds and mutual fund managers. This caused the securities market to go down at the same time as the housing meltdown. The securities market is known for being a complementary market to real estate. When one goes down the other rises. Since housing debt had wormed into the debt for the securities market, they both collapsed at the same time. This undermined the basis for virtually all middle class wealth.

This is not the first time that industry self-policing failed due to lack of betrayal of trust. The fall of Enron and Worldcom illustrated that the industry controlled auditing procedures allegedly designed to protect investors could be subverted. Arthur Andersen, one of the 5 near monopolistic auditing companies aided and abetted the plundering of corporate assets and violated its duties to the shareholders of its clients.

The only reason the housing bust didn't hit the South (sans Florida) as badly as the rest of the nation is because home lending there is some of the most rigorously regulated in the country. Perry dodged the bullet in Texas for precisely that reason.

WHAT?
The question is spot on
no regulation changes were made except
Sarbanes
which prevented the firms in question to lie
and by the way
I was working in Ga in 2008 when the housing prices plummeted
do not tell me the south was not harmed
I have friends that were thinking seriously about walking away from there 500,000 homes brcause they become 350,000 $ homes
what you do not understand is the economy is in the shape it is because people lost there assets to borrow money
It is one of the the root causes to this mess

In comparison to the Northeast and West, most of the South got off easy. I did not say they weren't harmed. My words were "as badly as the rest of the nation". You are making a phony argument here mistaking "some" for "all" .

There is STILL no regulation of the securities risk ratings industry. They allowed the housing meltdown to cross over into the stock and bond markets. It betrayed the trust of the fund managers, banks and investors which depended on these ratings.

Sarbanes Oxley did not cause the crisis. As with most regulation made after a financial disaster, those looking to commit fraud worked their way around the laws through its loopholes to act. Regulation actually mitigated some of the potential damage in some areas.

 

[JRK]

The question is dishonest in its presentation. It was the lack of regulation from the outset which caused the housing crisis not deregulation.

The financial ratings industry (Moodys, Standards and Poors...) are still unregulated. Government expected the industry to police itself. What happened was those companies were thoroughly compromised. They rated bundled toxic radioactive shit debts of mortgage backed securities as AAA or related level. This allowed banks and trading companies to market them to institutions, pension funds and mutual fund managers. This caused the securities market to go down at the same time as the housing meltdown. The securities market is known for being a complementary market to real estate. When one goes down the other rises. Since housing debt had wormed into the debt for the securities market, they both collapsed at the same time. This undermined the basis for virtually all middle class wealth.

This is not the first time that industry self-policing failed due to lack of betrayal of trust. The fall of Enron and Worldcom illustrated that the industry controlled auditing procedures allegedly designed to protect investors could be subverted. Arthur Andersen, one of the 5 near monopolistic auditing companies aided and abetted the plundering of corporate assets and violated its duties to the shareholders of its clients.

The only reason the housing bust didn't hit the South (sans Florida) as badly as the rest of the nation is because home lending there is some of the most rigorously regulated in the country. Perry dodged the bullet in Texas for precisely that reason.

WHAT?
The question is spot on
no regulation changes were made except
Sarbanes
which prevented the firms in question to lie
and by the way
I was working in Ga in 2008 when the housing prices plummeted
do not tell me the south was not harmed
I have friends that were thinking seriously about walking away from there 500,000 homes brcause they become 350,000 $ homes
what you do not understand is the economy is in the shape it is because people lost there assets to borrow money
It is one of the the root causes to this mess

In comparison to the Northeast and West, most of the South got off easy. I did not say they weren't harmed. My words were "as badly as the rest of the nation". You are making a phony argument here mistaking "some" for "all" .

There is STILL no regulation of the securities risk ratings industry. They allowed the housing meltdown to cross over into the stock and bond markets. It betrayed the trust of the fund managers, banks and investors which depended on these ratings.

Sarbanes Oxley did not cause the crisis. As with most regulation made after a financial disaster, those looking to commit fraud worked their way around the laws through its loopholes to act. Regulation actually mitigated some of the potential damage in some areas.

Your confused
Sarbanes was put into place in 03 an was put there in respect to Enron (mauybe 02)

as far as the rest of it
no-one came out of this mess un harmed
I cannot comment on the rest as there is no truth to it
regulation in those matters come from the person
every loan that was made with bad information on there earnings etc... no matter the lender or the lendee broke a law
its called fraud
Greed by the person(s) caused his mess
one more thing

People kept making there payments none of this happens either

you cannot legislate morality my friend