Bush worst president in 100 years.

[Dad2three]

funny watching the rightwingnut loons claim everyone else is lying.

Lying requires intent - you know, like claiming you're a lawyer, when you aren't...


dumb2three cuts and pastes from the hate sites. He has no grasp of what it is he posts, the retard cannot carry on even a rudimentary conversation. He has one ability, to copy shit from Stormfront, ThinkProgress, Alternet, and the rest, and paste it here.

The hate sites are lying, to be sure, but dumb2three is just a shit flinging feral baboon, intent does not accrue.

Weird conservatives can't refute what I post, just take out of context youtube vids from BEFORE DUBYA'S SUBPRIME BUBBLE WAS CREATED


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.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Weird conservatives can't refute what I post, just take out of context youtube vids from BEFORE DUBYA'S SUBPRIME BUBBLE WAS CREATED

What you post is garbled shit from the hate sites. You lack the intellect to discuss or debate a topic.

If I want to debate Stormfront, I'll go over there. Ditto ThinkProgress or the ever credible "Brad's Blog," that you favor.

No one with a mind gives a flying fuck about the repetition of demagoguery you spam the site with. You and the idiot Kissmy often post the identical shit - so you both are programmed by the same hate site.

I've actually tried a couple of times to discuss things with you - but you lack the intellect to do so, and respond with more cut & paste from the hate sites.

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.

Yes, you are indeed an idiot, and yes, you post moronic shit. But we ALL know that you are just cutting and pasting from KOS, CommonDreams, or one of the other hate sites.

Pointing out your stupidity is a waste of time, you will just cut & paste gaudy colors and oversized fonts, with bullshit graphs from Alternet or some other hate site.

You are not able to think - you do not have the intellect to discuss.

You are a feral baboon, flinging shit is all you do.

 

[Pogo]

Weird conservatives can't refute what I post, just take out of context youtube vids from BEFORE DUBYA'S SUBPRIME BUBBLE WAS CREATED

What you post is garbled shit from the hate sites. You lack the intellect to discuss or debate a topic.

If I want to debate Stormfront, I'll go over there. Ditto ThinkProgress or the ever credible "Brad's Blog," that you favor.

No one with a mind gives a flying fuck about the repetition of demagoguery you spam the site with. You and the idiot Kissmy often post the identical shit - so you both are programmed by the same hate site.

I've actually tried a couple of times to discuss things with you - but you lack the intellect to do so, and respond with more cut & paste from the hate sites.

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.

Yes, you are indeed an idiot, and yes, you post moronic shit. But we ALL know that you are just cutting and pasting from KOS, CommonDreams, or one of the other hate sites.

Pointing out your stupidity is a waste of time, you will just cut & paste gaudy colors and oversized fonts, with bullshit graphs from Alternet or some other hate site.

You are not able to think - you do not have the intellect to discuss.

You are a feral baboon, flinging shit is all you do.

Ironic close line for a post that consists entirely of flinging shit and addresses no point whatsoever.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Weird conservatives can't refute what I post, just take out of context youtube vids from BEFORE DUBYA'S SUBPRIME BUBBLE WAS CREATED

What you post is garbled shit from the hate sites. You lack the intellect to discuss or debate a topic.

If I want to debate Stormfront, I'll go over there. Ditto ThinkProgress or the ever credible "Brad's Blog," that you favor.

No one with a mind gives a flying fuck about the repetition of demagoguery you spam the site with. You and the idiot Kissmy often post the identical shit - so you both are programmed by the same hate site.

I've actually tried a couple of times to discuss things with you - but you lack the intellect to do so, and respond with more cut & paste from the hate sites.

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.

Yes, you are indeed an idiot, and yes, you post moronic shit. But we ALL know that you are just cutting and pasting from KOS, CommonDreams, or one of the other hate sites.

Pointing out your stupidity is a waste of time, you will just cut & paste gaudy colors and oversized fonts, with bullshit graphs from Alternet or some other hate site.

You are not able to think - you do not have the intellect to discuss.

You are a feral baboon, flinging shit is all you do.

Ironic close line for a post that consists entirely of flinging shit and addresses no point whatsoever.

Oh do fuck off, you mindless fool.

 

[Pogo]

What you post is garbled shit from the hate sites. You lack the intellect to discuss or debate a topic.

If I want to debate Stormfront, I'll go over there. Ditto ThinkProgress or the ever credible "Brad's Blog," that you favor.

No one with a mind gives a flying fuck about the repetition of demagoguery you spam the site with. You and the idiot Kissmy often post the identical shit - so you both are programmed by the same hate site.

I've actually tried a couple of times to discuss things with you - but you lack the intellect to do so, and respond with more cut & paste from the hate sites.




Yes, you are indeed an idiot, and yes, you post moronic shit. But we ALL know that you are just cutting and pasting from KOS, CommonDreams, or one of the other hate sites.

Pointing out your stupidity is a waste of time, you will just cut & paste gaudy colors and oversized fonts, with bullshit graphs from Alternet or some other hate site.

You are not able to think - you do not have the intellect to discuss.

You are a feral baboon, flinging shit is all you do.

Ironic close line for a post that consists entirely of flinging shit and addresses no point whatsoever.

Oh do fuck off, you mindless fool.

I stand corrected: TWO posts that consist entirely of flinging shit and addressing no point whatsoever.

 

[Dad2three]

Weird conservatives can't refute what I post, just take out of context youtube vids from BEFORE DUBYA'S SUBPRIME BUBBLE WAS CREATED

What you post is garbled shit from the hate sites. You lack the intellect to discuss or debate a topic.

If I want to debate Stormfront, I'll go over there. Ditto ThinkProgress or the ever credible "Brad's Blog," that you favor.

No one with a mind gives a flying fuck about the repetition of demagoguery you spam the site with. You and the idiot Kissmy often post the identical shit - so you both are programmed by the same hate site.

I've actually tried a couple of times to discuss things with you - but you lack the intellect to do so, and respond with more cut & paste from the hate sites.

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.

Yes, you are indeed an idiot, and yes, you post moronic shit. But we ALL know that you are just cutting and pasting from KOS, CommonDreams, or one of the other hate sites.

Pointing out your stupidity is a waste of time, you will just cut & paste gaudy colors and oversized fonts, with bullshit graphs from Alternet or some other hate site.

You are not able to think - you do not have the intellect to discuss.

You are a feral baboon, flinging shit is all you do.

Got it, You'll keep flinging your poop without actually being able to refute my actual data and backed up sourcing, preferring ad homs to any actual facts!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Got it, You'll keep flinging your poop without actually being able to refute my actual data and backed up sourcing, preferring ad homs to any actual facts!

The ThinkProgress shit you fling is not fact. You don't grasp what the idiocy you cut & paste even claims, so how would you understand a refutation.

Further, when you are refuted, you just post more unrelated bullshit from the hate sites.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

Here is your answer, but I somehow doubt you would like to discover the facts behind it to get a greater understanding of the whole picture here.

How changes in the CRA under President Clinton in 1995, forced banks into making more risky loans to lower income groups.

The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities
Howard Husock

until recently, the CRA didn't matter all that much. During the seventies and eighties, CRA enforcement was perfunctory. Regulators asked banks to demonstrate that they were trying to reach their entire "assessment area" by advertising in minority-oriented newspapers or by sending their executives to serve on the boards of local community groups. The Clinton administration changed this state of affairs dramatically. Ignoring the sweeping transformation of the banking industry since the CRA was passed, the Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A's for effort

This policy—"America's best mortgage program for working people," NACA calls it—is an experiment with extraordinarily high risks. There is no surer way to destabilize a neighborhood than for its new generation of home buyers to lack the means to pay their mortgages—which is likely to be the case for a significant percentage of those granted a no-down-payment mortgage based on their low-income classification rather than their good credit history. Even if such buyers do not lose their homes, they are a group more likely to defer maintenance on their properties, creating the problems that lead to streets going bad and neighborhoods going downhill. Stable or increasing property values grow out of the efforts of many; one unpainted house, one sagging porch, one abandoned property is a threat to the work of dozens, because such signs of neglect discourage prospective buyers.

The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities by Howard Husock, City Journal Winter 2000

Up until 1995 the Community Reinvestment Act was largely a requirement to support "community groups" in poor neighborhoods. ... But after 1995 the scope of the law was dramatically increased.

Over the strenuous objections of the banks themselves and some Republicans in Congress, CRA was renewed and modified in such a way that it gave far more power to the federal government to punish banks for not lending more widely in poor neighborhoods. The classic "fair housing" laws from the Martin Luther King Jr. era of civil rights were deemed insufficient. ... Subprime loans to minority applicants exploded ten fold in the mid-1990s as a result. ...

Under New Deal-era regulatory rules of Glass-Steagall, commercial banks and investment banks were separated. When that act was repealed as part of banking deregulation in 1999, commercial banks and investment banks were able to merge, subject to approval by regulators.

However, the banks' CRA rating was taken into account in the decision. This meant that a high CRA rating became an important prerequisite for mergers, which increased the pressure on the banks to make these risky loans. The banks also were given permission to put these loans into packages of securities that could then be sold into investment markets.

Economist's View: Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...

How Government Regulators got their way through enforcement of "policy" in regards to banks meeting mortgage loan standards, to be based strictly on CRA performance rather than centered upon a QUALIFIED home mortgage lending criteria.

Federal Reserve Board: Merger Process Needs Guidelines for Community Reinvestment Issues
( letter report 9/24/1999 GAO/GGD-99-180 )

In 1993, the Clinton Administration instructed the federal bank regulators to revise the CRA regulations by moving from a process- and paperwork-based system to a performance-based system focusing on results, especially the results in LMI areas of an institution's communities. Based on these instructions, the federal banking agencies replaced the qualitative CRA examination system with a more quantitative system that is based on actual performance.

(PAGE 4)




After the performance-based CRA regulations were issued in 1995, FFIEC published Interagency Questions and Answers regarding Community Reinvestment in 1997 and 1999. The 1989 statement was withdrawn effective April 5, 1999, and replaced by the Interagency Questions and Answers regarding Community Reinvestment.13 The 1989 Statement, which was in effect during the mergers contained in our study, including guidance on the following issues: * the basic components of an effective CRA policy, * the role of examination reports on CRA performance in reviewing applications, * the need for periodic review and documentation by financial institutions of their CRA performance, and * the role of commitments in assessing and institution's performance. Most notably, the regulators concluded in the Statement that the CRA record of the institution, as reflected in its examination reports, would be given great weight in the application process. In the Interagency Questions and Answers for 1999, the regulators continued to stress the significants of the CRA examination in the application process, and they stated the examination is an important, and often controlling, factor in the consideration of an institution's record. 14 According to the 1989 Statement, the CRA examination is not conclusive evidence in the face of significant and supported allegations from a commenter. Moreover, the balance may be shifted further when the examination is not recent or the particular issue raised in the 13 Questions and Answers regarding Community Reinvestment, 64 Fed. Reg. 23618-23648 (1999). 14 64 Fed. Reg. at 23641.
GAO/GGD-99-180

( PAGE 9 )




Guidelines for Community of Reinvestment Issues B-280468 application preceding was not addressed in the examination. During the development of the performance-based CRA regulations, a number of commenters expressed concern that the regulators may provide a "safe harbor" to depository institutions from challenges to their CRA performance record in the application process if they achieved an outstanding CRA rating. However, in the preamble of the 1995 final rule on the CRA regulations, the regulators reconfirmed the importance of the public comments in the applications process by acknowledging that materials related to CRA performance received during the applications process can and do provide relevant and valuable information.

Federal Reserve Board: Merger Process Needs Guidelines for

Here is an article the New York Times wished it never released, that "specifically" mentions Fannie Mae having banks ease loan standards to those of low-income who would otherwise not be able to afford a home.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

September 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Too bad the latest poll proves the OP dead wrong.

Obama worst president since WWII, new poll shows - Washington Times

true.Bush was the worst president at the TIME but Obama has topped him.He has expanded everything Bush got started and not held him accountable for his past actions like all presidents never dbama is even worse than him which I did not think would be possible and from here on out,every president that gets in will be worse than the previous one.as long as we have thos corrupt two party system of demopublicans and reprocrats you can count on that.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Ironic close line for a post that consists entirely of flinging shit and addresses no point whatsoever.

Oh do fuck off, you mindless fool.

I stand corrected: TWO posts that consist entirely of flinging shit and addressing no point whatsoever.

thats the normal protocal that this troll follows when he is cornered and cant refute facts.

 

[kaz]

When you suggest that our President is implementing anything "by decree" you are identifying yourself as a far RW nutjob.

And you're sucking on his nutsack

My God but you're vulgar!

I'm pro-choice and think drugs, prostitution, gambling should be legal.

MarcATL: Sounds Republican to me!

Um...OK, I also think we shouldn't be nation building in Afghanistan, we should not have been in Iraq and all and in fact we should leave the middle east entirely.

MarcATL: Republican, Republican and Republican!

Er...got it. I also think we should cut the military by about half, make it defensive focused and not have any permanent overseas bases on other countries' soil.

MarcATL: Totally Republican, got anything else?

He's a clown. I decided if he wants to talk eight year old to me, I will to him. I'm not asking your permission, I'm just answering your point.

 

[Dad2three]

Got it, You'll keep flinging your poop without actually being able to refute my actual data and backed up sourcing, preferring ad homs to any actual facts!

The ThinkProgress shit you fling is not fact. You don't grasp what the idiocy you cut & paste even claims, so how would you understand a refutation.

Further, when you are refuted, you just post more unrelated bullshit from the hate sites.

Got it, AGAIN more ad homs based on right wing garbage

 

[9thIDdoc]

Bush worst president in 100 years

No. actually Bush was pretty good. Obama is our first anti-American president. And hopefully our last.

 

[Dad2three]

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

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

Here is your answer, but I somehow doubt you would like to discover the facts behind it to get a greater understanding of the whole picture here.

How changes in the CRA under President Clinton in 1995, forced banks into making more risky loans to lower income groups.

The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities
Howard Husock

until recently, the CRA didn't matter all that much. During the seventies and eighties, CRA enforcement was perfunctory. Regulators asked banks to demonstrate that they were trying to reach their entire "assessment area" by advertising in minority-oriented newspapers or by sending their executives to serve on the boards of local community groups. The Clinton administration changed this state of affairs dramatically. Ignoring the sweeping transformation of the banking industry since the CRA was passed, the Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A's for effort

This policy—"America's best mortgage program for working people," NACA calls it—is an experiment with extraordinarily high risks. There is no surer way to destabilize a neighborhood than for its new generation of home buyers to lack the means to pay their mortgages—which is likely to be the case for a significant percentage of those granted a no-down-payment mortgage based on their low-income classification rather than their good credit history. Even if such buyers do not lose their homes, they are a group more likely to defer maintenance on their properties, creating the problems that lead to streets going bad and neighborhoods going downhill. Stable or increasing property values grow out of the efforts of many; one unpainted house, one sagging porch, one abandoned property is a threat to the work of dozens, because such signs of neglect discourage prospective buyers.

The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities by Howard Husock, City Journal Winter 2000

How Government Regulators got their way through enforcement of "policy" in regards to banks meeting mortgage loan standards, to be based strictly on CRA performance rather than centered upon a QUALIFIED home mortgage lending criteria.

Federal Reserve Board: Merger Process Needs Guidelines for Community Reinvestment Issues
( letter report 9/24/1999 GAO/GGD-99-180 )

In 1993, the Clinton Administration instructed the federal bank regulators to revise the CRA regulations by moving from a process- and paperwork-based system to a performance-based system focusing on results, especially the results in LMI areas of an institution's communities. Based on these instructions, the federal banking agencies replaced the qualitative CRA examination system with a more quantitative system that is based on actual performance.

(PAGE 4)




After the performance-based CRA regulations were issued in 1995, FFIEC published Interagency Questions and Answers regarding Community Reinvestment in 1997 and 1999. The 1989 statement was withdrawn effective April 5, 1999, and replaced by the Interagency Questions and Answers regarding Community Reinvestment.13 The 1989 Statement, which was in effect during the mergers contained in our study, including guidance on the following issues: * the basic components of an effective CRA policy, * the role of examination reports on CRA performance in reviewing applications, * the need for periodic review and documentation by financial institutions of their CRA performance, and * the role of commitments in assessing and institution's performance. Most notably, the regulators concluded in the Statement that the CRA record of the institution, as reflected in its examination reports, would be given great weight in the application process. In the Interagency Questions and Answers for 1999, the regulators continued to stress the significants of the CRA examination in the application process, and they stated the examination is an important, and often controlling, factor in the consideration of an institution's record. 14 According to the 1989 Statement, the CRA examination is not conclusive evidence in the face of significant and supported allegations from a commenter. Moreover, the balance may be shifted further when the examination is not recent or the particular issue raised in the 13 Questions and Answers regarding Community Reinvestment, 64 Fed. Reg. 23618-23648 (1999). 14 64 Fed. Reg. at 23641.
GAO/GGD-99-180

( PAGE 9 )




Guidelines for Community of Reinvestment Issues B-280468 application preceding was not addressed in the examination. During the development of the performance-based CRA regulations, a number of commenters expressed concern that the regulators may provide a "safe harbor" to depository institutions from challenges to their CRA performance record in the application process if they achieved an outstanding CRA rating. However, in the preamble of the 1995 final rule on the CRA regulations, the regulators reconfirmed the importance of the public comments in the applications process by acknowledging that materials related to CRA performance received during the applications process can and do provide relevant and valuable information.

Federal Reserve Board: Merger Process Needs Guidelines for

Here is an article the New York Times wished it never released, that "specifically" mentions Fannie Mae having banks ease loan standards to those of low-income who would otherwise not be able to afford a home.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

September 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

Cool, so besides out of context CRAP, you didn't bother to read ANYTHING on Dubya's subprime crisis. Got it

The "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," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008

HOW LONG WA CRA AROUND?

Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law
Community Reinvestment Act, blamed for home market crash, didn't apply to the banks that did the most lending.


A Register analysis of more than 12 million subprime mortgages worth nearly $2 trillion shows that most of the lenders who made risky subprime loans were exempt from the Community Reinvestment Act.And many of the lenders covered by the law that did make subprime loans came late to that market - after smaller, unregulated players showed there was money to be made.

Among our conclusions:

Nearly $3 of every $4 in subprime loans made from 2004 through 2007 came from lenders who were exempt from the law.

BANKSTER:

Bob Davis, executive vice president of the American Bankers Association, which lobbies Congress to streamline community reinvestment rules, said "it just isn't credible" to blame the law CRA for the crisis.

"Institutions that are subject to CRA - that is, banks and savings asociations - were largely not involved in subprime lending," Davis said. "The bulk of the loans came through a channel that was not subject to CRA."


Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register



"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


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.


"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

September 1999"

IRRELEVANT!

"(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."

http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/files/references/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf

ONCE MORE SINCE YOU SEEM SLOW

The "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," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008



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


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. How did U.S. regulations against redlining in inner cities also cause a boom in Spain, Ireland and Australia? How can we explain the boom occurring in countries that do not have a tax deduction for mortgage interest or government-sponsored enterprises? And why, after nearly a century of mortgage interest deduction in the United States, did it suddenly cause a crisis?

These questions show why proximity and statistical validity are so important. Let’s get more specific.The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is a favorite boogeyman for some, despite the numbers that so easily disprove it as a cause.It is a statistical invalid argument, as the data show.

For example, if the CRA was to blame, the housing boom would have been in CRA regions; it would have made places such as Harlem and South Philly and Compton and inner Washington the primary locales of the run up and collapse. Further, the default rates in these areas should have been worse than other regions

What occurred was the exact opposite: The suburbs boomed and busted and went into foreclosure in much greater numbers than inner cities. The tiny suburbs and exurbs of South Florida and California and Las Vegas and Arizona were the big boomtowns, not the low-income regions. The redlined areas the CRA address missed much of the boom; places that busted had nothing to do with the CRA.

Suburbs and Exurbs were where the boom & bust occurred — and not the CRA regions — Source: Washington Post



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.

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


TRY TO GROW A BRAIN!



No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)

1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom


2. The government’s affordability mission didn’t cause the crisis


4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now


MY FAV, AEI'S JERKOFF CHAMP:


Peter Wallison in 2004: “In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.”


http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/1...ampaign=Feed:+TheBigPicture+(The+Big+Picture)

 

[Dad2three]

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

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

Here is your answer, but I somehow doubt you would like to discover the facts behind it to get a greater understanding of the whole picture here.

How changes in the CRA under President Clinton in 1995, forced banks into making more risky loans to lower income groups.

The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities
Howard Husock

until recently, the CRA didn't matter all that much. During the seventies and eighties, CRA enforcement was perfunctory. Regulators asked banks to demonstrate that they were trying to reach their entire "assessment area" by advertising in minority-oriented newspapers or by sending their executives to serve on the boards of local community groups. The Clinton administration changed this state of affairs dramatically. Ignoring the sweeping transformation of the banking industry since the CRA was passed, the Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A's for effort

This policy—"America's best mortgage program for working people," NACA calls it—is an experiment with extraordinarily high risks. There is no surer way to destabilize a neighborhood than for its new generation of home buyers to lack the means to pay their mortgages—which is likely to be the case for a significant percentage of those granted a no-down-payment mortgage based on their low-income classification rather than their good credit history. Even if such buyers do not lose their homes, they are a group more likely to defer maintenance on their properties, creating the problems that lead to streets going bad and neighborhoods going downhill. Stable or increasing property values grow out of the efforts of many; one unpainted house, one sagging porch, one abandoned property is a threat to the work of dozens, because such signs of neglect discourage prospective buyers.

The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities by Howard Husock, City Journal Winter 2000

How Government Regulators got their way through enforcement of "policy" in regards to banks meeting mortgage loan standards, to be based strictly on CRA performance rather than centered upon a QUALIFIED home mortgage lending criteria.

Federal Reserve Board: Merger Process Needs Guidelines for Community Reinvestment Issues
( letter report 9/24/1999 GAO/GGD-99-180 )

In 1993, the Clinton Administration instructed the federal bank regulators to revise the CRA regulations by moving from a process- and paperwork-based system to a performance-based system focusing on results, especially the results in LMI areas of an institution's communities. Based on these instructions, the federal banking agencies replaced the qualitative CRA examination system with a more quantitative system that is based on actual performance.

(PAGE 4)




After the performance-based CRA regulations were issued in 1995, FFIEC published Interagency Questions and Answers regarding Community Reinvestment in 1997 and 1999. The 1989 statement was withdrawn effective April 5, 1999, and replaced by the Interagency Questions and Answers regarding Community Reinvestment.13 The 1989 Statement, which was in effect during the mergers contained in our study, including guidance on the following issues: * the basic components of an effective CRA policy, * the role of examination reports on CRA performance in reviewing applications, * the need for periodic review and documentation by financial institutions of their CRA performance, and * the role of commitments in assessing and institution's performance. Most notably, the regulators concluded in the Statement that the CRA record of the institution, as reflected in its examination reports, would be given great weight in the application process. In the Interagency Questions and Answers for 1999, the regulators continued to stress the significants of the CRA examination in the application process, and they stated the examination is an important, and often controlling, factor in the consideration of an institution's record. 14 According to the 1989 Statement, the CRA examination is not conclusive evidence in the face of significant and supported allegations from a commenter. Moreover, the balance may be shifted further when the examination is not recent or the particular issue raised in the 13 Questions and Answers regarding Community Reinvestment, 64 Fed. Reg. 23618-23648 (1999). 14 64 Fed. Reg. at 23641.
GAO/GGD-99-180

( PAGE 9 )




Guidelines for Community of Reinvestment Issues B-280468 application preceding was not addressed in the examination. During the development of the performance-based CRA regulations, a number of commenters expressed concern that the regulators may provide a "safe harbor" to depository institutions from challenges to their CRA performance record in the application process if they achieved an outstanding CRA rating. However, in the preamble of the 1995 final rule on the CRA regulations, the regulators reconfirmed the importance of the public comments in the applications process by acknowledging that materials related to CRA performance received during the applications process can and do provide relevant and valuable information.

Federal Reserve Board: Merger Process Needs Guidelines for

Here is an article the New York Times wished it never released, that "specifically" mentions Fannie Mae having banks ease loan standards to those of low-income who would otherwise not be able to afford a home.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

September 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

YOUR LINK TO THIS:

Economist's View: Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...

Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...

Another attempt to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for the subprime crisis. Don't believe a word of it



LOL

It Wasn't Fannie, Freddie, or the CRA

I've written the CRA and Fannie/Freddie rebuttals so many times over the last few years, e.g. see here and here, and it just came up here, that it seems repetitive to take it up yet again. But it doesn't seem to want to go away, so one more time, with gusto:

The Sarah Palinization of the financial crisis, by Edmund L. Andrews, LOL

Economist's View: It Wasn't Fannie, Freddie, or the CRA

Government data show Fannie and Freddie didn’t take the same risks that Wall Street’s mortgage-backed securities machine did. 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.

Tagging Fannie and Freddie as the primary suspects in the mortgage debacle diverts attention from bigger offenders and from policy decisions that helped create the climate for out-of-control lending.

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

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

Here is your answer, but I somehow doubt you would like to discover the facts behind it to get a greater understanding of the whole picture here.

How changes in the CRA under President Clinton in 1995, forced banks into making more risky loans to lower income groups.









How Government Regulators got their way through enforcement of "policy" in regards to banks meeting mortgage loan standards, to be based strictly on CRA performance rather than centered upon a QUALIFIED home mortgage lending criteria.





Here is an article the New York Times wished it never released, that "specifically" mentions Fannie Mae having banks ease loan standards to those of low-income who would otherwise not be able to afford a home.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

September 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

YOUR LINK TO THIS:

Economist's View: Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...

Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...

Another attempt to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for the subprime crisis. Don't believe a word of it



LOL

It Wasn't Fannie, Freddie, or the CRA

I've written the CRA and Fannie/Freddie rebuttals so many times over the last few years, e.g. see here and here, and it just came up here, that it seems repetitive to take it up yet again. But it doesn't seem to want to go away, so one more time, with gusto:

The Sarah Palinization of the financial crisis, by Edmund L. Andrews, LOL

Economist's View: It Wasn't Fannie, Freddie, or the CRA

Government data show Fannie and Freddie didn’t take the same risks that Wall Street’s mortgage-backed securities machine did. 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.

Tagging Fannie and Freddie as the primary suspects in the mortgage debacle diverts attention from bigger offenders and from policy decisions that helped create the climate for out-of-control lending.

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

You have a GOVERNMENT document that states the banks were to be more "performance" driven, especially to LMI (which if your slow, I will translate for you, means Lower Middle Income communities. This backs the statement that CRA was rewritten under President Clinton to allow lower income families to get a home WITHOUT the standard paperwork that banks used.

To say a few of your articles carries more weight than a government document on CRA itself, is really quite laughable. What other wasted material do you want to use to counter that piece of government information? It's bad enough that public record of Congressional testimony is not enough, but you want to continue to feed me this left wing crap. How deluted are you to not even believe documents that specifically talk on the CRA itself. The fact President Clinton changed the CRA to allow more minorities and lower income families to own a home, looking to bank performance with regard to LMI is government stated fact, not coming from some news article. Get a clue.

 

[Dad2three]

Here is your answer, but I somehow doubt you would like to discover the facts behind it to get a greater understanding of the whole picture here.

How changes in the CRA under President Clinton in 1995, forced banks into making more risky loans to lower income groups.









How Government Regulators got their way through enforcement of "policy" in regards to banks meeting mortgage loan standards, to be based strictly on CRA performance rather than centered upon a QUALIFIED home mortgage lending criteria.





Here is an article the New York Times wished it never released, that "specifically" mentions Fannie Mae having banks ease loan standards to those of low-income who would otherwise not be able to afford a home.

YOUR LINK TO THIS:

Economist's View: Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...

Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...

Another attempt to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for the subprime crisis. Don't believe a word of it



LOL

It Wasn't Fannie, Freddie, or the CRA

I've written the CRA and Fannie/Freddie rebuttals so many times over the last few years, e.g. see here and here, and it just came up here, that it seems repetitive to take it up yet again. But it doesn't seem to want to go away, so one more time, with gusto:

The Sarah Palinization of the financial crisis, by Edmund L. Andrews, LOL

Economist's View: It Wasn't Fannie, Freddie, or the CRA

Government data show Fannie and Freddie didn’t take the same risks that Wall Street’s mortgage-backed securities machine did. 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.

Tagging Fannie and Freddie as the primary suspects in the mortgage debacle diverts attention from bigger offenders and from policy decisions that helped create the climate for out-of-control lending.

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

You have a GOVERNMENT document that states the banks were to be more "performance" driven, especially to LMI (which if your slow, I will translate for you, means Lower Middle Income communities. This backs the statement that CRA was rewritten under President Clinton to allow lower income families to get a home WITHOUT the standard paperwork that banks used.

To say a few of your articles carries more weight than a government document on CRA itself, is really quite laughable. What other wasted material do you want to use to counter that piece of government information? It's bad enough that public record of Congressional testimony is not enough, but you want to continue to feed me this left wing crap. How deluted are you to not even believe documents that specifically talk on the CRA itself. The fact President Clinton changed the CRA to allow more minorities and lower income families to own a home, looking to bank performance with regard to LMI is government stated fact, not coming from some news article. Get a clue.

You mean a FEW bilion went to CRA loans and they turned bad so Clinton stopped that in 2000 AND THAT was why the Banksters under ZERO OBLIGATION TO MEET CRA LOANS DROPPED THE LENDING STANDARDS WORLD WIDE 2004-2007? SERIOUSLY?

Lets forget the feds comments

"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. "




NOTE THAT PART ABOUT CRA LOAN PERFORMANCE? LOL

Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.



Given CEOs' proclivity for government bashing, any lenders being driven to write bad loans by the CRA would have been on CNBC screaming at the top of their lungs.

But that dog that didn't bark.



CRA helped the poor and minorities qualify (not the “poorly qualified”) for and receive credit at better than the sub-prime rates they were typically offered if they provided documentation they could make the payments.

Private lenders not governed by CRA made loans that required no documentation of ability to pay, the so called NINJA loans, but no lender governed by CRA could do that nor is there any evidence they did; e.g., mortgage-backed securities with a higher percentage of CRA loans in them had lower default rates than average.



The same exact thing happened at the exact same time in the sub prime auto finance business. And it was done by the same exact people. Difference is that there are buybacks in auto finance ABSs much stricter than in the mortgage industry.

The big players all went down. HSBC lost billions and went out of the business. Americredit all but went bankrupt and only survived with a buyout. Cap One went through the basement and was only kept alive because of their credit card profits. Dozens of others, some backed by huge corps, went under.

Needless to say, there was no CRA for auto finance, and there was no government car ownership policies for them to blame.

All by themselves, the investment banks created systemic risk, and that risk ruined them in the auto finance market.

Sadly, the same thing did not happen in the mortgage market

 

[Dad2three]

Here is your answer, but I somehow doubt you would like to discover the facts behind it to get a greater understanding of the whole picture here.

How changes in the CRA under President Clinton in 1995, forced banks into making more risky loans to lower income groups.









How Government Regulators got their way through enforcement of "policy" in regards to banks meeting mortgage loan standards, to be based strictly on CRA performance rather than centered upon a QUALIFIED home mortgage lending criteria.





Here is an article the New York Times wished it never released, that "specifically" mentions Fannie Mae having banks ease loan standards to those of low-income who would otherwise not be able to afford a home.

YOUR LINK TO THIS:

Economist's View: Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...

Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...

Another attempt to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for the subprime crisis. Don't believe a word of it



LOL

It Wasn't Fannie, Freddie, or the CRA

I've written the CRA and Fannie/Freddie rebuttals so many times over the last few years, e.g. see here and here, and it just came up here, that it seems repetitive to take it up yet again. But it doesn't seem to want to go away, so one more time, with gusto:

The Sarah Palinization of the financial crisis, by Edmund L. Andrews, LOL

Economist's View: It Wasn't Fannie, Freddie, or the CRA

Government data show Fannie and Freddie didn’t take the same risks that Wall Street’s mortgage-backed securities machine did. 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.

Tagging Fannie and Freddie as the primary suspects in the mortgage debacle diverts attention from bigger offenders and from policy decisions that helped create the climate for out-of-control lending.

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

You have a GOVERNMENT document that states the banks were to be more "performance" driven, especially to LMI (which if your slow, I will translate for you, means Lower Middle Income communities. This backs the statement that CRA was rewritten under President Clinton to allow lower income families to get a home WITHOUT the standard paperwork that banks used.

To say a few of your articles carries more weight than a government document on CRA itself, is really quite laughable. What other wasted material do you want to use to counter that piece of government information? It's bad enough that public record of Congressional testimony is not enough, but you want to continue to feed me this left wing crap. How deluted are you to not even believe documents that specifically talk on the CRA itself. The fact President Clinton changed the CRA to allow more minorities and lower income families to own a home, looking to bank performance with regard to LMI is government stated fact, not coming from some news article. Get a clue.

George W. Bush was a major proponent of the kind of mortgages that banks had started making under the CRA. He urged low-to-no doc mortgages and the elimination of downpayments, just like the CRA regulators had long done. “We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,” the President said in a 2002 speech. “We can change the print, and we've got to.”



We want more people owning their own home in America," Bush said. His goal is to have 5.5 million minority homeowners in the country by the end of the decade.

March 26, 2004

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership | Fox News



The "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," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


CLINTON HUH?


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35+-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

 

[Dad2three]

Here is your answer, but I somehow doubt you would like to discover the facts behind it to get a greater understanding of the whole picture here.

How changes in the CRA under President Clinton in 1995, forced banks into making more risky loans to lower income groups.









How Government Regulators got their way through enforcement of "policy" in regards to banks meeting mortgage loan standards, to be based strictly on CRA performance rather than centered upon a QUALIFIED home mortgage lending criteria.





Here is an article the New York Times wished it never released, that "specifically" mentions Fannie Mae having banks ease loan standards to those of low-income who would otherwise not be able to afford a home.

YOUR LINK TO THIS:

Economist's View: Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...

Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...

Another attempt to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for the subprime crisis. Don't believe a word of it



LOL

It Wasn't Fannie, Freddie, or the CRA

I've written the CRA and Fannie/Freddie rebuttals so many times over the last few years, e.g. see here and here, and it just came up here, that it seems repetitive to take it up yet again. But it doesn't seem to want to go away, so one more time, with gusto:

The Sarah Palinization of the financial crisis, by Edmund L. Andrews, LOL

Economist's View: It Wasn't Fannie, Freddie, or the CRA

Government data show Fannie and Freddie didn’t take the same risks that Wall Street’s mortgage-backed securities machine did. 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.

Tagging Fannie and Freddie as the primary suspects in the mortgage debacle diverts attention from bigger offenders and from policy decisions that helped create the climate for out-of-control lending.

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

You have a GOVERNMENT document that states the banks were to be more "performance" driven, especially to LMI (which if your slow, I will translate for you, means Lower Middle Income communities. This backs the statement that CRA was rewritten under President Clinton to allow lower income families to get a home WITHOUT the standard paperwork that banks used.

To say a few of your articles carries more weight than a government document on CRA itself, is really quite laughable. What other wasted material do you want to use to counter that piece of government information? It's bad enough that public record of Congressional testimony is not enough, but you want to continue to feed me this left wing crap. How deluted are you to not even believe documents that specifically talk on the CRA itself. The fact President Clinton changed the CRA to allow more minorities and lower income families to own a home, looking to bank performance with regard to LMI is government stated fact, not coming from some news article. Get a clue.

So after I pointed out your BULLSHIT with F/F you decided to drop that crap huh? lol

IF you change your mind however:


June 17, 2004


(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.


In April, the HUD proposed new rules that would raise the percentage of loans bought by the two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that finance borrowers whose incomes are at or below the median for their area, according to the Wall Street Journal .

But the groups will warn in the letter that the proposed rules requiring the two GSEs to finance more "affordable housing" may have "unintended consequences," hurting some poor and middle-income people struggling to afford houses, the Journal said.



July 8, 2004

HUD DATA SHOWS FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC HAVE TRAILED THE INDUSTRY IN PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN 44 STATES

New regulations will increase mortgage financing for homebuyers and underserved communities


This data covering 1999-2002 shows that combined, the GSEs have lagged behind the primary market in 44 states in their commitment to provide affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income families.

HUD Archives: HUD DATA SHOWS FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC HAVE TRAILED THE INDUSTRY IN PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN 44 STATES


HOLY COW! Bush forced them to lower their standards. If only somebody had warned us that Bush's policies would hurt Freddie and Fannie. Wait, somebody did.



Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf

 

[Dad2three]

Here is your answer, but I somehow doubt you would like to discover the facts behind it to get a greater understanding of the whole picture here.

How changes in the CRA under President Clinton in 1995, forced banks into making more risky loans to lower income groups.









How Government Regulators got their way through enforcement of "policy" in regards to banks meeting mortgage loan standards, to be based strictly on CRA performance rather than centered upon a QUALIFIED home mortgage lending criteria.





Here is an article the New York Times wished it never released, that "specifically" mentions Fannie Mae having banks ease loan standards to those of low-income who would otherwise not be able to afford a home.

YOUR LINK TO THIS:

Economist's View: Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...

Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act...

Another attempt to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for the subprime crisis. Don't believe a word of it



LOL

It Wasn't Fannie, Freddie, or the CRA

I've written the CRA and Fannie/Freddie rebuttals so many times over the last few years, e.g. see here and here, and it just came up here, that it seems repetitive to take it up yet again. But it doesn't seem to want to go away, so one more time, with gusto:

The Sarah Palinization of the financial crisis, by Edmund L. Andrews, LOL

Economist's View: It Wasn't Fannie, Freddie, or the CRA

Government data show Fannie and Freddie didn’t take the same risks that Wall Street’s mortgage-backed securities machine did. 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.

Tagging Fannie and Freddie as the primary suspects in the mortgage debacle diverts attention from bigger offenders and from policy decisions that helped create the climate for out-of-control lending.

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

You have a GOVERNMENT document that states the banks were to be more "performance" driven, especially to LMI (which if your slow, I will translate for you, means Lower Middle Income communities. This backs the statement that CRA was rewritten under President Clinton to allow lower income families to get a home WITHOUT the standard paperwork that banks used.

To say a few of your articles carries more weight than a government document on CRA itself, is really quite laughable. What other wasted material do you want to use to counter that piece of government information? It's bad enough that public record of Congressional testimony is not enough, but you want to continue to feed me this left wing crap. How deluted are you to not even believe documents that specifically talk on the CRA itself. The fact President Clinton changed the CRA to allow more minorities and lower income families to own a home, looking to bank performance with regard to LMI is government stated fact, not coming from some news article. Get a clue.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999



....Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''


[SIZE="3"[U][B]]In moving, even tentatively[/B][/U], into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk,[/SIZE][/B]


[COLOR="Blue"]''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''[/COLOR]

PETER WALLISON IN 2004:

: “In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.”


LOL

Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture


LET'S CONTINUE THE NYT ARTICLE




Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

...The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.


LOL