Who did what?

[8537]

Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the Executive branch as well as every committee in both houses.

And FM/FM's share of the subprime market was in steep decline during the period because they were losing market share to the private sector entitities willing to bundle nonconforming loans that FM couldn't touch.

But somehow, it's all the fault of Dems and the GSE's.

It comes down to who or which side opened the door.

Cuomo had some interesting remarks while working for Bill. In fact he boasted the achievements.

A Democratic Party with control of zero branches of government, with the majority in zero committees, had no keys to open any doors.

 

[The Rabbi]

Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the Executive branch as well as every committee in both houses.

And FM/FM's share of the subprime market was in steep decline during the period because they were losing market share to the private sector entitities willing to bundle nonconforming loans that FM couldn't touch.

But somehow, it's all the fault of Dems and the GSE's.

What fantasy did this happen in? Dems controlled the 110th Congress (Jan 07-09) when the meltdown occurred.

 

[8537]

Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the Executive branch as well as every committee in both houses.

And FM/FM's share of the subprime market was in steep decline during the period because they were losing market share to the private sector entitities willing to bundle nonconforming loans that FM couldn't touch.

But somehow, it's all the fault of Dems and the GSE's.

What fantasy did this happen in? Dems controlled the 110th Congress (Jan 07-09) when the meltdown occurred.

The housing decline started in mid 2006 - in the real world, not your fantasy land.

 

[AquaAthena]

Yeah right...we're going to sit through video after video to find out what the point of this thead is.

Though both parties contributed, only one did it with deliberation, imo....

 

[California Girl]

fannie/freddie was bad but it was the least of it. deregulation and a refusal to enforce existing regulations was by far.. the larger part of it. and, frankly, cutting taxes during wartime for the first time in recorded history is a far greater problem and the refusal to fix that is the largest obstacle to getting our house back in order now.

As I said, Fannie/Freddie alone would not have collapsed the economy. That took really bad decisions from both sides, and some pretty damned atrocious bi-partisan screw ups... along with with some horrifically bad business within the banking industry, out of control greed from unions, and some generally stupid behavior by Americans to drag us down into this abyss.

Truthfully, we should focus on who and how can we fix it instead of bitching about the other party. My opinion, which is based on a decent understanding of economics, is that austerity is the only way to build a sustainable, long term fix. These quick fixes - temporary job boosts might be popular - but they create a fake recovery and we will have to pay the piper later for it. I personally think we would be better off to pay it now. And, yea, that is unpopular and will be incredibly hard on most of us.

the bolded part... yep.

but the problem is too many people play politics with our economy. and for at least some, it behooves them for things not to improve before november 2012.

(i disagree with your solution, too, but i figure that i'd stick with what we can agree on).

Totally agree. I dislike the party politicing of the economy. And, I agree that it certainly benefits the right for things to stay tanked in order to fight in Nov '12. And I dislike that too. I would respect the hell out of any politician - left or right - who had the courage to stand up and say 'no more political point scoring' and offered real solutions. The problem, as I see it, is that neither side has a really solid long term plan to fix it. Although, in fairness, I think Cain might have.... I haven't read it yet but I'll get around to it.

I knew you'd disagree with the solution - because it is generally more of a conservative solution than a liberal one. But it would work. It would hurt like hell, but long term, we'd be better off. And I have yet to see a sustainable long term solution from the left. If you know of one, I'm up for studying it.

 

[Iridescence]

I dare the left to dispute these facts, and do so with proof, not retarded leftwing rhetoric.
I give thee.......how shit really happened!!!!

................................................................

Is this what you want ___________? Do you want a ________________ controlling the power to your car? The power to your home? Your every waking second? When will you stand by the rest of us and let it end?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3I-PVVowFY

.................................................................

And for my grand fanally*sp it's not just the ___________ fault, it's both sides, ..... morons.
...........................

Pay attention America, Pay the fuck attention!!!!

Specifically quoted what parts I understood.

Indeed. Don't stop thinking with this one.

"Hey, honey, the cat's in the fish bowl and the dogs drinking out of the toilet again!"

"Now, dear spouse, remember small fish are cat food and the dog ..... will survive."

 

[The Rabbi]

Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the Executive branch as well as every committee in both houses.

And FM/FM's share of the subprime market was in steep decline during the period because they were losing market share to the private sector entitities willing to bundle nonconforming loans that FM couldn't touch.

But somehow, it's all the fault of Dems and the GSE's.

What fantasy did this happen in? Dems controlled the 110th Congress (Jan 07-09) when the meltdown occurred.

The housing decline started in mid 2006 - in the real world, not your fantasy land.

Not really.
Realty Times - Housing Market Was 2006's Top Business Story

And what did the Dems do in the face of this "decline"?

 

[Bfgrn]

True. They absolutely shoulder the majority of 'blame' for Fannie/Freddie. But, guess what, that was only partially responsible for the current clusterfuck. It took a concerted effort - by both parties (and a whole bunch of other greedy corrupt bastards) to get us to where we are.

In order to understand why we are here, how it happened and why.... people need to stop looking at parts of the issue and put all the pieces into the jigsaw. Why are people too scared to do that?

fannie/freddie was bad but it was the least of it. deregulation and a refusal to enforce existing regulations was by far.. the larger part of it. and, frankly, cutting taxes during wartime for the first time in recorded history is a far greater problem and the refusal to fix that is the largest obstacle to getting our house back in order now.

Could you cite which deregulation and refusal to enforce existing regs caused what.
The debt to gdp was just fine during Bush's administration. It wasn't an issue until Obama doubled down on stupid and boosted spending in a recession, causing an unprecedented downgrade in our credit rating.

Of course I will get no response because you are unable to defend your views.

Hey Rabbi, we already had these conversations, did you forget?

Is the Wall Street Journal 'credible' enough for you Monica?

Why are all you right wingers so fucking ignorant? EVERYTHING you believe is nothing but bullshit social propaganda spoon fed to you by the Fox News, right wing talking heads and every other mouthpiece for the elite. It is amazing you make it across the street without getting creamed...you don't even know your ass from a hole in the ground!

Here is what we DO know:

1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.

2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.

3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.

4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.

The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a large segment of buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from their mortgages, leaving people who bought homes to live in with lower values on their house and neighborhood.

AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN


WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA

WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA - The Sequel

Reuters - UPDATE 2-Lending to poor didn't spur crisis

Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act

Business Insider - Here's Why Fannie And Freddie Are Not At Fault For The Housing Bubble

Center for Responsible Lending - CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown

Don't blame Fannie and Freddie

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

ForeclosureS.com - ACORN - Progress in the Fight Against Predatory Lending

Acorn Led Financial Sector With Warnings on Lending

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

The Millionaire Foreclosure Club

Foreclosure double standard: Why the rich get away with defaulting

More Rich People Default On Mortgages

The rich bail faster on mortgages

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

Rich Borrowers More Likely to Default on Mortgage

Foreclosures & Walking Away: 60 Minutes Eyes an ‘Epidemic’

Speculation By Investors Largely Cause Of Foreclosure Crisis

How the Foreclosure Crisis Started: Investors, Speculators, Mortgage Fraud & Lax Lending Standards


"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

 

[Rocko]

It was caused by Fannie and Freddie.

Although they didn't authorize many sub primes, they perverted the market so much, they forced private companies to loan sub primes, so they can compete..

No such thing as preditor loans. If you don't know what a variable rate is, then learn before you buy a house...

 

[Truthmatters]

Believing partisan lies doesnt make them true

 

[The Rabbi]

You're just a big fucking idiot, do you know that?
It depends on what you mean by "cause." Did the CRA "cause" the meltdown? No. Was it irrelevant to the meltdown? No.
Did lending to subprime borrowers (who are not necessarily poor) cause the meltdown? Not in and of itself. Was it irrelevant to the melt down? No.
Did Fannie/Freddie cause the meltdown? No. Were they irrelevant to it? No.

There were lots of factors. The chief among them was the artificially low interest rates held by the Fed made it a sure-fire bet to make mortgage loans at higher rates and then securitize them and sell them, especially abroad. As demand for loan product increased, lenders ran out of qualified borrowers and lowered standards to qualify more people. With increasing housing prices this wasn't an irrational bet. So Fannie/Freddie's criteria went down, even for plain vanilla A loans. So did criteria across the board. But with sub-prime (and I worked in that market for 9 years) loans will go bad within 18 months. When that happened, housing prices stopped going up and there was a snowball effect so even previously good loans (which would have been subprime in earlier years) went bad too.
Hardest hit among them were loans made under CRA standards, since they were sub prime by definition. The melt down started in sub prime, as the borrowers were the msot vulnerable. But as the housing market cooled and prices dropped more and more borrowers found themselves unable to pay their mortgage or sell their house.

The Obama Administration stepped into all this with plans to "rescue" homeowners from foreclosure. Invoking images of the Great Depression and people on the street they launched HAMP and other loan mod programs. As predicted, these programs only forestalled the inevitable and within 18 months most enrollees were back where they were. Unable to foreclose, banks reined in their mortgage lending, making it harder for buyers to qualify, and thus more homes unsold.
Now we are at a point where in my market about 40% of the homes on the market are foreclosures. There are many many others that are in pre-foreclosure status, with banks reluctant to do anything. They generally sit unoccupied and rotting. And since financing is still very difficult, with criteria changing daily, there is a dearth of qualified buyers. Even buyers who would have qualified easily under the pre-bubble criteria. The result is a heap of unsold, rotting housing and declining prices.
All of this directly affects the economy since so much of it comes from housing. We will not see recovery until we get rid of this glut of unsold housing on the market. And Obama's policies are directly contributing to the problem.

 

[Truthmatters]

Only partisan idiots buy that line

 

[Rocko]

Believing partisan lies doesnt make them true

It's not a lie, and it's not partisan. The government has no buisness in housing.

They created an artifical market, which created an artifical price in morgauge backed securities, and now that the bubble is burst, we are all feeling the pain.

 

[8537]

What fantasy did this happen in? Dems controlled the 110th Congress (Jan 07-09) when the meltdown occurred.

The housing decline started in mid 2006 - in the real world, not your fantasy land.

Not really.
Realty Times - Housing Market Was 2006's Top Business Story

And what did the Dems do in the face of this "decline"?

No, really! By every statistical measure. Here, have a look-see:

The Dems that took office in January 2007 were stepping in the middle of the housing collapse that had already started.

 

[Truthmatters]

Yes it is a lie and the ONLY people who believe that lie is right wing partisan hacks.

it is NOT a accepted idea amoung economists.

 

[8537]

It was caused by Fannie and Freddie.

Although they didn't authorize many sub primes, they perverted the market so much, they forced private companies to loan sub primes, so they can compete..

No such thing as preditor loans. If you don't know what a variable rate is, then learn before you buy a house...

"They forced private companies to loan sub-primes, so they can compete"

Gawd I love conservatarian logic.

 

[Moonglow]

the real sad fact is thatthe rich, through ral estate bubbles since the eighties now own most of the American dream. Don't u think they wanted this?

 

[Rocko]

It was caused by Fannie and Freddie.

Although they didn't authorize many sub primes, they perverted the market so much, they forced private companies to loan sub primes, so they can compete..

No such thing as preditor loans. If you don't know what a variable rate is, then learn before you buy a house...

"They forced private companies to loan sub-primes, so they can compete"

Gawd I love conservatarian logic.

unintended consequences.

 

[8537]

Hardest hit among them were loans made under CRA standards, since they were sub prime by definition.

Please explain.

 

[8537]

It was caused by Fannie and Freddie.

Although they didn't authorize many sub primes, they perverted the market so much, they forced private companies to loan sub primes, so they can compete..

No such thing as preditor loans. If you don't know what a variable rate is, then learn before you buy a house...

"They forced private companies to loan sub-primes, so they can compete"

Gawd I love conservatarian logic.

unintended consequences.

please explain that for us. The private sector was forced to issue and bundle the 80%+ of defaulting loans that were offered outside FDIC regulations?