Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Meanwhile Barney Frank and Dodd PREVENTED Bush from doing anything about it in Congress 3 TIMES. In fact Barney Frank went on national TV just before the crash and announced that the Housing Market was sound and in no danger what so ever EXCEPT from regulations that were proposed by Bush and the Republicans.Assuming you mean stocks and bonds, the federal government does not rate them. Moody's, Standard & Poor, and Finch are the three primary security rating services. They are not part of the government but private businesses that sell their service.There were a lot of culprits in the crash. The Bush administration like the Clinton administration pushed for more home ownership which led to the lowering of credit requirements by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's popular to make the government the sole culprit but remember it wasn't government that actually made those risky loans and it wasn't government that sold those loans to Wall Street Banks and it wasn't government that packaged those loans into collateral packages in a manner that credit worthiness could not be determined, and it wasn't government that used those packages as collateral for bonds to be sold by the top names on Wall Street. And it wasn't government that sold or bought that crap or gave it AAA bond ratings. There was plenty of blame to go around.That is the popular explanation of the housing crash. However, the evidence does not support the conclusion.I may be biased but I know I did better under Bush as most people did. It was a booming economy not only in wages, but in confidence as well. There was just a good feeling around when he was President.
The housing crash was due to government getting involved in the banks business, particularly giving homes to the poor and minorities who had no business owning them. No money down and no credit check is what caused the collapse. Too many home buyers created a huge bubble. The bigger the bubble, the bigger the burst.
There was a rapid expansion in overall mortgage origination during the time period, but the fraction of new mortgage dollars going to each income group was stable. In other words, the poor did not represent a higher fraction of the mortgage loans originated over the period. In addition, borrowers in the middle and top of the distribution are the ones that contributed most significantly to the increase in mortgages in default after 2007. Taken together, the evidence suggests that there was no decoupling of mortgage growth from income growth where unsustainable credit was flowing dis-proportionally to poor people.
Loan Originations and Defaults in the Mortgage Crisis: The Role of the Middle Class
Correct. It's called Hopping On The Bandwagon.
With low interest rates and housing purchase on the increase, it created the same as any supply and demand situation. The higher the demand, the higher the price.
House flipping was on the rise, prices kept getting higher and higher. People were making money hand over fist. Houses and even developments were being built without one buyer in mind.
When the government makes regulation, they can't make it for a specific group of people even if that's the group of people they had in mind. Weak lending practices set forth by the government applied to all, including real estate tycoons.
But you can't look at the middle of the problem nor the end to say what the problem was. You have to look at where the problem started, and the problem started by creating such weak standards for home loans due to the outcry of the minority and poor communities that didn't have access to purchase their own homes.
Wrong. The only one that can rate securities is the federal government, and our federal government gave those bad securities a triple A rating.
If you wish to make a loan and sell it on the market, you have to abide to federal requirements. Prime loans are excluded since prime loans are loans where the bank uses their own money. But subprime loans are under the regulation of F & F which are under the supervision of HUD who creates the regulations.
Banks made a killing on processing the loans. They could care less about the security of the loans since they were not keeping them anyway. Those loans were going to be sold off. If you were running a bank at the time, you could either get in on the action or be totally left out as your competitors raked in all the money.
As you stated, many got in on the action, but the action started by reducing regulations on home purchases aimed at pleasing the minority communities that often complained about discrimination in loan practices. It had nothing to do with race, it had to do with savings, credit history, and ability to repay the loan--requirements that many blacks didn't meet.
And again, they couldn't write loan practices specifically for certain race of people. Those lowered guidelines were for everybody regardless who you were. I was a victim of all this as two of my best tenants left here because they both purchased homes with 0% down and no credit check. Both were working and made a decent living, but both were also very extended on their credit. One had a car payment, a motorcycle payment, and a new camper that cost him over $30,000. The other had two new cars for he and his wife, and they didn't even own their own television set. They rented it.
I warned both about what was going to happen, but they assumed I was looking out for my own best interest and went ahead and purchased their homes. A few years later, both regretted their decision and openly said they wished they would have listened to me in the first place.
Bond Rating Agencies
I agree, Fannie and Freddie regulate subprimes and they do establish the criteria for those loans. Fannie and Freddie purchase home loans made by private firms (provided the loans meet strict size, credit, and underwriting standards), package those loans into mortgage-backed securities, and guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on those securities to outside investors. This has been the primary purpose of F&F for many years, long before the housing bubble.
Contrary to conservative talking points, F&F played a very small part in inflating the housing bubble. During the bubble, loan originators backed by Wall Street capital began operating beyond the Fannie and Freddie system that had been working for decades by peddling large quantities of high-risk subprime mortgages with terms and features that drastically increased the chance of default. Many of those loans were predatory products such as hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages with balloon payments that required serial refinancing, or negative amortization, mortgages that increased the unpaid balance over time.
Wall Street firms packaged these high-risk loans into securities, got the credit-rating agencies to bless them, and then passed them along to investors, who were often unaware or misinformed of the underlying risks. It was the poor performance of the loans in these “private-label” securities—those not owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie—that led to the financial meltdown, according to the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, among other independent researchers.
In fact, Fannie and Freddie lost market share as the bubble grew: The companies backed roughly half of all home-loan originations in 2002 but just 30 percent in 2005 and 2006.
However, in late 2006 and 2007 F&F made some tragic mistakes. Attempting to keep the bubble from bursting, they began increasing their buying of subprime securities and increasing leverage on what they mistakenly believed to be low risk loans. This not only did little or nothing to prevent the bust but created huge losses which led to the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie.
Wall Street firms were able to do this because there was no regulation nor supporting legislation that prevented them from doing so. The goverment regulation on F&F did not cover Wall Street because the regulations were designed to protect the government from loses due to F&F operation. I suppose no one ever thought Wall Street would jump into the subprime mortgage business.
7 Things You Need to Know About Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – Center for American Progress
Yes it has been rammed down our throats it started in Charlotte NC with a law that allowed any man that claimed to be a woman to use any facility he wanted, When that was Blocked Obama ordered that ALL schools in the Country must allow the same.Uh, because it began to get rammed down people's throat maybe ??Telling us we have to let men in our women's bathrooms and our daughters locker rooms was really stupid.Allowing the libs to destroy this country because of all their social experimentation's they have running here, should be sending chills down the back sides of every single American that calls themselves Americans. It's what has gone on here folks, where as you can easily see that the communist socialist lib crazies with all their crazy radical bull crap is what's at stake with them, and now the push back has come home to roost. This nation in order to figure it's way out of this delema, has got to finally put it's foot down, and it has got to do what is right for the children and grandchildren again. Enough is enough already. The devil's grip on the minds of people is unreal these days, and somehow that grip has to be broken.
Ya, radical bullcrap like allowing gays to marry...or maybe the radical bullcrap that prevents industries from dumping their wastes in our rivers...or is it the radical bullcrap that insists every citizen of age has a right to vote? Or that we have a right to know what is in the products we use and who is behind the political ads we view? So radical. What commies.
Trans people have been using the women's bathroom for years and no one ever noticed. Why the hysteria?
It's not been rammed down anyone's throat. It's kind of like saying heterosexuality is being rammed down our throats with all these weddings and couples kissing and holding hands and...oh my. It just is. It's not a big deal. It is an extremely small segment of the population.
A FEW Dems, dupes. Not happening, DUH.You people will get one if you prevent Trump from being President.
So did everyone else DUH. F+F is demonized by RW media but had little to do with the meltdown. Its share of the market went from 75% to 30% and private GOP crony corps like Countrywide and AIG screwed the pouch DUH.Meanwhile Barney Frank and Dodd PREVENTED Bush from doing anything about it in Congress 3 TIMES. In fact Barney Frank went on national TV just before the crash and announced that the Housing Market was sound and in no danger what so ever EXCEPT from regulations that were proposed by Bush and the Republicans.Assuming you mean stocks and bonds, the federal government does not rate them. Moody's, Standard & Poor, and Finch are the three primary security rating services. They are not part of the government but private businesses that sell their service.There were a lot of culprits in the crash. The Bush administration like the Clinton administration pushed for more home ownership which led to the lowering of credit requirements by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's popular to make the government the sole culprit but remember it wasn't government that actually made those risky loans and it wasn't government that sold those loans to Wall Street Banks and it wasn't government that packaged those loans into collateral packages in a manner that credit worthiness could not be determined, and it wasn't government that used those packages as collateral for bonds to be sold by the top names on Wall Street. And it wasn't government that sold or bought that crap or gave it AAA bond ratings. There was plenty of blame to go around.That is the popular explanation of the housing crash. However, the evidence does not support the conclusion.
There was a rapid expansion in overall mortgage origination during the time period, but the fraction of new mortgage dollars going to each income group was stable. In other words, the poor did not represent a higher fraction of the mortgage loans originated over the period. In addition, borrowers in the middle and top of the distribution are the ones that contributed most significantly to the increase in mortgages in default after 2007. Taken together, the evidence suggests that there was no decoupling of mortgage growth from income growth where unsustainable credit was flowing dis-proportionally to poor people.
Loan Originations and Defaults in the Mortgage Crisis: The Role of the Middle Class
Correct. It's called Hopping On The Bandwagon.
With low interest rates and housing purchase on the increase, it created the same as any supply and demand situation. The higher the demand, the higher the price.
House flipping was on the rise, prices kept getting higher and higher. People were making money hand over fist. Houses and even developments were being built without one buyer in mind.
When the government makes regulation, they can't make it for a specific group of people even if that's the group of people they had in mind. Weak lending practices set forth by the government applied to all, including real estate tycoons.
But you can't look at the middle of the problem nor the end to say what the problem was. You have to look at where the problem started, and the problem started by creating such weak standards for home loans due to the outcry of the minority and poor communities that didn't have access to purchase their own homes.
Wrong. The only one that can rate securities is the federal government, and our federal government gave those bad securities a triple A rating.
If you wish to make a loan and sell it on the market, you have to abide to federal requirements. Prime loans are excluded since prime loans are loans where the bank uses their own money. But subprime loans are under the regulation of F & F which are under the supervision of HUD who creates the regulations.
Banks made a killing on processing the loans. They could care less about the security of the loans since they were not keeping them anyway. Those loans were going to be sold off. If you were running a bank at the time, you could either get in on the action or be totally left out as your competitors raked in all the money.
As you stated, many got in on the action, but the action started by reducing regulations on home purchases aimed at pleasing the minority communities that often complained about discrimination in loan practices. It had nothing to do with race, it had to do with savings, credit history, and ability to repay the loan--requirements that many blacks didn't meet.
And again, they couldn't write loan practices specifically for certain race of people. Those lowered guidelines were for everybody regardless who you were. I was a victim of all this as two of my best tenants left here because they both purchased homes with 0% down and no credit check. Both were working and made a decent living, but both were also very extended on their credit. One had a car payment, a motorcycle payment, and a new camper that cost him over $30,000. The other had two new cars for he and his wife, and they didn't even own their own television set. They rented it.
I warned both about what was going to happen, but they assumed I was looking out for my own best interest and went ahead and purchased their homes. A few years later, both regretted their decision and openly said they wished they would have listened to me in the first place.
Bond Rating Agencies
I agree, Fannie and Freddie regulate subprimes and they do establish the criteria for those loans. Fannie and Freddie purchase home loans made by private firms (provided the loans meet strict size, credit, and underwriting standards), package those loans into mortgage-backed securities, and guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on those securities to outside investors. This has been the primary purpose of F&F for many years, long before the housing bubble.
Contrary to conservative talking points, F&F played a very small part in inflating the housing bubble. During the bubble, loan originators backed by Wall Street capital began operating beyond the Fannie and Freddie system that had been working for decades by peddling large quantities of high-risk subprime mortgages with terms and features that drastically increased the chance of default. Many of those loans were predatory products such as hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages with balloon payments that required serial refinancing, or negative amortization, mortgages that increased the unpaid balance over time.
Wall Street firms packaged these high-risk loans into securities, got the credit-rating agencies to bless them, and then passed them along to investors, who were often unaware or misinformed of the underlying risks. It was the poor performance of the loans in these “private-label” securities—those not owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie—that led to the financial meltdown, according to the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, among other independent researchers.
In fact, Fannie and Freddie lost market share as the bubble grew: The companies backed roughly half of all home-loan originations in 2002 but just 30 percent in 2005 and 2006.
However, in late 2006 and 2007 F&F made some tragic mistakes. Attempting to keep the bubble from bursting, they began increasing their buying of subprime securities and increasing leverage on what they mistakenly believed to be low risk loans. This not only did little or nothing to prevent the bust but created huge losses which led to the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie.
Wall Street firms were able to do this because there was no regulation nor supporting legislation that prevented them from doing so. The goverment regulation on F&F did not cover Wall Street because the regulations were designed to protect the government from loses due to F&F operation. I suppose no one ever thought Wall Street would jump into the subprime mortgage business.
7 Things You Need to Know About Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – Center for American Progress
You must be the only nut who never heard of 9/11...Really provide a link that proves that claim.You're a nut. Way more people were killed in the U.S. by terrorists while Bush was president.Yeah, and they didn't cry like you libs are crying now. They (the electorate) just waited for the election cycles to correct things like it should always, but unfortunately Obama threw a monkey wrench into all that thinking. 8 years of bull crap that had taken this nation to the brink. Americans being killed on this soil since 9-11 by terrorist should have been the biggest eye opener to have people saying wait one dag minute here, just like Trump saying no more of these Muslim refugees will be coming in here from war zones unvetted until we find out what the hell is going on here. Then the libs tried to construe that as Trump being a racist ???? Good grief.Bush doubled the debt and the right didn't care. Reagan tripled the debt and the right didn't care.Obama wanted what was best for the country....so has every other President
You are just too partisan to recognize it
So, creating racial unrest and tension was good for the country? Doubling the debt was good for the country? Denigrating cops and military was good for the country? Obozocare was good for the country? Cancelling the national day of prayer and holding a muslim prayer day was good for the country? Lying about Benghazi was good for the country?
YOU, are the one who is too partisan to see the truth.
Barney Frank was a member of the minority party in the House where a simple majority was needed to pass a bill. He couldn't, and didn't, block any bills.Meanwhile Barney Frank and Dodd PREVENTED Bush from doing anything about it in Congress 3 TIMES. In fact Barney Frank went on national TV just before the crash and announced that the Housing Market was sound and in no danger what so ever EXCEPT from regulations that were proposed by Bush and the Republicans.Assuming you mean stocks and bonds, the federal government does not rate them. Moody's, Standard & Poor, and Finch are the three primary security rating services. They are not part of the government but private businesses that sell their service.There were a lot of culprits in the crash. The Bush administration like the Clinton administration pushed for more home ownership which led to the lowering of credit requirements by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's popular to make the government the sole culprit but remember it wasn't government that actually made those risky loans and it wasn't government that sold those loans to Wall Street Banks and it wasn't government that packaged those loans into collateral packages in a manner that credit worthiness could not be determined, and it wasn't government that used those packages as collateral for bonds to be sold by the top names on Wall Street. And it wasn't government that sold or bought that crap or gave it AAA bond ratings. There was plenty of blame to go around.That is the popular explanation of the housing crash. However, the evidence does not support the conclusion.
There was a rapid expansion in overall mortgage origination during the time period, but the fraction of new mortgage dollars going to each income group was stable. In other words, the poor did not represent a higher fraction of the mortgage loans originated over the period. In addition, borrowers in the middle and top of the distribution are the ones that contributed most significantly to the increase in mortgages in default after 2007. Taken together, the evidence suggests that there was no decoupling of mortgage growth from income growth where unsustainable credit was flowing dis-proportionally to poor people.
Loan Originations and Defaults in the Mortgage Crisis: The Role of the Middle Class
Correct. It's called Hopping On The Bandwagon.
With low interest rates and housing purchase on the increase, it created the same as any supply and demand situation. The higher the demand, the higher the price.
House flipping was on the rise, prices kept getting higher and higher. People were making money hand over fist. Houses and even developments were being built without one buyer in mind.
When the government makes regulation, they can't make it for a specific group of people even if that's the group of people they had in mind. Weak lending practices set forth by the government applied to all, including real estate tycoons.
But you can't look at the middle of the problem nor the end to say what the problem was. You have to look at where the problem started, and the problem started by creating such weak standards for home loans due to the outcry of the minority and poor communities that didn't have access to purchase their own homes.
Wrong. The only one that can rate securities is the federal government, and our federal government gave those bad securities a triple A rating.
If you wish to make a loan and sell it on the market, you have to abide to federal requirements. Prime loans are excluded since prime loans are loans where the bank uses their own money. But subprime loans are under the regulation of F & F which are under the supervision of HUD who creates the regulations.
Banks made a killing on processing the loans. They could care less about the security of the loans since they were not keeping them anyway. Those loans were going to be sold off. If you were running a bank at the time, you could either get in on the action or be totally left out as your competitors raked in all the money.
As you stated, many got in on the action, but the action started by reducing regulations on home purchases aimed at pleasing the minority communities that often complained about discrimination in loan practices. It had nothing to do with race, it had to do with savings, credit history, and ability to repay the loan--requirements that many blacks didn't meet.
And again, they couldn't write loan practices specifically for certain race of people. Those lowered guidelines were for everybody regardless who you were. I was a victim of all this as two of my best tenants left here because they both purchased homes with 0% down and no credit check. Both were working and made a decent living, but both were also very extended on their credit. One had a car payment, a motorcycle payment, and a new camper that cost him over $30,000. The other had two new cars for he and his wife, and they didn't even own their own television set. They rented it.
I warned both about what was going to happen, but they assumed I was looking out for my own best interest and went ahead and purchased their homes. A few years later, both regretted their decision and openly said they wished they would have listened to me in the first place.
Bond Rating Agencies
I agree, Fannie and Freddie regulate subprimes and they do establish the criteria for those loans. Fannie and Freddie purchase home loans made by private firms (provided the loans meet strict size, credit, and underwriting standards), package those loans into mortgage-backed securities, and guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on those securities to outside investors. This has been the primary purpose of F&F for many years, long before the housing bubble.
Contrary to conservative talking points, F&F played a very small part in inflating the housing bubble. During the bubble, loan originators backed by Wall Street capital began operating beyond the Fannie and Freddie system that had been working for decades by peddling large quantities of high-risk subprime mortgages with terms and features that drastically increased the chance of default. Many of those loans were predatory products such as hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages with balloon payments that required serial refinancing, or negative amortization, mortgages that increased the unpaid balance over time.
Wall Street firms packaged these high-risk loans into securities, got the credit-rating agencies to bless them, and then passed them along to investors, who were often unaware or misinformed of the underlying risks. It was the poor performance of the loans in these “private-label” securities—those not owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie—that led to the financial meltdown, according to the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, among other independent researchers.
In fact, Fannie and Freddie lost market share as the bubble grew: The companies backed roughly half of all home-loan originations in 2002 but just 30 percent in 2005 and 2006.
However, in late 2006 and 2007 F&F made some tragic mistakes. Attempting to keep the bubble from bursting, they began increasing their buying of subprime securities and increasing leverage on what they mistakenly believed to be low risk loans. This not only did little or nothing to prevent the bust but created huge losses which led to the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie.
Wall Street firms were able to do this because there was no regulation nor supporting legislation that prevented them from doing so. The goverment regulation on F&F did not cover Wall Street because the regulations were designed to protect the government from loses due to F&F operation. I suppose no one ever thought Wall Street would jump into the subprime mortgage business.
7 Things You Need to Know About Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – Center for American Progress
Assuming you mean stocks and bonds, the federal government does not rate them. Moody's, Standard & Poor, and Finch are the three primary security rating services. They are not part of the government but private businesses that sell their service.There were a lot of culprits in the crash. The Bush administration like the Clinton administration pushed for more home ownership which led to the lowering of credit requirements by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's popular to make the government the sole culprit but remember it wasn't government that actually made those risky loans and it wasn't government that sold those loans to Wall Street Banks and it wasn't government that packaged those loans into collateral packages in a manner that credit worthiness could not be determined, and it wasn't government that used those packages as collateral for bonds to be sold by the top names on Wall Street. And it wasn't government that sold or bought that crap or gave it AAA bond ratings. There was plenty of blame to go around.That is the popular explanation of the housing crash. However, the evidence does not support the conclusion.I may be biased but I know I did better under Bush as most people did. It was a booming economy not only in wages, but in confidence as well. There was just a good feeling around when he was President.
The housing crash was due to government getting involved in the banks business, particularly giving homes to the poor and minorities who had no business owning them. No money down and no credit check is what caused the collapse. Too many home buyers created a huge bubble. The bigger the bubble, the bigger the burst.
There was a rapid expansion in overall mortgage origination during the time period, but the fraction of new mortgage dollars going to each income group was stable. In other words, the poor did not represent a higher fraction of the mortgage loans originated over the period. In addition, borrowers in the middle and top of the distribution are the ones that contributed most significantly to the increase in mortgages in default after 2007. Taken together, the evidence suggests that there was no decoupling of mortgage growth from income growth where unsustainable credit was flowing dis-proportionally to poor people.
Loan Originations and Defaults in the Mortgage Crisis: The Role of the Middle Class
Correct. It's called Hopping On The Bandwagon.
With low interest rates and housing purchase on the increase, it created the same as any supply and demand situation. The higher the demand, the higher the price.
House flipping was on the rise, prices kept getting higher and higher. People were making money hand over fist. Houses and even developments were being built without one buyer in mind.
When the government makes regulation, they can't make it for a specific group of people even if that's the group of people they had in mind. Weak lending practices set forth by the government applied to all, including real estate tycoons.
But you can't look at the middle of the problem nor the end to say what the problem was. You have to look at where the problem started, and the problem started by creating such weak standards for home loans due to the outcry of the minority and poor communities that didn't have access to purchase their own homes.
Wrong. The only one that can rate securities is the federal government, and our federal government gave those bad securities a triple A rating.
If you wish to make a loan and sell it on the market, you have to abide to federal requirements. Prime loans are excluded since prime loans are loans where the bank uses their own money. But subprime loans are under the regulation of F & F which are under the supervision of HUD who creates the regulations.
Banks made a killing on processing the loans. They could care less about the security of the loans since they were not keeping them anyway. Those loans were going to be sold off. If you were running a bank at the time, you could either get in on the action or be totally left out as your competitors raked in all the money.
As you stated, many got in on the action, but the action started by reducing regulations on home purchases aimed at pleasing the minority communities that often complained about discrimination in loan practices. It had nothing to do with race, it had to do with savings, credit history, and ability to repay the loan--requirements that many blacks didn't meet.
And again, they couldn't write loan practices specifically for certain race of people. Those lowered guidelines were for everybody regardless who you were. I was a victim of all this as two of my best tenants left here because they both purchased homes with 0% down and no credit check. Both were working and made a decent living, but both were also very extended on their credit. One had a car payment, a motorcycle payment, and a new camper that cost him over $30,000. The other had two new cars for he and his wife, and they didn't even own their own television set. They rented it.
I warned both about what was going to happen, but they assumed I was looking out for my own best interest and went ahead and purchased their homes. A few years later, both regretted their decision and openly said they wished they would have listened to me in the first place.
Bond Rating Agencies
I agree, Fannie and Freddie regulate subprimes and they do establish the criteria for those loans. Fannie and Freddie purchase home loans made by private firms (provided the loans meet strict size, credit, and underwriting standards), package those loans into mortgage-backed securities, and guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on those securities to outside investors. This has been the primary purpose of F&F for many years, long before the housing bubble.
Contrary to conservative talking points, F&F played a very small part in inflating the housing bubble. During the bubble, loan originators backed by Wall Street capital began operating beyond the Fannie and Freddie system that had been working for decades by peddling large quantities of high-risk subprime mortgages with terms and features that drastically increased the chance of default. Many of those loans were predatory products such as hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages with balloon payments that required serial refinancing, or negative amortization, mortgages that increased the unpaid balance over time.
Wall Street firms packaged these high-risk loans into securities, got the credit-rating agencies to bless them, and then passed them along to investors, who were often unaware or misinformed of the underlying risks. It was the poor performance of the loans in these “private-label” securities—those not owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie—that led to the financial meltdown, according to the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, among other independent researchers.
In fact, Fannie and Freddie lost market share as the bubble grew: The companies backed roughly half of all home-loan originations in 2002 but just 30 percent in 2005 and 2006.
However, in late 2006 and 2007 F&F made some tragic mistakes. Attempting to keep the bubble from bursting, they began increasing their buying of subprime securities and increasing leverage on what they mistakenly believed to be low risk loans. This not only did little or nothing to prevent the bust but created huge losses which led to the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie.
Wall Street firms were able to do this because there was no regulation nor supporting legislation that prevented them from doing so. The goverment regulation on F&F did not cover Wall Street because the regulations were designed to protect the government from loses due to F&F operation. I suppose no one ever thought Wall Street would jump into the subprime mortgage business.
7 Things You Need to Know About Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – Center for American Progress
Meanwhile Barney Frank and Dodd PREVENTED Bush from doing anything about it in Congress 3 TIMES. In fact Barney Frank went on national TV just before the crash and announced that the Housing Market was sound and in no danger what so ever EXCEPT from regulations that were proposed by Bush and the Republicans.Assuming you mean stocks and bonds, the federal government does not rate them. Moody's, Standard & Poor, and Finch are the three primary security rating services. They are not part of the government but private businesses that sell their service.There were a lot of culprits in the crash. The Bush administration like the Clinton administration pushed for more home ownership which led to the lowering of credit requirements by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's popular to make the government the sole culprit but remember it wasn't government that actually made those risky loans and it wasn't government that sold those loans to Wall Street Banks and it wasn't government that packaged those loans into collateral packages in a manner that credit worthiness could not be determined, and it wasn't government that used those packages as collateral for bonds to be sold by the top names on Wall Street. And it wasn't government that sold or bought that crap or gave it AAA bond ratings. There was plenty of blame to go around.That is the popular explanation of the housing crash. However, the evidence does not support the conclusion.
There was a rapid expansion in overall mortgage origination during the time period, but the fraction of new mortgage dollars going to each income group was stable. In other words, the poor did not represent a higher fraction of the mortgage loans originated over the period. In addition, borrowers in the middle and top of the distribution are the ones that contributed most significantly to the increase in mortgages in default after 2007. Taken together, the evidence suggests that there was no decoupling of mortgage growth from income growth where unsustainable credit was flowing dis-proportionally to poor people.
Loan Originations and Defaults in the Mortgage Crisis: The Role of the Middle Class
Correct. It's called Hopping On The Bandwagon.
With low interest rates and housing purchase on the increase, it created the same as any supply and demand situation. The higher the demand, the higher the price.
House flipping was on the rise, prices kept getting higher and higher. People were making money hand over fist. Houses and even developments were being built without one buyer in mind.
When the government makes regulation, they can't make it for a specific group of people even if that's the group of people they had in mind. Weak lending practices set forth by the government applied to all, including real estate tycoons.
But you can't look at the middle of the problem nor the end to say what the problem was. You have to look at where the problem started, and the problem started by creating such weak standards for home loans due to the outcry of the minority and poor communities that didn't have access to purchase their own homes.
Wrong. The only one that can rate securities is the federal government, and our federal government gave those bad securities a triple A rating.
If you wish to make a loan and sell it on the market, you have to abide to federal requirements. Prime loans are excluded since prime loans are loans where the bank uses their own money. But subprime loans are under the regulation of F & F which are under the supervision of HUD who creates the regulations.
Banks made a killing on processing the loans. They could care less about the security of the loans since they were not keeping them anyway. Those loans were going to be sold off. If you were running a bank at the time, you could either get in on the action or be totally left out as your competitors raked in all the money.
As you stated, many got in on the action, but the action started by reducing regulations on home purchases aimed at pleasing the minority communities that often complained about discrimination in loan practices. It had nothing to do with race, it had to do with savings, credit history, and ability to repay the loan--requirements that many blacks didn't meet.
And again, they couldn't write loan practices specifically for certain race of people. Those lowered guidelines were for everybody regardless who you were. I was a victim of all this as two of my best tenants left here because they both purchased homes with 0% down and no credit check. Both were working and made a decent living, but both were also very extended on their credit. One had a car payment, a motorcycle payment, and a new camper that cost him over $30,000. The other had two new cars for he and his wife, and they didn't even own their own television set. They rented it.
I warned both about what was going to happen, but they assumed I was looking out for my own best interest and went ahead and purchased their homes. A few years later, both regretted their decision and openly said they wished they would have listened to me in the first place.
Bond Rating Agencies
I agree, Fannie and Freddie regulate subprimes and they do establish the criteria for those loans. Fannie and Freddie purchase home loans made by private firms (provided the loans meet strict size, credit, and underwriting standards), package those loans into mortgage-backed securities, and guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on those securities to outside investors. This has been the primary purpose of F&F for many years, long before the housing bubble.
Contrary to conservative talking points, F&F played a very small part in inflating the housing bubble. During the bubble, loan originators backed by Wall Street capital began operating beyond the Fannie and Freddie system that had been working for decades by peddling large quantities of high-risk subprime mortgages with terms and features that drastically increased the chance of default. Many of those loans were predatory products such as hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages with balloon payments that required serial refinancing, or negative amortization, mortgages that increased the unpaid balance over time.
Wall Street firms packaged these high-risk loans into securities, got the credit-rating agencies to bless them, and then passed them along to investors, who were often unaware or misinformed of the underlying risks. It was the poor performance of the loans in these “private-label” securities—those not owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie—that led to the financial meltdown, according to the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, among other independent researchers.
In fact, Fannie and Freddie lost market share as the bubble grew: The companies backed roughly half of all home-loan originations in 2002 but just 30 percent in 2005 and 2006.
However, in late 2006 and 2007 F&F made some tragic mistakes. Attempting to keep the bubble from bursting, they began increasing their buying of subprime securities and increasing leverage on what they mistakenly believed to be low risk loans. This not only did little or nothing to prevent the bust but created huge losses which led to the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie.
Wall Street firms were able to do this because there was no regulation nor supporting legislation that prevented them from doing so. The goverment regulation on F&F did not cover Wall Street because the regulations were designed to protect the government from loses due to F&F operation. I suppose no one ever thought Wall Street would jump into the subprime mortgage business.
7 Things You Need to Know About Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – Center for American Progress
You are all stupid and wrong. There was a tranny in this school. Everyone liked her and she used the woman's bathroom. No one cared. Then some boy moved to the school and his grandfather is a big homophobes Christian and caused trouble so now they have a gender neutral bathroom all because the cock sucker jesusNot true. The truth is telling a tranny she has to use the men's bathroom is a joke. Only right wing wackos don't get that
There is no "she" here. There is a guy in a dress, but no she. She is one who can naturally give birth to a baby.
Meanwhile Barney Frank and Dodd PREVENTED Bush from doing anything about it in Congress 3 TIMES. In fact Barney Frank went on national TV just before the crash and announced that the Housing Market was sound and in no danger what so ever EXCEPT from regulations that were proposed by Bush and the Republicans.Assuming you mean stocks and bonds, the federal government does not rate them. Moody's, Standard & Poor, and Finch are the three primary security rating services. They are not part of the government but private businesses that sell their service.There were a lot of culprits in the crash. The Bush administration like the Clinton administration pushed for more home ownership which led to the lowering of credit requirements by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's popular to make the government the sole culprit but remember it wasn't government that actually made those risky loans and it wasn't government that sold those loans to Wall Street Banks and it wasn't government that packaged those loans into collateral packages in a manner that credit worthiness could not be determined, and it wasn't government that used those packages as collateral for bonds to be sold by the top names on Wall Street. And it wasn't government that sold or bought that crap or gave it AAA bond ratings. There was plenty of blame to go around.Correct. It's called Hopping On The Bandwagon.
With low interest rates and housing purchase on the increase, it created the same as any supply and demand situation. The higher the demand, the higher the price.
House flipping was on the rise, prices kept getting higher and higher. People were making money hand over fist. Houses and even developments were being built without one buyer in mind.
When the government makes regulation, they can't make it for a specific group of people even if that's the group of people they had in mind. Weak lending practices set forth by the government applied to all, including real estate tycoons.
But you can't look at the middle of the problem nor the end to say what the problem was. You have to look at where the problem started, and the problem started by creating such weak standards for home loans due to the outcry of the minority and poor communities that didn't have access to purchase their own homes.
Wrong. The only one that can rate securities is the federal government, and our federal government gave those bad securities a triple A rating.
If you wish to make a loan and sell it on the market, you have to abide to federal requirements. Prime loans are excluded since prime loans are loans where the bank uses their own money. But subprime loans are under the regulation of F & F which are under the supervision of HUD who creates the regulations.
Banks made a killing on processing the loans. They could care less about the security of the loans since they were not keeping them anyway. Those loans were going to be sold off. If you were running a bank at the time, you could either get in on the action or be totally left out as your competitors raked in all the money.
As you stated, many got in on the action, but the action started by reducing regulations on home purchases aimed at pleasing the minority communities that often complained about discrimination in loan practices. It had nothing to do with race, it had to do with savings, credit history, and ability to repay the loan--requirements that many blacks didn't meet.
And again, they couldn't write loan practices specifically for certain race of people. Those lowered guidelines were for everybody regardless who you were. I was a victim of all this as two of my best tenants left here because they both purchased homes with 0% down and no credit check. Both were working and made a decent living, but both were also very extended on their credit. One had a car payment, a motorcycle payment, and a new camper that cost him over $30,000. The other had two new cars for he and his wife, and they didn't even own their own television set. They rented it.
I warned both about what was going to happen, but they assumed I was looking out for my own best interest and went ahead and purchased their homes. A few years later, both regretted their decision and openly said they wished they would have listened to me in the first place.
Bond Rating Agencies
I agree, Fannie and Freddie regulate subprimes and they do establish the criteria for those loans. Fannie and Freddie purchase home loans made by private firms (provided the loans meet strict size, credit, and underwriting standards), package those loans into mortgage-backed securities, and guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on those securities to outside investors. This has been the primary purpose of F&F for many years, long before the housing bubble.
Contrary to conservative talking points, F&F played a very small part in inflating the housing bubble. During the bubble, loan originators backed by Wall Street capital began operating beyond the Fannie and Freddie system that had been working for decades by peddling large quantities of high-risk subprime mortgages with terms and features that drastically increased the chance of default. Many of those loans were predatory products such as hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages with balloon payments that required serial refinancing, or negative amortization, mortgages that increased the unpaid balance over time.
Wall Street firms packaged these high-risk loans into securities, got the credit-rating agencies to bless them, and then passed them along to investors, who were often unaware or misinformed of the underlying risks. It was the poor performance of the loans in these “private-label” securities—those not owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie—that led to the financial meltdown, according to the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, among other independent researchers.
In fact, Fannie and Freddie lost market share as the bubble grew: The companies backed roughly half of all home-loan originations in 2002 but just 30 percent in 2005 and 2006.
However, in late 2006 and 2007 F&F made some tragic mistakes. Attempting to keep the bubble from bursting, they began increasing their buying of subprime securities and increasing leverage on what they mistakenly believed to be low risk loans. This not only did little or nothing to prevent the bust but created huge losses which led to the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie.
Wall Street firms were able to do this because there was no regulation nor supporting legislation that prevented them from doing so. The goverment regulation on F&F did not cover Wall Street because the regulations were designed to protect the government from loses due to F&F operation. I suppose no one ever thought Wall Street would jump into the subprime mortgage business.
7 Things You Need to Know About Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – Center for American Progress
Here is a video showing Democrats fighting Republicans about starting an oversight committee for F & F before the crash:
Went right over your headObama wanted what was best for the country....so has every other PresidentDisgusting that you hold Trump up as the equivalent of PutinSo you think Russia has to be our perpetual enemy? That we have nothing in common? That we should never work with them? That the cold war should be restarted?
Have you been to Russia? Do you know any Russian people? I have and do. They are just like us, have the same wants and desires. Putin is a leader who wants what it best for his country. In a few weeks we will also have such a leader. There is no reason why they cannot find common ground. No one trusted or respected Obama, he made the world a much more dangerous place. Peace through strength works.
equivalent is your word not mine. Putin is a KGB thug. Trump is a successful American businessman. There is no equivalency there. The equivalency is in that they both want what is best for their country. If we automatically make Russia an enemy rather than trying to find common ground with them, everyone loses.
We do not have to agree with a leader in order to work with him. The idea that we have to force our beliefs and culture on the rest of the world is one of the reasons we are so screwed up right now, and the reason for many of our stupid wasteful wars.
You are just too partisan to recognize it
So, creating racial unrest and tension was good for the country? Doubling the debt was good for the country? Denigrating cops and military was good for the country? Obozocare was good for the country? Cancelling the national day of prayer and holding a muslim prayer day was good for the country? Lying about Benghazi was good for the country?
YOU, are the one who is too partisan to see the truth.
Meanwhile Barney Frank and Dodd PREVENTED Bush from doing anything about it in Congress 3 TIMES. In fact Barney Frank went on national TV just before the crash and announced that the Housing Market was sound and in no danger what so ever EXCEPT from regulations that were proposed by Bush and the Republicans.Assuming you mean stocks and bonds, the federal government does not rate them. Moody's, Standard & Poor, and Finch are the three primary security rating services. They are not part of the government but private businesses that sell their service.There were a lot of culprits in the crash. The Bush administration like the Clinton administration pushed for more home ownership which led to the lowering of credit requirements by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's popular to make the government the sole culprit but remember it wasn't government that actually made those risky loans and it wasn't government that sold those loans to Wall Street Banks and it wasn't government that packaged those loans into collateral packages in a manner that credit worthiness could not be determined, and it wasn't government that used those packages as collateral for bonds to be sold by the top names on Wall Street. And it wasn't government that sold or bought that crap or gave it AAA bond ratings. There was plenty of blame to go around.
Wrong. The only one that can rate securities is the federal government, and our federal government gave those bad securities a triple A rating.
If you wish to make a loan and sell it on the market, you have to abide to federal requirements. Prime loans are excluded since prime loans are loans where the bank uses their own money. But subprime loans are under the regulation of F & F which are under the supervision of HUD who creates the regulations.
Banks made a killing on processing the loans. They could care less about the security of the loans since they were not keeping them anyway. Those loans were going to be sold off. If you were running a bank at the time, you could either get in on the action or be totally left out as your competitors raked in all the money.
As you stated, many got in on the action, but the action started by reducing regulations on home purchases aimed at pleasing the minority communities that often complained about discrimination in loan practices. It had nothing to do with race, it had to do with savings, credit history, and ability to repay the loan--requirements that many blacks didn't meet.
And again, they couldn't write loan practices specifically for certain race of people. Those lowered guidelines were for everybody regardless who you were. I was a victim of all this as two of my best tenants left here because they both purchased homes with 0% down and no credit check. Both were working and made a decent living, but both were also very extended on their credit. One had a car payment, a motorcycle payment, and a new camper that cost him over $30,000. The other had two new cars for he and his wife, and they didn't even own their own television set. They rented it.
I warned both about what was going to happen, but they assumed I was looking out for my own best interest and went ahead and purchased their homes. A few years later, both regretted their decision and openly said they wished they would have listened to me in the first place.
Bond Rating Agencies
I agree, Fannie and Freddie regulate subprimes and they do establish the criteria for those loans. Fannie and Freddie purchase home loans made by private firms (provided the loans meet strict size, credit, and underwriting standards), package those loans into mortgage-backed securities, and guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on those securities to outside investors. This has been the primary purpose of F&F for many years, long before the housing bubble.
Contrary to conservative talking points, F&F played a very small part in inflating the housing bubble. During the bubble, loan originators backed by Wall Street capital began operating beyond the Fannie and Freddie system that had been working for decades by peddling large quantities of high-risk subprime mortgages with terms and features that drastically increased the chance of default. Many of those loans were predatory products such as hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages with balloon payments that required serial refinancing, or negative amortization, mortgages that increased the unpaid balance over time.
Wall Street firms packaged these high-risk loans into securities, got the credit-rating agencies to bless them, and then passed them along to investors, who were often unaware or misinformed of the underlying risks. It was the poor performance of the loans in these “private-label” securities—those not owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie—that led to the financial meltdown, according to the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, among other independent researchers.
In fact, Fannie and Freddie lost market share as the bubble grew: The companies backed roughly half of all home-loan originations in 2002 but just 30 percent in 2005 and 2006.
However, in late 2006 and 2007 F&F made some tragic mistakes. Attempting to keep the bubble from bursting, they began increasing their buying of subprime securities and increasing leverage on what they mistakenly believed to be low risk loans. This not only did little or nothing to prevent the bust but created huge losses which led to the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie.
Wall Street firms were able to do this because there was no regulation nor supporting legislation that prevented them from doing so. The goverment regulation on F&F did not cover Wall Street because the regulations were designed to protect the government from loses due to F&F operation. I suppose no one ever thought Wall Street would jump into the subprime mortgage business.
7 Things You Need to Know About Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – Center for American Progress
Here is a video showing Democrats fighting Republicans about starting an oversight committee for F & F before the crash:
Republicans were in charge of the executive branch and both chambers in the legislative branch. They failed to create such an oversight committee which could have staved off the crash.
Meanwhile Barney Frank and Dodd PREVENTED Bush from doing anything about it in Congress 3 TIMES. In fact Barney Frank went on national TV just before the crash and announced that the Housing Market was sound and in no danger what so ever EXCEPT from regulations that were proposed by Bush and the Republicans.Assuming you mean stocks and bonds, the federal government does not rate them. Moody's, Standard & Poor, and Finch are the three primary security rating services. They are not part of the government but private businesses that sell their service.Wrong. The only one that can rate securities is the federal government, and our federal government gave those bad securities a triple A rating.
If you wish to make a loan and sell it on the market, you have to abide to federal requirements. Prime loans are excluded since prime loans are loans where the bank uses their own money. But subprime loans are under the regulation of F & F which are under the supervision of HUD who creates the regulations.
Banks made a killing on processing the loans. They could care less about the security of the loans since they were not keeping them anyway. Those loans were going to be sold off. If you were running a bank at the time, you could either get in on the action or be totally left out as your competitors raked in all the money.
As you stated, many got in on the action, but the action started by reducing regulations on home purchases aimed at pleasing the minority communities that often complained about discrimination in loan practices. It had nothing to do with race, it had to do with savings, credit history, and ability to repay the loan--requirements that many blacks didn't meet.
And again, they couldn't write loan practices specifically for certain race of people. Those lowered guidelines were for everybody regardless who you were. I was a victim of all this as two of my best tenants left here because they both purchased homes with 0% down and no credit check. Both were working and made a decent living, but both were also very extended on their credit. One had a car payment, a motorcycle payment, and a new camper that cost him over $30,000. The other had two new cars for he and his wife, and they didn't even own their own television set. They rented it.
I warned both about what was going to happen, but they assumed I was looking out for my own best interest and went ahead and purchased their homes. A few years later, both regretted their decision and openly said they wished they would have listened to me in the first place.
Bond Rating Agencies
I agree, Fannie and Freddie regulate subprimes and they do establish the criteria for those loans. Fannie and Freddie purchase home loans made by private firms (provided the loans meet strict size, credit, and underwriting standards), package those loans into mortgage-backed securities, and guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on those securities to outside investors. This has been the primary purpose of F&F for many years, long before the housing bubble.
Contrary to conservative talking points, F&F played a very small part in inflating the housing bubble. During the bubble, loan originators backed by Wall Street capital began operating beyond the Fannie and Freddie system that had been working for decades by peddling large quantities of high-risk subprime mortgages with terms and features that drastically increased the chance of default. Many of those loans were predatory products such as hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages with balloon payments that required serial refinancing, or negative amortization, mortgages that increased the unpaid balance over time.
Wall Street firms packaged these high-risk loans into securities, got the credit-rating agencies to bless them, and then passed them along to investors, who were often unaware or misinformed of the underlying risks. It was the poor performance of the loans in these “private-label” securities—those not owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie—that led to the financial meltdown, according to the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, among other independent researchers.
In fact, Fannie and Freddie lost market share as the bubble grew: The companies backed roughly half of all home-loan originations in 2002 but just 30 percent in 2005 and 2006.
However, in late 2006 and 2007 F&F made some tragic mistakes. Attempting to keep the bubble from bursting, they began increasing their buying of subprime securities and increasing leverage on what they mistakenly believed to be low risk loans. This not only did little or nothing to prevent the bust but created huge losses which led to the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie.
Wall Street firms were able to do this because there was no regulation nor supporting legislation that prevented them from doing so. The goverment regulation on F&F did not cover Wall Street because the regulations were designed to protect the government from loses due to F&F operation. I suppose no one ever thought Wall Street would jump into the subprime mortgage business.
7 Things You Need to Know About Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – Center for American Progress
Here is a video showing Democrats fighting Republicans about starting an oversight committee for F & F before the crash:
Republicans were in charge of the executive branch and both chambers in the legislative branch. They failed to create such an oversight committee which could have staved off the crash.
there was no crash in 2008, the "great recession of 2008" is a figment of dem/lib imagination. It was a market correction brought on by terrible mortgage policies.
. This post could possibly seal your fate on any serious poster listening or responding to your crazy anymore (unless maybe they like needling you or agitating you). Libs are their own worst enemy, and post like this could easily prove that fact once again. Good grief..You are all stupid and wrong. There was a tranny in this school. Everyone liked her and she used the woman's bathroom. No one cared. Then some boy moved to the school and his grandfather is a big homophobes Christian and caused trouble so now they have a gender neutral bathroom all because the cock sucker jesusNot true. The truth is telling a tranny she has to use the men's bathroom is a joke. Only right wing wackos don't get that
There is no "she" here. There is a guy in a dress, but no she. She is one who can naturally give birth to a baby.
. This post could possibly seal your fate on any serious poster listening or responding to your crazy anymore (unless maybe they like needling you or agitating you). Libs are their own worst enemy, and post like this could easily prove that fact once again. Good grief..You are all stupid and wrong. There was a tranny in this school. Everyone liked her and she used the woman's bathroom. No one cared. Then some boy moved to the school and his grandfather is a big homophobes Christian and caused trouble so now they have a gender neutral bathroom all because the cock sucker jesusNot true. The truth is telling a tranny she has to use the men's bathroom is a joke. Only right wing wackos don't get that
There is no "she" here. There is a guy in a dress, but no she. She is one who can naturally give birth to a baby.
. This post could possibly seal your fate on any serious poster listening or responding to your crazy anymore (unless maybe they like needling you or agitating you). Libs are their own worst enemy, and post like this could easily prove that fact once again. Good grief..You are all stupid and wrong. There was a tranny in this school. Everyone liked her and she used the woman's bathroom. No one cared. Then some boy moved to the school and his grandfather is a big homophobes Christian and caused trouble so now they have a gender neutral bathroom all because the cock sucker jesusNot true. The truth is telling a tranny she has to use the men's bathroom is a joke. Only right wing wackos don't get that
There is no "she" here. There is a guy in a dress, but no she. She is one who can naturally give birth to a baby.
Example?Went right over your headObama wanted what was best for the country....so has every other PresidentDisgusting that you hold Trump up as the equivalent of Putin
equivalent is your word not mine. Putin is a KGB thug. Trump is a successful American businessman. There is no equivalency there. The equivalency is in that they both want what is best for their country. If we automatically make Russia an enemy rather than trying to find common ground with them, everyone loses.
We do not have to agree with a leader in order to work with him. The idea that we have to force our beliefs and culture on the rest of the world is one of the reasons we are so screwed up right now, and the reason for many of our stupid wasteful wars.
You are just too partisan to recognize it
So, creating racial unrest and tension was good for the country? Doubling the debt was good for the country? Denigrating cops and military was good for the country? Obozocare was good for the country? Cancelling the national day of prayer and holding a muslim prayer day was good for the country? Lying about Benghazi was good for the country?
YOU, are the one who is too partisan to see the truth.
not at all, I fully understand your foolish worship of Obama the great Kenyan messiah. I get it. But what he did during the last four years completely disproves your claim that he wanted whats best for the country.
. Payback is hell isn't it ??? Take your same post and apply "until that athiest walked in the door complaining about the pledge of allegiance" or that mom showed up saying kick ball has got to go because her little Johnny cried in front of the kids because he couldn't kick the ball for a score or that one parent and their kid who was offended because they are anti-democracy, anti-jewish, anti-religion, anti-straight, anti-legal immigration, anti-mooooslim (your words against the muslims) or that one kid wanting the entire curriculum changed because of a problem he or she has with it. On and on it goes, but how dare the conservatives take a stand against anything you lefties want to change or take away from them huh ?. This post could possibly seal your fate on any serious poster listening or responding to your crazy anymore (unless maybe they like needling you or agitating you). Libs are their own worst enemy, and post like this could easily prove that fact once again. Good grief..You are all stupid and wrong. There was a tranny in this school. Everyone liked her and she used the woman's bathroom. No one cared. Then some boy moved to the school and his grandfather is a big homophobes Christian and caused trouble so now they have a gender neutral bathroom all because the cock sucker jesusNot true. The truth is telling a tranny she has to use the men's bathroom is a joke. Only right wing wackos don't get that
There is no "she" here. There is a guy in a dress, but no she. She is one who can naturally give birth to a baby.
But it's true. The little boys didn't pick on him/her. The little girls didn't mind he/she was using the girls bathroom. She/he was invited to girl sleepovers. So clearly the kids and parents were ok with it.
Until some religious asshole's kid moved in and he told his grandpappy what was going on and that asshole threatened to sue.
It is you religious people who are the problem. When you realize the god your ancestors invented was invented by your asshole religious ancestors, maybe you'll wake up. You remind me of your ugly cousins the mooslims.
Huh ??? What are you responding to, and what kind of post is that supposed to refer to ?? Ohh your saying that she is now a he.. 10 years old huh ?? Like I said before, the left are discriminating against Tom boy's (girls) who do love boys, want a boy friend, want to get married to a guy etc. but just because they might show some kind of male tendencies early on like wanting to go hunting (i.e.Sarah Palin if we're a little person in the senario), well then the left figures that the little person had best be hurried or whisked on down to the clinic in order to get that badly needed sex change or they are going to live a life of pure hell forever if they don't eh ??? Wow.. This post could possibly seal your fate on any serious poster listening or responding to your crazy anymore (unless maybe they like needling you or agitating you). Libs are their own worst enemy, and post like this could easily prove that fact once again. Good grief..You are all stupid and wrong. There was a tranny in this school. Everyone liked her and she used the woman's bathroom. No one cared. Then some boy moved to the school and his grandfather is a big homophobes Christian and caused trouble so now they have a gender neutral bathroom all because the cock sucker jesusNot true. The truth is telling a tranny she has to use the men's bathroom is a joke. Only right wing wackos don't get that
There is no "she" here. There is a guy in a dress, but no she. She is one who can naturally give birth to a baby.
Benjamin Elder, 10, showing his his bedroom in Friendswood, Texas Tuesday, June 7, 2016. Michael Stravato for The Texas Tribune
That's a boy now dude.
Meanwhile Barney Frank and Dodd PREVENTED Bush from doing anything about it in Congress 3 TIMES. In fact Barney Frank went on national TV just before the crash and announced that the Housing Market was sound and in no danger what so ever EXCEPT from regulations that were proposed by Bush and the Republicans.Assuming you mean stocks and bonds, the federal government does not rate them. Moody's, Standard & Poor, and Finch are the three primary security rating services. They are not part of the government but private businesses that sell their service.
Bond Rating Agencies
I agree, Fannie and Freddie regulate subprimes and they do establish the criteria for those loans. Fannie and Freddie purchase home loans made by private firms (provided the loans meet strict size, credit, and underwriting standards), package those loans into mortgage-backed securities, and guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on those securities to outside investors. This has been the primary purpose of F&F for many years, long before the housing bubble.
Contrary to conservative talking points, F&F played a very small part in inflating the housing bubble. During the bubble, loan originators backed by Wall Street capital began operating beyond the Fannie and Freddie system that had been working for decades by peddling large quantities of high-risk subprime mortgages with terms and features that drastically increased the chance of default. Many of those loans were predatory products such as hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages with balloon payments that required serial refinancing, or negative amortization, mortgages that increased the unpaid balance over time.
Wall Street firms packaged these high-risk loans into securities, got the credit-rating agencies to bless them, and then passed them along to investors, who were often unaware or misinformed of the underlying risks. It was the poor performance of the loans in these “private-label” securities—those not owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie—that led to the financial meltdown, according to the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, among other independent researchers.
In fact, Fannie and Freddie lost market share as the bubble grew: The companies backed roughly half of all home-loan originations in 2002 but just 30 percent in 2005 and 2006.
However, in late 2006 and 2007 F&F made some tragic mistakes. Attempting to keep the bubble from bursting, they began increasing their buying of subprime securities and increasing leverage on what they mistakenly believed to be low risk loans. This not only did little or nothing to prevent the bust but created huge losses which led to the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie.
Wall Street firms were able to do this because there was no regulation nor supporting legislation that prevented them from doing so. The goverment regulation on F&F did not cover Wall Street because the regulations were designed to protect the government from loses due to F&F operation. I suppose no one ever thought Wall Street would jump into the subprime mortgage business.
7 Things You Need to Know About Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – Center for American Progress
Here is a video showing Democrats fighting Republicans about starting an oversight committee for F & F before the crash:
Republicans were in charge of the executive branch and both chambers in the legislative branch. They failed to create such an oversight committee which could have staved off the crash.
there was no crash in 2008, the "great recession of 2008" is a figment of dem/lib imagination. It was a market correction brought on by terrible mortgage policies.
Does this mean you've finally found a single reputable economist who agrees with that nonsense or are you simply repeating your delusions again?
You refuse to post the definition of a Recession since it obliterates your hallucinations, how about posting a link to the definition of a market correction...? Do you have the stones to do that?
