Bush worst president in 100 years.

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

More excuses from the left......

Boooooossssshhhhhh

Yes, Weird how 30+ years later GOPers claim the recession started under Ronnie was Carter's fault, but an economy that crashed the entire world into the worst period since the GOP great depression, shouldn't be rightly pointed at Dubya/GOP policy

The Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts was a statement signed by roughly 450 economists, including ten of the twenty-four American Nobel Prize laureates alive at the time, in February 2003 who urged the U.S. President George W. Bush not to enact the 2003 tax cuts; seeking and sought to gather public support for the position. The statement was printed as a full-page ad in The New York Times and released to the public through the Economic Policy Institute. According to the statement, the 450 plus economists who signed the statement believe that the 2003 Bush tax cuts will increase inequality and the budget deficit, decreasing the ability of the U.S. government to fund essential services, while failing to produce economic growth


In rebuttal, 250 plus economists who supported the tax plan wrote that the new plan would "create more employment, economic growth, and opportunities for all Americans."

Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



WHICH ONE WAS RIGHT? LOL

David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country


“(Reagan’s deficit policies) allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy,” Stockman wrote.


David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country

Keep whining it up dickweed.

This thread is about a poll.....

Sorry, but your "boy" is seen as a loser by a lot of people.

Obviously a lot of those in the poll were too young to even know what it was like making a living under President Jimmy Carter. Blaming Bush at this point, is an effort to find a scape goat for the lower household income many are forced to deal with under this current President.

 

[Dad2three]

He walked into what he knew was there and had know about it for several months.

And despite that, he chose to promise things he could not deliver.

Six years later we still hear....Booooooooooooooooooosh.

Really? So the economy was shrinking 9% the last quarter of 2008 and Obama knew? LINK?

JULY 2008:

"I think the system basically is sound, I truly do," Bush said. "And I understand there's a lot of nervousness. . . . But the economy is growing, productivity is high, trade is up, people are working. It's not as good as we'd like, but . . . to the extent that we find weakness, we'll move." DUBYA


McSame September 2008:

"The Fundamentals of Our Economy Are Strong"


WHEN THE GOP TANKS AN ECONOMY, THEY DO A GREAT JOB!!!

Where was the Dow in October 2008.

If Obama didn't know......

TARP was passed when ?

Obama didn't know......

You are one huge liar.

Weird, you mean he didn't understand the width AND depth the GOP took the US economy into the hole in Oct 2008? True

 

[Vigilante]

FACT: Liberal Public Policy caused the mortgage crisis by mandating eased requirements for lending, even to people who had no chance of ever paying the loan back. If banks and other lending institutions did not comply, their "score" from the SEC was too low to permit certain business transactions such as merges, etc. This is nothing less than a gun held to the head.

FACT: Many lending institutions were sued or otherwise pressured by ACORN, forcing them to make loans to folks who didn't qualify nor had any chance of ever repaying that loan.

FACT: HUD (Housing and Urban Development) under Andrew Cuomo, head of HUD) browbeat banks to make loans to folks who they knew couldn't pay them back.
FACT: Many lending institutions were sued or otherwise pressured by ACORN, forcing them to make loans to folks who didn't qualify nor had any chance of ever repaying that loan. IN FACT, BARACK OBAMA WAS INVOLVED IN AT LEAST ONE OF THESE LAWSUITS



FACT: Fannie Mae's sole purpose for being was to offer a Federal Guarantee of loans. So banks and other lending institutions didn't need to worry about thing. If a loan went bad, Fannie Mae was there to pick up the pieces (until there were too many pieces to pick up)

FACT: The Democrats stacked the operations of Fannie Mae with other Democrats who then cooked the books (FM had to pay MILLIONS in fines to the SEC over this) and took HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in bonuses and funneled MILLIONS in campaign contributions to members of Congress. Franklin Raines (part of the Obama Administration) personally took 90 million dollars despite Fannie Mae's fines and fraud.

FACT: Bill Clinton turned a blind eye to all of this during most of the 90's. In fact, he worsened the situation in 1995 by making the CRA even more lopsided and requiring even MORE bad loans. One thing he did was to force lending institutions to accept up to 31% of one's income for a mortgage whereas previously it was only 25%

FACT: The Democrats who run Fannie Mae took hundreds of millions in bonuses while Congressional Dems provided cover, including Charlie Rangel , Chris Dodd , Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

FACT: Democrat Chris Dodd was #1 recipient with Democrat Barack Obama being #2 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac

FACT: The Democrats blocked every attempt by Republicans to investigate Fannie Mae and its business practices. In fact, the Bush Administration made over 30 attempts over his two terms in office only to have the Democrats block every one through parliamentary procedures as the Republicans, while controlling both Houses, NEVER had a super majority so the Dems could block anything they pleased (case in point - judicial nominees)





http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...gewanted=print


Quote:
September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
Note the date


Quote:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
http://www.bucksright.com/bush-propo...n-in-2003-1141


Quote:
A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” His proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Democrats eventually killed the proposal. The current meltdown in the mortgage industry is a direct result of giving mortgages to people who could not pay them back, a practice protected by Congressional Democrats.

Both entities were recently taken over by the government, a move that puts trillions of taxpayer dollars at risk.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

But Democrats in Congress, also known as “the caucus perpetually on the wrong side of history,” were having none of this “responsibility” stuff.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

The proposal worked its way around Congress for a couple of years. Efforts at reform of the kind proposed by President Bush were shot down by Democrats each time.

In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill (H.R. 1461), and Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists set out to weaken it.

[...]

During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, [Democrat in bed with the mortgage industry Chris] Dodd — who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 — actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.

According to OpenSecrets.org, between 1988 and 2008 Dodd received $133,900, Kerry $111,000, Clinton $75,550, and Obama — in only 143 days in the Senate — received a whopping $105,849 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Pennsylvania Democrat representative Paul Kanjorksi, who also opposed new Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, was given more than any other member of the House of Representatives. He was paid $65,500 by representatives of these entities.

And, in case you were wondering, John McCain co-sponsored a bill requiring greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac regulation in 2005. It was also blocked procedurally by Democrats.

The 2003 New York Times article was unearthed by a Free Republic poster.

UPDATE: 2004 video posted to YouTube shows Republicans arguing for, and Democrats arguing against, regulations that would have saved us from the current crisis.
http://www.bucksright.com/congressma...ge-crisis-1451


Quote:
Congressman Sorry Democrats Dropped Ball On Mortgage Crisis
Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:55 am Posted by Steven in Economy

After being featured on Hannity & Colmes in a damning 2004 video showing Democrats fighting tooth-and-nail against greater Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, Democrat Congressman Artur Davis admits Democrats dropped the ball on reigning in the failed institutions and calls on fellow Democrats to do the same.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues, I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership, when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit that when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”

Along with President Clinton, I take issue with Davis’ contention that equal blame exists on both sides. President Bush requested greater oversight in 2003, Republicans are clearly seen in the video fighting for greater oversight in 2004, and John McCain led the charge for greater oversight in 2005. All efforts were rebuffed by Democrats, who demagogued the issue with racial politics that made reform impossible to accomplish. At least they tried. I see no evidence of any push toward greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac oversight since the short bus rolled onto Capitol Hill in January 2007.

That said, I appreciate Congressman Davis’ candor in admitting Democrats let their ideology get in the way of what was right for the country.

 

[Dad2three]

Obama is the worst president in the history of the USA. Rank Bush wherever you want, obama is clearly the worst.

DUBYA: 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs lost in 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator policies. Ignored 40+ HIGH level warnings on 9/11, went to 2 UNFUNDED wars (1 on false premises) gave US UNFUNDED Medicare expansion AND 2 UNFUNDED TAX CUTS.

Obama: 5+ million private sector jobs (net) under him, got US out of both wars, cut Dubya's last f/y deficit by 60%, got Bin Laden, gave US ACA that insures 25+ million more US citizens

Yeah, I can see how he would rank the worst next to Dubya!

 

[Listening]

Really? So the economy was shrinking 9% the last quarter of 2008 and Obama knew? LINK?

JULY 2008:

"I think the system basically is sound, I truly do," Bush said. "And I understand there's a lot of nervousness. . . . But the economy is growing, productivity is high, trade is up, people are working. It's not as good as we'd like, but . . . to the extent that we find weakness, we'll move." DUBYA


McSame September 2008:

"The Fundamentals of Our Economy Are Strong"


WHEN THE GOP TANKS AN ECONOMY, THEY DO A GREAT JOB!!!

Where was the Dow in October 2008.

If Obama didn't know......

TARP was passed when ?

Obama didn't know......

You are one huge liar.

Weird, you mean he didn't understand the width AND depth the GOP took the US economy into the hole in Oct 2008? True

You have no idea what I mean.

What I mean is that he was running off at the mouth all the while the economy was making a major correction due to crappy Democratic driven policies.....

The information was available to him and what he "understood" is beyond me. I think he still does not understand.

 

[Listening]

Obama is the worst president in the history of the USA. Rank Bush wherever you want, obama is clearly the worst.

DUBYA: 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs lost in 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator policies. Ignored 40+ HIGH level warnings on 9/11, went to 2 UNFUNDED wars (1 on false premises) gave US UNFUNDED Medicare expansion AND 2 UNFUNDED TAX CUTS.

Obama: 5+ million private sector jobs (net) under him, got US out of both wars, cut Dubya's last f/y deficit by 60%, got Bin Laden, gave US ACA that insures 25+ million more US citizens

Yeah, I can see how he would rank the worst next to Dubya!

Wow.....

Still don't get it.

He could walk on water....but somehow people according to the OP poll think he's the worst in the last 100 years.

The same way people think so highly of Reagan in spite of your whinnings.

 

[Dad2three]

FACT: Liberal Public Policy caused the mortgage crisis by mandating eased requirements for lending, even to people who had no chance of ever paying the loan back. If banks and other lending institutions did not comply, their "score" from the SEC was too low to permit certain business transactions such as merges, etc. This is nothing less than a gun held to the head.

FACT: Many lending institutions were sued or otherwise pressured by ACORN, forcing them to make loans to folks who didn't qualify nor had any chance of ever repaying that loan.

FACT: HUD (Housing and Urban Development) under Andrew Cuomo, head of HUD) browbeat banks to make loans to folks who they knew couldn't pay them back.
FACT: Many lending institutions were sued or otherwise pressured by ACORN, forcing them to make loans to folks who didn't qualify nor had any chance of ever repaying that loan. IN FACT, BARACK OBAMA WAS INVOLVED IN AT LEAST ONE OF THESE LAWSUITS



FACT: Fannie Mae's sole purpose for being was to offer a Federal Guarantee of loans. So banks and other lending institutions didn't need to worry about thing. If a loan went bad, Fannie Mae was there to pick up the pieces (until there were too many pieces to pick up)

FACT: The Democrats stacked the operations of Fannie Mae with other Democrats who then cooked the books (FM had to pay MILLIONS in fines to the SEC over this) and took HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in bonuses and funneled MILLIONS in campaign contributions to members of Congress. Franklin Raines (part of the Obama Administration) personally took 90 million dollars despite Fannie Mae's fines and fraud.

FACT: Bill Clinton turned a blind eye to all of this during most of the 90's. In fact, he worsened the situation in 1995 by making the CRA even more lopsided and requiring even MORE bad loans. One thing he did was to force lending institutions to accept up to 31% of one's income for a mortgage whereas previously it was only 25%

FACT: The Democrats who run Fannie Mae took hundreds of millions in bonuses while Congressional Dems provided cover, including Charlie Rangel , Chris Dodd , Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

FACT: Democrat Chris Dodd was #1 recipient with Democrat Barack Obama being #2 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac

FACT: The Democrats blocked every attempt by Republicans to investigate Fannie Mae and its business practices. In fact, the Bush Administration made over 30 attempts over his two terms in office only to have the Democrats block every one through parliamentary procedures as the Republicans, while controlling both Houses, NEVER had a super majority so the Dems could block anything they pleased (case in point - judicial nominees)





http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...gewanted=print


Quote:
September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
Note the date


Quote:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
http://www.bucksright.com/bush-propo...n-in-2003-1141


Quote:
A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” His proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Democrats eventually killed the proposal. The current meltdown in the mortgage industry is a direct result of giving mortgages to people who could not pay them back, a practice protected by Congressional Democrats.

Both entities were recently taken over by the government, a move that puts trillions of taxpayer dollars at risk.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

But Democrats in Congress, also known as “the caucus perpetually on the wrong side of history,” were having none of this “responsibility” stuff.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

The proposal worked its way around Congress for a couple of years. Efforts at reform of the kind proposed by President Bush were shot down by Democrats each time.

In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill (H.R. 1461), and Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists set out to weaken it.

[...]

During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, [Democrat in bed with the mortgage industry Chris] Dodd — who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 — actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.

According to OpenSecrets.org, between 1988 and 2008 Dodd received $133,900, Kerry $111,000, Clinton $75,550, and Obama — in only 143 days in the Senate — received a whopping $105,849 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Pennsylvania Democrat representative Paul Kanjorksi, who also opposed new Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, was given more than any other member of the House of Representatives. He was paid $65,500 by representatives of these entities.

And, in case you were wondering, John McCain co-sponsored a bill requiring greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac regulation in 2005. It was also blocked procedurally by Democrats.

The 2003 New York Times article was unearthed by a Free Republic poster.

UPDATE: 2004 video posted to YouTube shows Republicans arguing for, and Democrats arguing against, regulations that would have saved us from the current crisis.
http://www.bucksright.com/congressma...ge-crisis-1451


Quote:
Congressman Sorry Democrats Dropped Ball On Mortgage Crisis
Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:55 am Posted by Steven in Economy

After being featured on Hannity & Colmes in a damning 2004 video showing Democrats fighting tooth-and-nail against greater Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, Democrat Congressman Artur Davis admits Democrats dropped the ball on reigning in the failed institutions and calls on fellow Democrats to do the same.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues, I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership, when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit that when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”

Along with President Clinton, I take issue with Davis’ contention that equal blame exists on both sides. President Bush requested greater oversight in 2003, Republicans are clearly seen in the video fighting for greater oversight in 2004, and John McCain led the charge for greater oversight in 2005. All efforts were rebuffed by Democrats, who demagogued the issue with racial politics that made reform impossible to accomplish. At least they tried. I see no evidence of any push toward greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac oversight since the short bus rolled onto Capitol Hill in January 2007.

That said, I appreciate Congressman Davis’ candor in admitting Democrats let their ideology get in the way of what was right for the country.

MORE RIGHT WING GARBAGE, I'm shocked

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "


http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf



Q Why is it commonly called the “subprime bubble” ?

A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006. In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending. (and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)

“Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages. Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006

https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf



Q. Er uh, didn’t you notice your link said the explosive growth of subprime mortgages started in 2001?

A. It did kinda say that didn’t it? However, the link below clearly states subprime was 10 % in 2003. 9% in 2001 to 10% in 2003 is only a 1% increase. A 1 % increase over 3 years is flat not explosive. 10 % in 2003 to 40% in 2006 is explosive. So the explosive growth started in 2004 which lines up pretty good but not exactly with the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble.


“In dollar terms, nonprime mortgages represented 32 percent of all mortgage originations in 2005, more than triple their 10 percent share only two years earlier



FRB: Finance and Economics Discussion Series: Screen Reader Version - 200899


Q Well there was a 300 % increase in subprime loans. Why not call it a “Subprime Bubble”?

A Subprime loans refers to the credit score of the borrower. It doesn’t make it a bad loan if proper underwriting standards are used. Bush’s working group said it was “triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages,”. He leaves out the part where it “quickly spread to all mortgages”. In 2004, 4.3 % of all mortgages were No Doc loans. In 2006 over 50% of all loans were No Doc loans. That’s over a 1000 % increase in loans where the borrowers income was not fully documented or documented at all. “Another form of easing” is a nice way of saying “lower lending standards”. And notice it lines up with the dates already posted. In addition to No Docs, banks allowed piggyback loans, teaser rates, I/0 and even negative amortization loans.

(from Dallas Fed link above)

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN’T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them



Q Why would Bush’s regulators let banks lower their lending standards?


A. Federal regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision work for Bush and he was pushing his “Ownership Society” programs that was a major and successful part of his re election campaign in 2004. And Bush’s regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bush’s documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

MUCH MORE HERE

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html#post9373478


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.



http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/17/real_estate/lowcost_housing/


Agency’s ’04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt

2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1+ which flooded the market with cheap money!


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATES ON PREDATORY LENDERS!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html#post9373525

 

[Dad2three]

Obama is the worst president in the history of the USA. Rank Bush wherever you want, obama is clearly the worst.

DUBYA: 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs lost in 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator policies. Ignored 40+ HIGH level warnings on 9/11, went to 2 UNFUNDED wars (1 on false premises) gave US UNFUNDED Medicare expansion AND 2 UNFUNDED TAX CUTS.

Obama: 5+ million private sector jobs (net) under him, got US out of both wars, cut Dubya's last f/y deficit by 60%, got Bin Laden, gave US ACA that insures 25+ million more US citizens

Yeah, I can see how he would rank the worst next to Dubya!

Wow.....

Still don't get it.

He could walk on water....but somehow people according to the OP poll think he's the worst in the last 100 years.

The same way people think so highly of Reagan in spite of your whinnings.

Who thinks Obama walks on water? He's the second best conservative Prez since Ike, only BJ Bill was better!

 

[Listening]

DUBYA: 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs lost in 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator policies. Ignored 40+ HIGH level warnings on 9/11, went to 2 UNFUNDED wars (1 on false premises) gave US UNFUNDED Medicare expansion AND 2 UNFUNDED TAX CUTS.

Obama: 5+ million private sector jobs (net) under him, got US out of both wars, cut Dubya's last f/y deficit by 60%, got Bin Laden, gave US ACA that insures 25+ million more US citizens

Yeah, I can see how he would rank the worst next to Dubya!

Wow.....

Still don't get it.

He could walk on water....but somehow people according to the OP poll think he's the worst in the last 100 years.

The same way people think so highly of Reagan in spite of your whinnings.

Who thinks Obama walks on water? He's the second best conservative Prez since Ike, only BJ Bill was better!

READ THE POST YOU STUPID ASS

I said, "he could walk on water" and it would not matter right now.

The poll shows a significant portion of the population thinks he sucks.

That does not make them right or wrong. It is their opinion.

 

[Dad2three]

FACT: Liberal Public Policy caused the mortgage crisis by mandating eased requirements for lending, even to people who had no chance of ever paying the loan back. If banks and other lending institutions did not comply, their "score" from the SEC was too low to permit certain business transactions such as merges, etc. This is nothing less than a gun held to the head.

FACT: Many lending institutions were sued or otherwise pressured by ACORN, forcing them to make loans to folks who didn't qualify nor had any chance of ever repaying that loan.

FACT: HUD (Housing and Urban Development) under Andrew Cuomo, head of HUD) browbeat banks to make loans to folks who they knew couldn't pay them back.
FACT: Many lending institutions were sued or otherwise pressured by ACORN, forcing them to make loans to folks who didn't qualify nor had any chance of ever repaying that loan. IN FACT, BARACK OBAMA WAS INVOLVED IN AT LEAST ONE OF THESE LAWSUITS



FACT: Fannie Mae's sole purpose for being was to offer a Federal Guarantee of loans. So banks and other lending institutions didn't need to worry about thing. If a loan went bad, Fannie Mae was there to pick up the pieces (until there were too many pieces to pick up)

FACT: The Democrats stacked the operations of Fannie Mae with other Democrats who then cooked the books (FM had to pay MILLIONS in fines to the SEC over this) and took HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in bonuses and funneled MILLIONS in campaign contributions to members of Congress. Franklin Raines (part of the Obama Administration) personally took 90 million dollars despite Fannie Mae's fines and fraud.

FACT: Bill Clinton turned a blind eye to all of this during most of the 90's. In fact, he worsened the situation in 1995 by making the CRA even more lopsided and requiring even MORE bad loans. One thing he did was to force lending institutions to accept up to 31% of one's income for a mortgage whereas previously it was only 25%

FACT: The Democrats who run Fannie Mae took hundreds of millions in bonuses while Congressional Dems provided cover, including Charlie Rangel , Chris Dodd , Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

FACT: Democrat Chris Dodd was #1 recipient with Democrat Barack Obama being #2 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac

FACT: The Democrats blocked every attempt by Republicans to investigate Fannie Mae and its business practices. In fact, the Bush Administration made over 30 attempts over his two terms in office only to have the Democrats block every one through parliamentary procedures as the Republicans, while controlling both Houses, NEVER had a super majority so the Dems could block anything they pleased (case in point - judicial nominees)





http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...gewanted=print


Quote:
September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
Note the date


Quote:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
http://www.bucksright.com/bush-propo...n-in-2003-1141


Quote:
A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” His proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Democrats eventually killed the proposal. The current meltdown in the mortgage industry is a direct result of giving mortgages to people who could not pay them back, a practice protected by Congressional Democrats.

Both entities were recently taken over by the government, a move that puts trillions of taxpayer dollars at risk.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

But Democrats in Congress, also known as “the caucus perpetually on the wrong side of history,” were having none of this “responsibility” stuff.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

The proposal worked its way around Congress for a couple of years. Efforts at reform of the kind proposed by President Bush were shot down by Democrats each time.

In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill (H.R. 1461), and Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists set out to weaken it.

[...]

During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, [Democrat in bed with the mortgage industry Chris] Dodd — who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 — actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.

According to OpenSecrets.org, between 1988 and 2008 Dodd received $133,900, Kerry $111,000, Clinton $75,550, and Obama — in only 143 days in the Senate — received a whopping $105,849 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Pennsylvania Democrat representative Paul Kanjorksi, who also opposed new Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, was given more than any other member of the House of Representatives. He was paid $65,500 by representatives of these entities.

And, in case you were wondering, John McCain co-sponsored a bill requiring greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac regulation in 2005. It was also blocked procedurally by Democrats.

The 2003 New York Times article was unearthed by a Free Republic poster.

UPDATE: 2004 video posted to YouTube shows Republicans arguing for, and Democrats arguing against, regulations that would have saved us from the current crisis.
http://www.bucksright.com/congressma...ge-crisis-1451


Quote:
Congressman Sorry Democrats Dropped Ball On Mortgage Crisis
Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:55 am Posted by Steven in Economy

After being featured on Hannity & Colmes in a damning 2004 video showing Democrats fighting tooth-and-nail against greater Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, Democrat Congressman Artur Davis admits Democrats dropped the ball on reigning in the failed institutions and calls on fellow Democrats to do the same.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues, I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership, when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit that when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”

Along with President Clinton, I take issue with Davis’ contention that equal blame exists on both sides. President Bush requested greater oversight in 2003, Republicans are clearly seen in the video fighting for greater oversight in 2004, and John McCain led the charge for greater oversight in 2005. All efforts were rebuffed by Democrats, who demagogued the issue with racial politics that made reform impossible to accomplish. At least they tried. I see no evidence of any push toward greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac oversight since the short bus rolled onto Capitol Hill in January 2007.

That said, I appreciate Congressman Davis’ candor in admitting Democrats let their ideology get in the way of what was right for the country.

WEIRD:



June 17, 2004


Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Testimony from W’s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS (2004)concerning the 'regulation’ of the GSE’s

Mr. Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.“


THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES

- THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES


One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.




"(In 2000, CLINTON) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (BUSH) , the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."


Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again.




STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers".

 

[Vigilante]

FACT: Liberal Public Policy caused the mortgage crisis by mandating eased requirements for lending, even to people who had no chance of ever paying the loan back. If banks and other lending institutions did not comply, their "score" from the SEC was too low to permit certain business transactions such as merges, etc. This is nothing less than a gun held to the head.

FACT: Many lending institutions were sued or otherwise pressured by ACORN, forcing them to make loans to folks who didn't qualify nor had any chance of ever repaying that loan.

FACT: HUD (Housing and Urban Development) under Andrew Cuomo, head of HUD) browbeat banks to make loans to folks who they knew couldn't pay them back.
FACT: Many lending institutions were sued or otherwise pressured by ACORN, forcing them to make loans to folks who didn't qualify nor had any chance of ever repaying that loan. IN FACT, BARACK OBAMA WAS INVOLVED IN AT LEAST ONE OF THESE LAWSUITS



FACT: Fannie Mae's sole purpose for being was to offer a Federal Guarantee of loans. So banks and other lending institutions didn't need to worry about thing. If a loan went bad, Fannie Mae was there to pick up the pieces (until there were too many pieces to pick up)

FACT: The Democrats stacked the operations of Fannie Mae with other Democrats who then cooked the books (FM had to pay MILLIONS in fines to the SEC over this) and took HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in bonuses and funneled MILLIONS in campaign contributions to members of Congress. Franklin Raines (part of the Obama Administration) personally took 90 million dollars despite Fannie Mae's fines and fraud.

FACT: Bill Clinton turned a blind eye to all of this during most of the 90's. In fact, he worsened the situation in 1995 by making the CRA even more lopsided and requiring even MORE bad loans. One thing he did was to force lending institutions to accept up to 31% of one's income for a mortgage whereas previously it was only 25%

FACT: The Democrats who run Fannie Mae took hundreds of millions in bonuses while Congressional Dems provided cover, including Charlie Rangel , Chris Dodd , Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

FACT: Democrat Chris Dodd was #1 recipient with Democrat Barack Obama being #2 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac

FACT: The Democrats blocked every attempt by Republicans to investigate Fannie Mae and its business practices. In fact, the Bush Administration made over 30 attempts over his two terms in office only to have the Democrats block every one through parliamentary procedures as the Republicans, while controlling both Houses, NEVER had a super majority so the Dems could block anything they pleased (case in point - judicial nominees)





http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...gewanted=print


Quote:
September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
Note the date


Quote:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
http://www.bucksright.com/bush-propo...n-in-2003-1141


Quote:
A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” His proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Democrats eventually killed the proposal. The current meltdown in the mortgage industry is a direct result of giving mortgages to people who could not pay them back, a practice protected by Congressional Democrats.

Both entities were recently taken over by the government, a move that puts trillions of taxpayer dollars at risk.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

But Democrats in Congress, also known as “the caucus perpetually on the wrong side of history,” were having none of this “responsibility” stuff.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

The proposal worked its way around Congress for a couple of years. Efforts at reform of the kind proposed by President Bush were shot down by Democrats each time.

In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill (H.R. 1461), and Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists set out to weaken it.

[...]

During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, [Democrat in bed with the mortgage industry Chris] Dodd — who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 — actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.

According to OpenSecrets.org, between 1988 and 2008 Dodd received $133,900, Kerry $111,000, Clinton $75,550, and Obama — in only 143 days in the Senate — received a whopping $105,849 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Pennsylvania Democrat representative Paul Kanjorksi, who also opposed new Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, was given more than any other member of the House of Representatives. He was paid $65,500 by representatives of these entities.

And, in case you were wondering, John McCain co-sponsored a bill requiring greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac regulation in 2005. It was also blocked procedurally by Democrats.

The 2003 New York Times article was unearthed by a Free Republic poster.

UPDATE: 2004 video posted to YouTube shows Republicans arguing for, and Democrats arguing against, regulations that would have saved us from the current crisis.
http://www.bucksright.com/congressma...ge-crisis-1451


Quote:
Congressman Sorry Democrats Dropped Ball On Mortgage Crisis
Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:55 am Posted by Steven in Economy

After being featured on Hannity & Colmes in a damning 2004 video showing Democrats fighting tooth-and-nail against greater Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, Democrat Congressman Artur Davis admits Democrats dropped the ball on reigning in the failed institutions and calls on fellow Democrats to do the same.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues, I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership, when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit that when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”

Along with President Clinton, I take issue with Davis’ contention that equal blame exists on both sides. President Bush requested greater oversight in 2003, Republicans are clearly seen in the video fighting for greater oversight in 2004, and John McCain led the charge for greater oversight in 2005. All efforts were rebuffed by Democrats, who demagogued the issue with racial politics that made reform impossible to accomplish. At least they tried. I see no evidence of any push toward greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac oversight since the short bus rolled onto Capitol Hill in January 2007.

That said, I appreciate Congressman Davis’ candor in admitting Democrats let their ideology get in the way of what was right for the country.

MORE RIGHT WING GARBAGE, I'm shocked

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "


http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf



Q Why is it commonly called the “subprime bubble” ?

A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006. In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending. (and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)

“Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages. Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006

https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf



Q. Er uh, didn’t you notice your link said the explosive growth of subprime mortgages started in 2001?

A. It did kinda say that didn’t it? However, the link below clearly states subprime was 10 % in 2003. 9% in 2001 to 10% in 2003 is only a 1% increase. A 1 % increase over 3 years is flat not explosive. 10 % in 2003 to 40% in 2006 is explosive. So the explosive growth started in 2004 which lines up pretty good but not exactly with the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble.


“In dollar terms, nonprime mortgages represented 32 percent of all mortgage originations in 2005, more than triple their 10 percent share only two years earlier



FRB: Finance and Economics Discussion Series: Screen Reader Version - 200899


Q Well there was a 300 % increase in subprime loans. Why not call it a “Subprime Bubble”?

A Subprime loans refers to the credit score of the borrower. It doesn’t make it a bad loan if proper underwriting standards are used. Bush’s working group said it was “triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages,”. He leaves out the part where it “quickly spread to all mortgages”. In 2004, 4.3 % of all mortgages were No Doc loans. In 2006 over 50% of all loans were No Doc loans. That’s over a 1000 % increase in loans where the borrowers income was not fully documented or documented at all. “Another form of easing” is a nice way of saying “lower lending standards”. And notice it lines up with the dates already posted. In addition to No Docs, banks allowed piggyback loans, teaser rates, I/0 and even negative amortization loans.

(from Dallas Fed link above)

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN’T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them



Q Why would Bush’s regulators let banks lower their lending standards?


A. Federal regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision work for Bush and he was pushing his “Ownership Society” programs that was a major and successful part of his re election campaign in 2004. And Bush’s regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bush’s documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

MUCH MORE HERE

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html#post9373478


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.



Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Agency’s ’04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt

2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1+ which flooded the market with cheap money!


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATES ON PREDATORY LENDERS!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html#post9373525

SOUNDS LIKE MORE LEFT WING, SUBVERSIVE GARBAGE TO ME! I'm shocked!

The Cause of the 2008 Financial Crisis

As someone who spent the majority of his life as an international bank analyst and executive, I learned, that to fix a problem, one needs to understand what caused it. It can be difficult to see because sometimes it takes time for the effects of bad decisions to manifest themselves. It also requires that we examine the facts rather than our emotional biases.
The facts are that approximately 6% of all mortgage loans in United States are in default. Historically, defaults were less than one-third of that, i.e., from 0.25% to 2%.

A huge portion of the increased mortgage loan defaults are what are referred to as ‘sub-prime’ loans. Most of the sub-prime loans have been made to borrowers with poor credit ratings, no down payment on the home financed, and/or no verification of income or assets (Alt-A’s). Close to 25% of sub-prime and Alt-A’s loans are in default.

These loans increased dramatically as a 9/30/99 New York Times article explained, “In a move that could help increase homeownership rates among minorities and low income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corp. is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.”

Why would banks make such risky loans? The answer is that the Clinton administration pressured the banks to help poor people become homeowners, a noble liberal idea. Also the Clinton Justice Department threatened banks with lawsuits and fines ($10,000 per application) for redlining (discrimination) if they did not make these loans. Also ACORN (Obama’s community service organization) was instrumental in providing borrowers and pressuring the banks to make these loans.

To allow Fannie Mae to make more loans, President Clinton also reduced Fannie Mae’s reserve requirement to 2.5%. That means it could purchase and/or guarantee $97.50 in mortgages for every $2.50 it had in equity to cover possible bad debts. If more than 2.5% of the loans go bad, the taxpayers (us) have to pay for them. That is what this bailout is all about. It is not the government paying the banks for the bad loans, it is us!!
Principally Senate Democrats demanded that Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (FM&FM) buy more of these risky loans to help the poor. Since the mortgages purchased and guaranteed by FM&FM are backed by the U.S. government, the loans were re-sold primarily to investment banks which in turn bundled most of them, taking a hefty fee, and sold the mortgages to investors all over the world as virtually risk free.

As long as the Federal Reserve (another government created agency) kept interest rates artificially low, monthly mortgage payments were low and housing prices went up. Many home owners got home equity loans to pay their first mortgages and credit card debt.

Unfortunately home prices peaked in the winter of 2005-06 and the house of cards started to crumble. People could no longer increase their mortgage debt to pay previous debts. Now, we taxpayers are being told we have to bail out the banks and everyone in the world who bought these highly risky loans. The politicians in Congress (mostly Democrats) do not want you to know they caused the mess.

During the past eight years, the Bush administration made 17 attempts to reform FM&FM, having been made aware by whistleblowers that the books had been cooked by Clinton appointees, James Johnson and Franklin Raines (most recently Barack Obama financial advisors) who gave large bonuses to themselves and other Clinton appointees by falsely showing huge profits.

In 2005, John McCain submitted a Fannie Mae reform bill. Democrats blocked it in Committee from getting to the Senate floor for a vote.
By 2006 there was enough evidence of malfeasance that Raines was forced out. He had paid himself over $90 million. Recently the court ordered him to pay back $40 million in fines, bonuses and stock options that he gave himself based on false financial statements of Fannie Mae profits.
In the 2006 elections, the Democrats took control of the House and Senate. There are plenty of videos on the Internet showing many Democrats including Senate Banking Committee Chairman Democrat Christopher Dodd and House Banking Committee Chairman Barney Frank, responsible with overseeing FM&FM, assuring us that there were no problems with FM&FM right up to their collapse.

Not surprisingly, virtually all the investment banks that are in trouble and being bailed out are run by financial supporters of Obama and other Democrats. Secretary of the Treasury Paulsen was head of Goldman Sachs. The new head of the $700 million bailout is also from Goldman Sachs. This is like letting the fox be in charge of hen house security.

It was announced that our government will infuse capital into the troubled banks. This gives whoever is in power of our government the ability to force the same kind of abuses that have caused this massive banking crisis in the first place.

Barack Obama has received more campaign donations that any other politician in the past three years from Fannie Mae and Wall Street. FM&FC have been virtually private piggy banks of campaign contributions for Democrats for the past 10 years. Yes, a token amount went to some Republicans.

And there is plenty of blame to go around in this financial crisis, but the reason it happened was 100% caused by a Democrat run government that forced a liberal policy initiated by President Clinton and reforms primarily blocked by Democrats. One would never know this by watching the news or reading newspapers.

Until the majority of our citizens understand whom (government liberals) and what (liberalism/socialism) caused this mess, we will allow our elected officials, through massive inflation, to lower the standard of living of those of us who are financially prudent and give our earnings to those who are not prudent.

The big excuse for the bailout is that credit markets have frozen up. But it is not true. There is plenty of credit available for good credit risks.
The only way this can be rectified is to allow the people who made the mistakes to take their losses. It is called taking personal responsibility for one’s actions.

Already we see that the bailout has had virtually no effect on the markets other than to cause huge sell offs because smart investors see that the U.S. is adopting failed liberal socialist policies. Our government is following in the footsteps of Hoover and Roosevelt.

We do not need to have another depression, but the government is taking the steps to make it happen. The taxpayer financed bailout should be reversed immediately as it will only encourage more irresponsible fraudulent behavior.

The Cause of the 2008 Financial Crisis

 

[Dad2three]

Wow.....

Still don't get it.

He could walk on water....but somehow people according to the OP poll think he's the worst in the last 100 years.

The same way people think so highly of Reagan in spite of your whinnings.

Who thinks Obama walks on water? He's the second best conservative Prez since Ike, only BJ Bill was better!

READ THE POST YOU STUPID ASS

I said, "he could walk on water" and it would not matter right now.

The poll shows a significant portion of the population thinks he sucks.

That does not make them right or wrong. It is their opinion.

Opinions, are like assholes...I like FACTUAL data. Dubya lost 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years and 5+ million have been created under Obama. That's just one data point!

 

[Vigilante]

Who thinks Obama walks on water? He's the second best conservative Prez since Ike, only BJ Bill was better!

READ THE POST YOU STUPID ASS

I said, "he could walk on water" and it would not matter right now.

The poll shows a significant portion of the population thinks he sucks.

That does not make them right or wrong. It is their opinion.

Opinions, are like assholes...I like FACTUAL data. Dubya lost 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years and 5+ million have been created under Obama. That's just one data point!

How many of these jobs are FULL TIME and how many are PART TIME?....I'll wait for your answer!

 

[Dad2three]

FACT: Liberal Public Policy caused the mortgage crisis by mandating eased requirements for lending, even to people who had no chance of ever paying the loan back. If banks and other lending institutions did not comply, their "score" from the SEC was too low to permit certain business transactions such as merges, etc. This is nothing less than a gun held to the head.

FACT: Many lending institutions were sued or otherwise pressured by ACORN, forcing them to make loans to folks who didn't qualify nor had any chance of ever repaying that loan.

FACT: HUD (Housing and Urban Development) under Andrew Cuomo, head of HUD) browbeat banks to make loans to folks who they knew couldn't pay them back.
FACT: Many lending institutions were sued or otherwise pressured by ACORN, forcing them to make loans to folks who didn't qualify nor had any chance of ever repaying that loan. IN FACT, BARACK OBAMA WAS INVOLVED IN AT LEAST ONE OF THESE LAWSUITS



FACT: Fannie Mae's sole purpose for being was to offer a Federal Guarantee of loans. So banks and other lending institutions didn't need to worry about thing. If a loan went bad, Fannie Mae was there to pick up the pieces (until there were too many pieces to pick up)

FACT: The Democrats stacked the operations of Fannie Mae with other Democrats who then cooked the books (FM had to pay MILLIONS in fines to the SEC over this) and took HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in bonuses and funneled MILLIONS in campaign contributions to members of Congress. Franklin Raines (part of the Obama Administration) personally took 90 million dollars despite Fannie Mae's fines and fraud.

FACT: Bill Clinton turned a blind eye to all of this during most of the 90's. In fact, he worsened the situation in 1995 by making the CRA even more lopsided and requiring even MORE bad loans. One thing he did was to force lending institutions to accept up to 31% of one's income for a mortgage whereas previously it was only 25%

FACT: The Democrats who run Fannie Mae took hundreds of millions in bonuses while Congressional Dems provided cover, including Charlie Rangel , Chris Dodd , Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

FACT: Democrat Chris Dodd was #1 recipient with Democrat Barack Obama being #2 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac

FACT: The Democrats blocked every attempt by Republicans to investigate Fannie Mae and its business practices. In fact, the Bush Administration made over 30 attempts over his two terms in office only to have the Democrats block every one through parliamentary procedures as the Republicans, while controlling both Houses, NEVER had a super majority so the Dems could block anything they pleased (case in point - judicial nominees)





http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...gewanted=print


Quote:
September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
Note the date


Quote:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
http://www.bucksright.com/bush-propo...n-in-2003-1141


Quote:
A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” His proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Democrats eventually killed the proposal. The current meltdown in the mortgage industry is a direct result of giving mortgages to people who could not pay them back, a practice protected by Congressional Democrats.

Both entities were recently taken over by the government, a move that puts trillions of taxpayer dollars at risk.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

But Democrats in Congress, also known as “the caucus perpetually on the wrong side of history,” were having none of this “responsibility” stuff.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

The proposal worked its way around Congress for a couple of years. Efforts at reform of the kind proposed by President Bush were shot down by Democrats each time.

In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill (H.R. 1461), and Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists set out to weaken it.

[...]

During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, [Democrat in bed with the mortgage industry Chris] Dodd — who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 — actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.

According to OpenSecrets.org, between 1988 and 2008 Dodd received $133,900, Kerry $111,000, Clinton $75,550, and Obama — in only 143 days in the Senate — received a whopping $105,849 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Pennsylvania Democrat representative Paul Kanjorksi, who also opposed new Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, was given more than any other member of the House of Representatives. He was paid $65,500 by representatives of these entities.

And, in case you were wondering, John McCain co-sponsored a bill requiring greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac regulation in 2005. It was also blocked procedurally by Democrats.

The 2003 New York Times article was unearthed by a Free Republic poster.

UPDATE: 2004 video posted to YouTube shows Republicans arguing for, and Democrats arguing against, regulations that would have saved us from the current crisis.
http://www.bucksright.com/congressma...ge-crisis-1451


Quote:
Congressman Sorry Democrats Dropped Ball On Mortgage Crisis
Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:55 am Posted by Steven in Economy

After being featured on Hannity & Colmes in a damning 2004 video showing Democrats fighting tooth-and-nail against greater Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, Democrat Congressman Artur Davis admits Democrats dropped the ball on reigning in the failed institutions and calls on fellow Democrats to do the same.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues, I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership, when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit that when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”

Along with President Clinton, I take issue with Davis’ contention that equal blame exists on both sides. President Bush requested greater oversight in 2003, Republicans are clearly seen in the video fighting for greater oversight in 2004, and John McCain led the charge for greater oversight in 2005. All efforts were rebuffed by Democrats, who demagogued the issue with racial politics that made reform impossible to accomplish. At least they tried. I see no evidence of any push toward greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac oversight since the short bus rolled onto Capitol Hill in January 2007.

That said, I appreciate Congressman Davis’ candor in admitting Democrats let their ideology get in the way of what was right for the country.

MORE RIGHT WING GARBAGE, I'm shocked

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "


http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf



Q Why is it commonly called the “subprime bubble” ?

A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006. In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending. (and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)

“Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages. Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006

https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf



Q. Er uh, didn’t you notice your link said the explosive growth of subprime mortgages started in 2001?

A. It did kinda say that didn’t it? However, the link below clearly states subprime was 10 % in 2003. 9% in 2001 to 10% in 2003 is only a 1% increase. A 1 % increase over 3 years is flat not explosive. 10 % in 2003 to 40% in 2006 is explosive. So the explosive growth started in 2004 which lines up pretty good but not exactly with the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble.


“In dollar terms, nonprime mortgages represented 32 percent of all mortgage originations in 2005, more than triple their 10 percent share only two years earlier



FRB: Finance and Economics Discussion Series: Screen Reader Version - 200899


Q Well there was a 300 % increase in subprime loans. Why not call it a “Subprime Bubble”?

A Subprime loans refers to the credit score of the borrower. It doesn’t make it a bad loan if proper underwriting standards are used. Bush’s working group said it was “triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages,”. He leaves out the part where it “quickly spread to all mortgages”. In 2004, 4.3 % of all mortgages were No Doc loans. In 2006 over 50% of all loans were No Doc loans. That’s over a 1000 % increase in loans where the borrowers income was not fully documented or documented at all. “Another form of easing” is a nice way of saying “lower lending standards”. And notice it lines up with the dates already posted. In addition to No Docs, banks allowed piggyback loans, teaser rates, I/0 and even negative amortization loans.

(from Dallas Fed link above)

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN’T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them



Q Why would Bush’s regulators let banks lower their lending standards?


A. Federal regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision work for Bush and he was pushing his “Ownership Society” programs that was a major and successful part of his re election campaign in 2004. And Bush’s regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bush’s documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

MUCH MORE HERE

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html#post9373478


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.



Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Agency’s ’04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt

2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1+ which flooded the market with cheap money!


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATES ON PREDATORY LENDERS!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html#post9373525

SOUNDS LIKE MORE LEFT WING, SUBVERSIVE GARBAGE TO ME! I'm shocked!

The Cause of the 2008 Financial Crisis

As someone who spent the majority of his life as an international bank analyst and executive, I learned, that to fix a problem, one needs to understand what caused it. It can be difficult to see because sometimes it takes time for the effects of bad decisions to manifest themselves. It also requires that we examine the facts rather than our emotional biases.
The facts are that approximately 6% of all mortgage loans in United States are in default. Historically, defaults were less than one-third of that, i.e., from 0.25% to 2%.

A huge portion of the increased mortgage loan defaults are what are referred to as ‘sub-prime’ loans. Most of the sub-prime loans have been made to borrowers with poor credit ratings, no down payment on the home financed, and/or no verification of income or assets (Alt-A’s). Close to 25% of sub-prime and Alt-A’s loans are in default.

These loans increased dramatically as a 9/30/99 New York Times article explained, “In a move that could help increase homeownership rates among minorities and low income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corp. is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.”

Why would banks make such risky loans? The answer is that the Clinton administration pressured the banks to help poor people become homeowners, a noble liberal idea. Also the Clinton Justice Department threatened banks with lawsuits and fines ($10,000 per application) for redlining (discrimination) if they did not make these loans. Also ACORN (Obama’s community service organization) was instrumental in providing borrowers and pressuring the banks to make these loans.

To allow Fannie Mae to make more loans, President Clinton also reduced Fannie Mae’s reserve requirement to 2.5%. That means it could purchase and/or guarantee $97.50 in mortgages for every $2.50 it had in equity to cover possible bad debts. If more than 2.5% of the loans go bad, the taxpayers (us) have to pay for them. That is what this bailout is all about. It is not the government paying the banks for the bad loans, it is us!!
Principally Senate Democrats demanded that Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (FM&FM) buy more of these risky loans to help the poor. Since the mortgages purchased and guaranteed by FM&FM are backed by the U.S. government, the loans were re-sold primarily to investment banks which in turn bundled most of them, taking a hefty fee, and sold the mortgages to investors all over the world as virtually risk free.

As long as the Federal Reserve (another government created agency) kept interest rates artificially low, monthly mortgage payments were low and housing prices went up. Many home owners got home equity loans to pay their first mortgages and credit card debt.

Unfortunately home prices peaked in the winter of 2005-06 and the house of cards started to crumble. People could no longer increase their mortgage debt to pay previous debts. Now, we taxpayers are being told we have to bail out the banks and everyone in the world who bought these highly risky loans. The politicians in Congress (mostly Democrats) do not want you to know they caused the mess.

During the past eight years, the Bush administration made 17 attempts to reform FM&FM, having been made aware by whistleblowers that the books had been cooked by Clinton appointees, James Johnson and Franklin Raines (most recently Barack Obama financial advisors) who gave large bonuses to themselves and other Clinton appointees by falsely showing huge profits.

In 2005, John McCain submitted a Fannie Mae reform bill. Democrats blocked it in Committee from getting to the Senate floor for a vote.
By 2006 there was enough evidence of malfeasance that Raines was forced out. He had paid himself over $90 million. Recently the court ordered him to pay back $40 million in fines, bonuses and stock options that he gave himself based on false financial statements of Fannie Mae profits.
In the 2006 elections, the Democrats took control of the House and Senate. There are plenty of videos on the Internet showing many Democrats including Senate Banking Committee Chairman Democrat Christopher Dodd and House Banking Committee Chairman Barney Frank, responsible with overseeing FM&FM, assuring us that there were no problems with FM&FM right up to their collapse.

Not surprisingly, virtually all the investment banks that are in trouble and being bailed out are run by financial supporters of Obama and other Democrats. Secretary of the Treasury Paulsen was head of Goldman Sachs. The new head of the $700 million bailout is also from Goldman Sachs. This is like letting the fox be in charge of hen house security.

It was announced that our government will infuse capital into the troubled banks. This gives whoever is in power of our government the ability to force the same kind of abuses that have caused this massive banking crisis in the first place.

Barack Obama has received more campaign donations that any other politician in the past three years from Fannie Mae and Wall Street. FM&FC have been virtually private piggy banks of campaign contributions for Democrats for the past 10 years. Yes, a token amount went to some Republicans.

And there is plenty of blame to go around in this financial crisis, but the reason it happened was 100% caused by a Democrat run government that forced a liberal policy initiated by President Clinton and reforms primarily blocked by Democrats. One would never know this by watching the news or reading newspapers.

Until the majority of our citizens understand whom (government liberals) and what (liberalism/socialism) caused this mess, we will allow our elected officials, through massive inflation, to lower the standard of living of those of us who are financially prudent and give our earnings to those who are not prudent.

The big excuse for the bailout is that credit markets have frozen up. But it is not true. There is plenty of credit available for good credit risks.
The only way this can be rectified is to allow the people who made the mistakes to take their losses. It is called taking personal responsibility for one’s actions.

Already we see that the bailout has had virtually no effect on the markets other than to cause huge sell offs because smart investors see that the U.S. is adopting failed liberal socialist policies. Our government is following in the footsteps of Hoover and Roosevelt.

We do not need to have another depression, but the government is taking the steps to make it happen. The taxpayer financed bailout should be reversed immediately as it will only encourage more irresponsible fraudulent behavior.

The Cause of the 2008 Financial Crisis

LOL, Seriously? lol

Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."



Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.



Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown



Some 6 percent of Fannie- and Freddie-sponsored loans made during that span were 90 days late at some point in their history, according to Fannie and Freddie’s regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. By contrast, the FHFA says, roughly 27 percent of loans that Wall Street folded into mortgage-backed investments were at least 90 days late at some point.

“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”



Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast




Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up



Here are key things we know based on data. Together, they present a series of tough hurdles for the big lie proponents.

•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006



Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture


KEEP TRYING BUBBA

MUCH MORE TO REFUTE YOUR NONSENSE HERE

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html#post9373525

 

[Listening]

Poll says people think Obama is the worst president in 100 years.

What was the question ?

 

[Dad2three]

READ THE POST YOU STUPID ASS

I said, "he could walk on water" and it would not matter right now.

The poll shows a significant portion of the population thinks he sucks.

That does not make them right or wrong. It is their opinion.

Opinions, are like assholes...I like FACTUAL data. Dubya lost 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years and 5+ million have been created under Obama. That's just one data point!

How many of these jobs are FULL TIME and how many are PART TIME?....I'll wait for your answer!

Pretty sure Dubya lost 673,000+ FULL TIME JOBS

 

[Vigilante]

I've refuted your bullshit, so now let the members go do some research and see which one of us is correct!

Did you ever give me an answer on how many of those jobs were PART TIME and How Many were full time?

 

[Dad2three]

FACT: Liberal Public Policy caused the mortgage crisis by mandating eased requirements for lending, even to people who had no chance of ever paying the loan back. If banks and other lending institutions did not comply, their "score" from the SEC was too low to permit certain business transactions such as merges, etc. This is nothing less than a gun held to the head.

FACT: Many lending institutions were sued or otherwise pressured by ACORN, forcing them to make loans to folks who didn't qualify nor had any chance of ever repaying that loan.

FACT: HUD (Housing and Urban Development) under Andrew Cuomo, head of HUD) browbeat banks to make loans to folks who they knew couldn't pay them back.
FACT: Many lending institutions were sued or otherwise pressured by ACORN, forcing them to make loans to folks who didn't qualify nor had any chance of ever repaying that loan. IN FACT, BARACK OBAMA WAS INVOLVED IN AT LEAST ONE OF THESE LAWSUITS



FACT: Fannie Mae's sole purpose for being was to offer a Federal Guarantee of loans. So banks and other lending institutions didn't need to worry about thing. If a loan went bad, Fannie Mae was there to pick up the pieces (until there were too many pieces to pick up)

FACT: The Democrats stacked the operations of Fannie Mae with other Democrats who then cooked the books (FM had to pay MILLIONS in fines to the SEC over this) and took HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in bonuses and funneled MILLIONS in campaign contributions to members of Congress. Franklin Raines (part of the Obama Administration) personally took 90 million dollars despite Fannie Mae's fines and fraud.

FACT: Bill Clinton turned a blind eye to all of this during most of the 90's. In fact, he worsened the situation in 1995 by making the CRA even more lopsided and requiring even MORE bad loans. One thing he did was to force lending institutions to accept up to 31% of one's income for a mortgage whereas previously it was only 25%

FACT: The Democrats who run Fannie Mae took hundreds of millions in bonuses while Congressional Dems provided cover, including Charlie Rangel , Chris Dodd , Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

FACT: Democrat Chris Dodd was #1 recipient with Democrat Barack Obama being #2 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac

FACT: The Democrats blocked every attempt by Republicans to investigate Fannie Mae and its business practices. In fact, the Bush Administration made over 30 attempts over his two terms in office only to have the Democrats block every one through parliamentary procedures as the Republicans, while controlling both Houses, NEVER had a super majority so the Dems could block anything they pleased (case in point - judicial nominees)





http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...gewanted=print


Quote:
September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
Note the date


Quote:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
http://www.bucksright.com/bush-propo...n-in-2003-1141


Quote:
A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” His proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Democrats eventually killed the proposal. The current meltdown in the mortgage industry is a direct result of giving mortgages to people who could not pay them back, a practice protected by Congressional Democrats.

Both entities were recently taken over by the government, a move that puts trillions of taxpayer dollars at risk.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

But Democrats in Congress, also known as “the caucus perpetually on the wrong side of history,” were having none of this “responsibility” stuff.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

The proposal worked its way around Congress for a couple of years. Efforts at reform of the kind proposed by President Bush were shot down by Democrats each time.

In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill (H.R. 1461), and Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists set out to weaken it.

[...]

During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, [Democrat in bed with the mortgage industry Chris] Dodd — who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 — actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.

According to OpenSecrets.org, between 1988 and 2008 Dodd received $133,900, Kerry $111,000, Clinton $75,550, and Obama — in only 143 days in the Senate — received a whopping $105,849 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Pennsylvania Democrat representative Paul Kanjorksi, who also opposed new Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, was given more than any other member of the House of Representatives. He was paid $65,500 by representatives of these entities.

And, in case you were wondering, John McCain co-sponsored a bill requiring greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac regulation in 2005. It was also blocked procedurally by Democrats.

The 2003 New York Times article was unearthed by a Free Republic poster.

UPDATE: 2004 video posted to YouTube shows Republicans arguing for, and Democrats arguing against, regulations that would have saved us from the current crisis.
http://www.bucksright.com/congressma...ge-crisis-1451


Quote:
Congressman Sorry Democrats Dropped Ball On Mortgage Crisis
Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:55 am Posted by Steven in Economy

After being featured on Hannity & Colmes in a damning 2004 video showing Democrats fighting tooth-and-nail against greater Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, Democrat Congressman Artur Davis admits Democrats dropped the ball on reigning in the failed institutions and calls on fellow Democrats to do the same.

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues, I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership, when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit that when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong. By the way, I wish my Republican colleagues would admit that they missed the early warning signs that Wall Street deregulation was overheating the securities market and promoting dangerously lax lending practices. When it comes to the debacle in our capital markets, there is much blame to go around for both sides.”

Along with President Clinton, I take issue with Davis’ contention that equal blame exists on both sides. President Bush requested greater oversight in 2003, Republicans are clearly seen in the video fighting for greater oversight in 2004, and John McCain led the charge for greater oversight in 2005. All efforts were rebuffed by Democrats, who demagogued the issue with racial politics that made reform impossible to accomplish. At least they tried. I see no evidence of any push toward greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac oversight since the short bus rolled onto Capitol Hill in January 2007.

That said, I appreciate Congressman Davis’ candor in admitting Democrats let their ideology get in the way of what was right for the country.

MORE RIGHT WING GARBAGE, I'm shocked

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "


http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf



Q Why is it commonly called the “subprime bubble” ?

A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006. In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending. (and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)

“Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages. Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006

https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf



Q. Er uh, didn’t you notice your link said the explosive growth of subprime mortgages started in 2001?

A. It did kinda say that didn’t it? However, the link below clearly states subprime was 10 % in 2003. 9% in 2001 to 10% in 2003 is only a 1% increase. A 1 % increase over 3 years is flat not explosive. 10 % in 2003 to 40% in 2006 is explosive. So the explosive growth started in 2004 which lines up pretty good but not exactly with the timeframe of the Bush Mortgage Bubble.


“In dollar terms, nonprime mortgages represented 32 percent of all mortgage originations in 2005, more than triple their 10 percent share only two years earlier



FRB: Finance and Economics Discussion Series: Screen Reader Version - 200899


Q Well there was a 300 % increase in subprime loans. Why not call it a “Subprime Bubble”?

A Subprime loans refers to the credit score of the borrower. It doesn’t make it a bad loan if proper underwriting standards are used. Bush’s working group said it was “triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages,”. He leaves out the part where it “quickly spread to all mortgages”. In 2004, 4.3 % of all mortgages were No Doc loans. In 2006 over 50% of all loans were No Doc loans. That’s over a 1000 % increase in loans where the borrowers income was not fully documented or documented at all. “Another form of easing” is a nice way of saying “lower lending standards”. And notice it lines up with the dates already posted. In addition to No Docs, banks allowed piggyback loans, teaser rates, I/0 and even negative amortization loans.

(from Dallas Fed link above)

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN’T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them



Q Why would Bush’s regulators let banks lower their lending standards?


A. Federal regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision work for Bush and he was pushing his “Ownership Society” programs that was a major and successful part of his re election campaign in 2004. And Bush’s regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bush’s documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

MUCH MORE HERE

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html#post9373478


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.



Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Agency’s ’04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt

2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1+ which flooded the market with cheap money!


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATES ON PREDATORY LENDERS!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html#post9373525

SOUNDS LIKE MORE LEFT WING, SUBVERSIVE GARBAGE TO ME! I'm shocked!

The Cause of the 2008 Financial Crisis

As someone who spent the majority of his life as an international bank analyst and executive, I learned, that to fix a problem, one needs to understand what caused it. It can be difficult to see because sometimes it takes time for the effects of bad decisions to manifest themselves. It also requires that we examine the facts rather than our emotional biases.
The facts are that approximately 6% of all mortgage loans in United States are in default. Historically, defaults were less than one-third of that, i.e., from 0.25% to 2%.

A huge portion of the increased mortgage loan defaults are what are referred to as ‘sub-prime’ loans. Most of the sub-prime loans have been made to borrowers with poor credit ratings, no down payment on the home financed, and/or no verification of income or assets (Alt-A’s). Close to 25% of sub-prime and Alt-A’s loans are in default.

These loans increased dramatically as a 9/30/99 New York Times article explained, “In a move that could help increase homeownership rates among minorities and low income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corp. is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.”

Why would banks make such risky loans? The answer is that the Clinton administration pressured the banks to help poor people become homeowners, a noble liberal idea. Also the Clinton Justice Department threatened banks with lawsuits and fines ($10,000 per application) for redlining (discrimination) if they did not make these loans. Also ACORN (Obama’s community service organization) was instrumental in providing borrowers and pressuring the banks to make these loans.

To allow Fannie Mae to make more loans, President Clinton also reduced Fannie Mae’s reserve requirement to 2.5%. That means it could purchase and/or guarantee $97.50 in mortgages for every $2.50 it had in equity to cover possible bad debts. If more than 2.5% of the loans go bad, the taxpayers (us) have to pay for them. That is what this bailout is all about. It is not the government paying the banks for the bad loans, it is us!!
Principally Senate Democrats demanded that Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (FM&FM) buy more of these risky loans to help the poor. Since the mortgages purchased and guaranteed by FM&FM are backed by the U.S. government, the loans were re-sold primarily to investment banks which in turn bundled most of them, taking a hefty fee, and sold the mortgages to investors all over the world as virtually risk free.

As long as the Federal Reserve (another government created agency) kept interest rates artificially low, monthly mortgage payments were low and housing prices went up. Many home owners got home equity loans to pay their first mortgages and credit card debt.

Unfortunately home prices peaked in the winter of 2005-06 and the house of cards started to crumble. People could no longer increase their mortgage debt to pay previous debts. Now, we taxpayers are being told we have to bail out the banks and everyone in the world who bought these highly risky loans. The politicians in Congress (mostly Democrats) do not want you to know they caused the mess.

During the past eight years, the Bush administration made 17 attempts to reform FM&FM, having been made aware by whistleblowers that the books had been cooked by Clinton appointees, James Johnson and Franklin Raines (most recently Barack Obama financial advisors) who gave large bonuses to themselves and other Clinton appointees by falsely showing huge profits.

In 2005, John McCain submitted a Fannie Mae reform bill. Democrats blocked it in Committee from getting to the Senate floor for a vote.
By 2006 there was enough evidence of malfeasance that Raines was forced out. He had paid himself over $90 million. Recently the court ordered him to pay back $40 million in fines, bonuses and stock options that he gave himself based on false financial statements of Fannie Mae profits.
In the 2006 elections, the Democrats took control of the House and Senate. There are plenty of videos on the Internet showing many Democrats including Senate Banking Committee Chairman Democrat Christopher Dodd and House Banking Committee Chairman Barney Frank, responsible with overseeing FM&FM, assuring us that there were no problems with FM&FM right up to their collapse.

Not surprisingly, virtually all the investment banks that are in trouble and being bailed out are run by financial supporters of Obama and other Democrats. Secretary of the Treasury Paulsen was head of Goldman Sachs. The new head of the $700 million bailout is also from Goldman Sachs. This is like letting the fox be in charge of hen house security.

It was announced that our government will infuse capital into the troubled banks. This gives whoever is in power of our government the ability to force the same kind of abuses that have caused this massive banking crisis in the first place.

Barack Obama has received more campaign donations that any other politician in the past three years from Fannie Mae and Wall Street. FM&FC have been virtually private piggy banks of campaign contributions for Democrats for the past 10 years. Yes, a token amount went to some Republicans.

And there is plenty of blame to go around in this financial crisis, but the reason it happened was 100% caused by a Democrat run government that forced a liberal policy initiated by President Clinton and reforms primarily blocked by Democrats. One would never know this by watching the news or reading newspapers.

Until the majority of our citizens understand whom (government liberals) and what (liberalism/socialism) caused this mess, we will allow our elected officials, through massive inflation, to lower the standard of living of those of us who are financially prudent and give our earnings to those who are not prudent.

The big excuse for the bailout is that credit markets have frozen up. But it is not true. There is plenty of credit available for good credit risks.
The only way this can be rectified is to allow the people who made the mistakes to take their losses. It is called taking personal responsibility for one’s actions.

Already we see that the bailout has had virtually no effect on the markets other than to cause huge sell offs because smart investors see that the U.S. is adopting failed liberal socialist policies. Our government is following in the footsteps of Hoover and Roosevelt.

We do not need to have another depression, but the government is taking the steps to make it happen. The taxpayer financed bailout should be reversed immediately as it will only encourage more irresponsible fraudulent behavior.

The Cause of the 2008 Financial Crisis

"In 2005, John McCain submitted a Fannie Mae reform bill. Democrats blocked it in Committee from getting to the Senate floor for a vote."

LIE, IT MADE IT OUT OF THEW GOP SENATE COMMITTEE , BUT IT WASN'T A MCCAIN BILL, BUT ONE HE SIGNED ONTO ABOUT 7 MONTHS AFTER IT DIED IN THE GOP SENATE

Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.




DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September.


Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.



Freddie Mac Paid GOP Consulting Firm $2M To Kill Legislation





OCT 2003


Oxley pulls bill (GSE REFORM) under fire from Bush


Oxley pulls Fannie, Freddie bill under heat from Bush - MarketWatch




ONE MORE TIME

JULY 14 2004

Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

 

[Vigilante]

Opinions, are like assholes...I like FACTUAL data. Dubya lost 673,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years and 5+ million have been created under Obama. That's just one data point!

How many of these jobs are FULL TIME and how many are PART TIME?....I'll wait for your answer!

Pretty sure Dubya lost 673,000+ FULL TIME JOBS

And how many FULL TIME JOBS were lost under Obuma?

Here's a little something CURRENT to help you...

June Full-Time Jobs Plunge By Over Half A Million, Part-Time Jobs Surge By 800K, Most Since 1993








Is this the reason for the blowout, on the surface, payroll number? In June the BLS reports that the number of full-time jobs tumbled by 523K to 118.2 million while part-time jobs soared by 799K to over 28 million!


Looking at the breakdown of full and part-time jobs so far in 2014, we find that 926K full-time jobs were added to the US economy. The offset: 646K part-time jobs.


Something tells us that the fact that the BLS just reported June part-time jobs rose by just shy of 800,000 the biggest monthly jump since 1993, will hardly get much airplay today. Because remember: when it comes to jobs, it is only the quantity that matters, never the quality.


... just in case there is any confusion why there is zero real wage growth (for two months in a row now), and why it will take a few more months before experts start tossing the word stagflation a little more casually.

Source: BLShttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...f-million-part-time-jobs-surge-800k-most-1993

 

[Dad2three]

I've refuted your bullshit, so now let the members go do some research and see which one of us is correct!

Did you ever give me an answer on how many of those jobs were PART TIME and How Many were full time?

REFUTED? Using bullshit out of context crap? Dem had LOTS of power in the GOP House 1995-2007 right? THAT'S what you base your premise on, lol

You mean ACCOUNTING scandals of 2003-2004 that Bush admin agreed there was not a problem with GSE's TOO?

Weird, when did the Bush subprime crisis begin?

'LATE 2004 EXTENDING INTO 2007'


WHO WAS IN CHARGE THEN? LOL