Housing Starts Soar

[Dad2three]

Clinton? You mean that VERY small amount the HUD tried on a trial basis? AND? How did they perform? Gov't backed loans, even during Dubya's horrible subprime crisis performed 450%-600% % BETTER than loans backed by wall street. Weird right?> lol

Dumb dumb, FHA DPA was birthed by Clinton you dumbass fool in late '96 and continued until '08...

You have C&P'ed the same tired shit for months fool...

You have no clue what happened during this period moron...

Sub Prime lending was originally a 80% to 70% LTV usually 4 points over par, but you would have to know what you're talking about to understand dumb fuck...

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


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime


"The sub-prime loans would not have been made if there were not buyers and sellers for them on secondary markets via MBS's.

The MBS's would not have existed if regulators had taken a look at them, realized pretty much no one knew what the hell they were, and acted accordingly.

There would not have been buyers for the MBS's if the ratings agencies had given them appropriate ratings, such as S&P's CCC, about where they should have been.

Those selling the MBS's would not have been able to move risk off their books if someone not been willing to sell them CDS's."


WHO WAS IN CHARGE IN THIS PERIOD? WHO HAD THE SEC, FBI, GSE'S, ETC AS PART OF THEIR EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERSIGHT?


"The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence." William K. Black Sr. regulator during S&L debacle



“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.


FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times



Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005


The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.



"Those selling the CDS's would not have been able to sell them if they had been required by regulators to maintain standard insurance reserves."


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

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

It's all Bush's fault...

Got it...

Weird how we elect the GOPers who don't 'believe in' Gov't or the regulations/regulators and we see the Coolidge/Harding depression, the Reagan S&L crisis and then Dubyas's subprime crisis on their watches!


Again, the Bush Administration gutted the White Collar Crime Division after 911.

The bureau slashed its criminal investigative work force to expand its national security role after the Sept. 11 attacks, shifting more than 1,800 agents, or nearly one-third of all agents in criminal programs, to terrorism and intelligence duties. Prosecutions of frauds against financial institutions dropped 48 percent from 2000 to 2007, insurance fraud cases plummeted 75 percent, and securities fraud cases dropped 17 percent.
This is what less government can look like. So, mention this to your Ron Paul supporter friends, k? Without the help of FBI Whitecollar Investigators, the fraudsters are free to rampage.


More from the NYtimes:

During these years, the bureau asked for an increase of $800 million, but received only $50 million more. In the 2007 budget cycle, the F.B.I. obtained money for a total of one new agent for criminal investigations.


In 2004, one senior F.B.I. official, Chris Swecker, warned publicly that a flood of fraudulent mortgage deals had the potential to become “an epidemic.”
Yet the next year, as public warnings about fraud in the subprime lending markets began to approach their height, the F.B.I. had the equivalent of only 15 full-time agents devoted to mortgage fraud out of a total of some 13,000 agents in the bureau.


That number has grown to 177 agents, who have opened 1,522 cases. But the staffing level is still hundreds of agents below the levels seen in the 1980s during the savings and loan crisis.


Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:


Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005
The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The MBS's would not have existed if regulators had taken a look at them, realized pretty much no one knew what the hell they were, and acted accordingly.

yes dear the USSR and 132 other libcommie countries would have all succeeded too if only the regulators were Gods who knew everything.

See now why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

Nope, but YOU keep showing what a low info conservative really is, ignorant, dishonest and slow...

of course if true you would not be so afraid to present your reason. What does your fear teach you,liberal?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The MBS's would not have existed if regulators had taken a look at them, realized pretty much no one knew what the hell they were, and acted accordingly.

yes dear the USSR and 132 other libcommie countries would have all succeeded too if only the regulators were Gods who knew everything.

See now why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

Nope, but YOU keep showing what a low info conservative really is, ignorant, dishonest and slow...

of course if true you would not be so afraid to present your reason. What does your fear teach you,liberal?

Notice that it does not even occur to a liberal to have a reason, his feelings are enough.

 

[Dad2three]

The MBS's would not have existed if regulators had taken a look at them, realized pretty much no one knew what the hell they were, and acted accordingly.

yes dear the USSR and 132 other libcommie countries would have all succeeded too if only the regulators were Gods who knew everything.

See now why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

Nope, but YOU keep showing what a low info conservative really is, ignorant, dishonest and slow...

of course if true you would not be so afraid to present your reason. What does your fear teach you,liberal?

^^^see the ignorant one^^^


Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.

 

[GWV5903]

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.

The reality is CRA was instituted to force banks to lend in low income areas, are you able to refute that FACT???

No you are not...

What happens is morons over think and complicate life...

At this point you will C&P someone else's opinion because you're unable to express one, vacuums tend to be void of any mass...

 

[Dad2three]

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.

The reality is CRA was instituted to force banks to lend in low income areas, are you able to refute that FACT???

No you are not...

What happens is morons over think and complicate life...

At this point you will C&P someone else's opinion because you're unable to express one, vacuums tend to be void of any mass...

Really? CRA around since 1977 and with weakened enforcment under Dubya was the cause of this

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



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


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

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


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.
Most subprime lenders weren t subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



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 had little to do with the Subprime Crisis. Maybe less than 6% of all foreclosures since 2006.

 

[Dad2three]

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.

The reality is CRA was instituted to force banks to lend in low income areas, are you able to refute that FACT???

No you are not...

What happens is morons over think and complicate life...

At this point you will C&P someone else's opinion because you're unable to express one, vacuums tend to be void of any mass...

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.

Did a 31-year-old law giving poor people a break at the bank accidentally break the bank?

A lot of opinion leaders think so. From the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal to talk shows to the op-ed page of The Register, people are charging that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 forced banks to make bad loans, leading to financial Armageddon.

There's just one problem: It isn't true.

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.

Most subprime lenders weren t subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register

 

[GWV5903]

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.

The reality is CRA was instituted to force banks to lend in low income areas, are you able to refute that FACT???

No you are not...

What happens is morons over think and complicate life...

At this point you will C&P someone else's opinion because you're unable to express one, vacuums tend to be void of any mass...

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.

Did a 31-year-old law giving poor people a break at the bank accidentally break the bank?

A lot of opinion leaders think so. From the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal to talk shows to the op-ed page of The Register, people are charging that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 forced banks to make bad loans, leading to financial Armageddon.

There's just one problem: It isn't true.

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.

Most subprime lenders weren t subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.

The reality is CRA was instituted to force banks to lend in low income areas, are you able to refute that FACT???

No you are not...

What happens is morons over think and complicate life...

At this point you will C&P someone else's opinion because you're unable to express one, vacuums tend to be void of any mass...

Really? CRA around since 1977 and with weakened enforcment under Dubya was the cause of this

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



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


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

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


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.
Most subprime lenders weren t subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



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 had little to do with the Subprime Crisis. Maybe less than 6% of all foreclosures since 2006.

Your depth of this issue is limited to the same old tired C&P's...

CRA was and still is a test of banks lending in LMI communities...

Clinton opened the door and gave birth to FHA DPA, Zero Down, Zero Skin in the game mortgages, BTW this is a fact no one can dispute...

Because you have no real knowledge of this I understand your limited to the C&P rebuttals...

Here is a test for you, look up USDA Zero Down loans and tell me what the Census Tract population limit is for this loan to exist in suburban communities?

Who has repeatedly signed Executive Orders to forgo their limits?

Oh and BTW the changes to CRA in 1995 where significant, you need to do a little bit more on the research side...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality.

dear, the liberal reality is Plato, Hitler, Louis XV1,Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Obama, Tito, and FDR all of whom thought they had just the right regulatory scheme.

welcome to your ABC's

 

[Dad2three]

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.

The reality is CRA was instituted to force banks to lend in low income areas, are you able to refute that FACT???

No you are not...

What happens is morons over think and complicate life...

At this point you will C&P someone else's opinion because you're unable to express one, vacuums tend to be void of any mass...

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.

Did a 31-year-old law giving poor people a break at the bank accidentally break the bank?

A lot of opinion leaders think so. From the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal to talk shows to the op-ed page of The Register, people are charging that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 forced banks to make bad loans, leading to financial Armageddon.

There's just one problem: It isn't true.

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.

Most subprime lenders weren t subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.

The reality is CRA was instituted to force banks to lend in low income areas, are you able to refute that FACT???

No you are not...

What happens is morons over think and complicate life...

At this point you will C&P someone else's opinion because you're unable to express one, vacuums tend to be void of any mass...

Really? CRA around since 1977 and with weakened enforcment under Dubya was the cause of this

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



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


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

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


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.
Most subprime lenders weren t subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



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 had little to do with the Subprime Crisis. Maybe less than 6% of all foreclosures since 2006.

Your depth of this issue is limited to the same old tired C&P's...

CRA was and still is a test of banks lending in LMI communities...

Clinton opened the door and gave birth to FHA DPA, Zero Down, Zero Skin in the game mortgages, BTW this is a fact no one can dispute...

Because you have no real knowledge of this I understand your limited to the C&P rebuttals...

Here is a test for you, look up USDA Zero Down loans and tell me what the Census Tract population limit is for this loan to exist in suburban communities?

Who has repeatedly signed Executive Orders to forgo their limits?

Oh and BTW the changes to CRA in 1995 where significant, you need to do a little bit more on the research side...

Got it, the subprime bubble that had it's 3 year run when Dubya cheered on the Banksters AS they had a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST, was because of a 30+ year ol law that had weakened enforcement under Dubya and MUCH better performance under Clinton? lol

WING NUT

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

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

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



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


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

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



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

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

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

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


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.

CRA were less likely to default than Subprime Mortgages — Source: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

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.

The market share of financial institutions that were subject to the CRA has steadily declined since the legislation was passed in 1977. As noted by Abromowitz & Min, CRA-regulated institutions, primarily banks and thrifts, accounted for only 28 percent of all mortgages originated in 2006.

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

Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie.

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

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie.

yes all were counting on liberal govt regulation to bail them out if anything went wrong!

 

[Dad2three]

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.

The reality is CRA was instituted to force banks to lend in low income areas, are you able to refute that FACT???

No you are not...

What happens is morons over think and complicate life...

At this point you will C&P someone else's opinion because you're unable to express one, vacuums tend to be void of any mass...

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.

Did a 31-year-old law giving poor people a break at the bank accidentally break the bank?

A lot of opinion leaders think so. From the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal to talk shows to the op-ed page of The Register, people are charging that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 forced banks to make bad loans, leading to financial Armageddon.

There's just one problem: It isn't true.

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.

Most subprime lenders weren t subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.

The reality is CRA was instituted to force banks to lend in low income areas, are you able to refute that FACT???

No you are not...

What happens is morons over think and complicate life...

At this point you will C&P someone else's opinion because you're unable to express one, vacuums tend to be void of any mass...

Really? CRA around since 1977 and with weakened enforcment under Dubya was the cause of this

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



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


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

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


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.
Most subprime lenders weren t subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



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 had little to do with the Subprime Crisis. Maybe less than 6% of all foreclosures since 2006.

Your depth of this issue is limited to the same old tired C&P's...

CRA was and still is a test of banks lending in LMI communities...

Clinton opened the door and gave birth to FHA DPA, Zero Down, Zero Skin in the game mortgages, BTW this is a fact no one can dispute...

Because you have no real knowledge of this I understand your limited to the C&P rebuttals...

Here is a test for you, look up USDA Zero Down loans and tell me what the Census Tract population limit is for this loan to exist in suburban communities?

Who has repeatedly signed Executive Orders to forgo their limits?

Oh and BTW the changes to CRA in 1995 where significant, you need to do a little bit more on the research side...

Ellen Seidman formerly the director of the Office of Thrift Supervision,
points out that the surge in subprime lending occurred long after the enactment of the CRA, and that in 1999, regulators specifically issued guidance to banks imposing restraints on the riskiest forms of subprime lending.

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.

The reality is CRA was instituted to force banks to lend in low income areas, are you able to refute that FACT???

No you are not...

What happens is morons over think and complicate life...

At this point you will C&P someone else's opinion because you're unable to express one, vacuums tend to be void of any mass...

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.

Did a 31-year-old law giving poor people a break at the bank accidentally break the bank?

A lot of opinion leaders think so. From the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal to talk shows to the op-ed page of The Register, people are charging that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 forced banks to make bad loans, leading to financial Armageddon.

There's just one problem: It isn't true.

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.

Most subprime lenders weren t subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.

The reality is CRA was instituted to force banks to lend in low income areas, are you able to refute that FACT???

No you are not...

What happens is morons over think and complicate life...

At this point you will C&P someone else's opinion because you're unable to express one, vacuums tend to be void of any mass...

Really? CRA around since 1977 and with weakened enforcment under Dubya was the cause of this

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



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


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

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


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.
Most subprime lenders weren t subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



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 had little to do with the Subprime Crisis. Maybe less than 6% of all foreclosures since 2006.

Your depth of this issue is limited to the same old tired C&P's...

CRA was and still is a test of banks lending in LMI communities...

Clinton opened the door and gave birth to FHA DPA, Zero Down, Zero Skin in the game mortgages, BTW this is a fact no one can dispute...

Because you have no real knowledge of this I understand your limited to the C&P rebuttals...

Here is a test for you, look up USDA Zero Down loans and tell me what the Census Tract population limit is for this loan to exist in suburban communities?

Who has repeatedly signed Executive Orders to forgo their limits?

Oh and BTW the changes to CRA in 1995 where significant, you need to do a little bit more on the research side...

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.

The reality is CRA was instituted to force banks to lend in low income areas, are you able to refute that FACT???

No you are not...

What happens is morons over think and complicate life...

At this point you will C&P someone else's opinion because you're unable to express one, vacuums tend to be void of any mass...

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.

Did a 31-year-old law giving poor people a break at the bank accidentally break the bank?

A lot of opinion leaders think so. From the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal to talk shows to the op-ed page of The Register, people are charging that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 forced banks to make bad loans, leading to financial Armageddon.

There's just one problem: It isn't true.

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.

Most subprime lenders weren t subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.

The reality is CRA was instituted to force banks to lend in low income areas, are you able to refute that FACT???

No you are not...

What happens is morons over think and complicate life...

At this point you will C&P someone else's opinion because you're unable to express one, vacuums tend to be void of any mass...

Really? CRA around since 1977 and with weakened enforcment under Dubya was the cause of this

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



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


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

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


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.
Most subprime lenders weren t subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



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 had little to do with the Subprime Crisis. Maybe less than 6% of all foreclosures since 2006.

Your depth of this issue is limited to the same old tired C&P's...

CRA was and still is a test of banks lending in LMI communities...

Clinton opened the door and gave birth to FHA DPA, Zero Down, Zero Skin in the game mortgages, BTW this is a fact no one can dispute...

Because you have no real knowledge of this I understand your limited to the C&P rebuttals...

Here is a test for you, look up USDA Zero Down loans and tell me what the Census Tract population limit is for this loan to exist in suburban communities?

Who has repeatedly signed Executive Orders to forgo their limits?

Oh and BTW the changes to CRA in 1995 where significant, you need to do a little bit more on the research side...

...

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.

The reality is CRA was instituted to force banks to lend in low income areas, are you able to refute that FACT???

No you are not...

What happens is morons over think and complicate life...

At this point you will C&P someone else's opinion because you're unable to express one, vacuums tend to be void of any mass...

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.

Did a 31-year-old law giving poor people a break at the bank accidentally break the bank?

A lot of opinion leaders think so. From the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal to talk shows to the op-ed page of The Register, people are charging that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 forced banks to make bad loans, leading to financial Armageddon.

There's just one problem: It isn't true.

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.

Most subprime lenders weren t subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register

Conservatives just ignore facts and reality. They have "faith" that their ideology is correct.


You know what happens when you have a very static and simplistic view of a very dynamic and complex system? You find yourself being wrong almost all the time.

The reality is CRA was instituted to force banks to lend in low income areas, are you able to refute that FACT???

No you are not...

What happens is morons over think and complicate life...

At this point you will C&P someone else's opinion because you're unable to express one, vacuums tend to be void of any mass...

Really? CRA around since 1977 and with weakened enforcment under Dubya was the cause of this

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



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


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

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


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.
Most subprime lenders weren t subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



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 had little to do with the Subprime Crisis. Maybe less than 6% of all foreclosures since 2006.

Your depth of this issue is limited to the same old tired C&P's...

CRA was and still is a test of banks lending in LMI communities...

Clinton opened the door and gave birth to FHA DPA, Zero Down, Zero Skin in the game mortgages, BTW this is a fact no one can dispute...

Because you have no real knowledge of this I understand your limited to the C&P rebuttals...

Here is a test for you, look up USDA Zero Down loans and tell me what the Census Tract population limit is for this loan to exist in suburban communities?

Who has repeatedly signed Executive Orders to forgo their limits?

Oh and BTW the changes to CRA in 1995 where significant, you need to do a little bit more on the research side...

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: "The CRA Was Not A Significant Factor In Subprime Lending Or The Crisis."

Federal Reserve: "We Find Little Evidence That Either the CRA Or The GSE [Government-Sponsored Enterprise] goals played a significant role in the subprime crisis."

Bernanke: The CRA Was Not "At The Root Of, Or Otherwise Contributed In Any Substantive Way To, The Current Mortgage Difficulties."


SF Reserve Bank's Yellen: "tudies Have Shown That The CRA Has Increased The Volume Of Responsible Lending To Low- And Moderate-Income Households."


Slate's Gross: "The Notion That The Community Reinvestment Act Is Somehow Responsible For Poor Lending Decisions Is Absurd." In an October 7, 2008, Slate article, Daniel Gross, a business columnist for Newsweek and author of Dumb Money: How Our Greatest Financial Minds Bankrupted the Nation, wrote that "the notion that the Community Reinvestment Act is somehow responsible for poor lending decisions is absurd" and added, "[L]ending money to poor people and minorities isn't inherently risky. There's plenty of evidence that in fact it's not that risky at all." Gross further explained, "On the other hand, lending money recklessly to obscenely rich white guys ... can be really risky. In fact, it's even more risky, since they have a lot more borrowing capacity."

The right blames the credit crisis on poor minority homeowners. This is not merely offensive but entirely wrong.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The reality is CRA was instituted to force banks to lend in low income areas,..

this is true and it was 1 of 132 state and federal programs to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford!

When people could in fact not afford the homes did the liberal Marxists blame the 132 programs? Of course not! They blamed capitalism even though the 132 programs had in effect eliminated capitalism.


Its just like Obamacare! We had to switch to it because capitalism was not working. In reality it was not working because there was no capitalism again thanks to Marxist liberals .

 

[Dad2three]

The reality is CRA was instituted to force banks to lend in low income areas,..

this is true and it was 1 of 132 state and federal programs to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford!

When people could in fact not afford the homes did the liberal Marxists blame the 132 programs? Of course not! They blamed capitalism even though the 132 programs had in effect eliminated capitalism.


Its just like Obamacare! We had to switch to it because capitalism was not working. In reality it was not working because there was no capitalism again thanks to Marxist liberals .

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


2004 Republican Convention:

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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


“We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

From the 2000 GOP Platform:

“Implement the “American Dream Down Payment” program, which will allow a half million families who currently draw federal rental assistance to become homeowners, and allow families receiving federal rental payments to apply one year’s worth of their existing assistance money toward the purchase of their own first home, thus becoming independent of any further government housing assistance. This approach builds upon our long standing commitment to resident management of public housing and other initiatives.”

Passed: December 16, 2003 — American Dream Down Payment Initiative (ADDI)

ADDI aims to increase the homeownership rate, especially among lower income and minority households, and to revitalize and stabilize communities. ADDI will help first-time homebuyers with the biggest hurdle to homeownership: downpayment and closing costs. The program was created to assist low-income first-time homebuyers in purchasing single-family homes by providing funds for downpayment, closing costs, and rehabilitation carried out in conjunction with the assisted home purchase.

President: George W. Bush (R)
US House: Rep. Dennis Hastert (R)
US Senate: Sen. Bill Frist (R)



June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


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


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


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement.

 

[GWV5903]

The reality is CRA was instituted to force banks to lend in low income areas,..

this is true and it was 1 of 132 state and federal programs to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford!

When people could in fact not afford the homes did the liberal Marxists blame the 132 programs? Of course not! They blamed capitalism even though the 132 programs had in effect eliminated capitalism.


Its just like Obamacare! We had to switch to it because capitalism was not working. In reality it was not working because there was no capitalism again thanks to Marxist liberals .

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


2004 Republican Convention:

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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


“We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

From the 2000 GOP Platform:

“Implement the “American Dream Down Payment” program, which will allow a half million families who currently draw federal rental assistance to become homeowners, and allow families receiving federal rental payments to apply one year’s worth of their existing assistance money toward the purchase of their own first home, thus becoming independent of any further government housing assistance. This approach builds upon our long standing commitment to resident management of public housing and other initiatives.”

Passed: December 16, 2003 — American Dream Down Payment Initiative (ADDI)

ADDI aims to increase the homeownership rate, especially among lower income and minority households, and to revitalize and stabilize communities. ADDI will help first-time homebuyers with the biggest hurdle to homeownership: downpayment and closing costs. The program was created to assist low-income first-time homebuyers in purchasing single-family homes by providing funds for downpayment, closing costs, and rehabilitation carried out in conjunction with the assisted home purchase.

President: George W. Bush (R)
US House: Rep. Dennis Hastert (R)
US Senate: Sen. Bill Frist (R)



June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


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


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


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement.

Hey dumb dumb, how do you think we ever arrived at the thought Zero Down loans where okay?

Oh, BTW can you not answer my question in regards to USDA?

Just keep on believing the spoon feed drivel, you seem to be able to slurp it down in large amounts...

 

[GWV5903]

Let's try this, do you even know who Brooksley Born is or what role she played in Clinton's Admin?

What was her take?

 

[GWV5903]

It's amazing how everyone that defends Carter & Clinton believes this was all the culmination of three years...

 

[Dad2three]

The reality is CRA was instituted to force banks to lend in low income areas,..

this is true and it was 1 of 132 state and federal programs to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford!

When people could in fact not afford the homes did the liberal Marxists blame the 132 programs? Of course not! They blamed capitalism even though the 132 programs had in effect eliminated capitalism.


Its just like Obamacare! We had to switch to it because capitalism was not working. In reality it was not working because there was no capitalism again thanks to Marxist liberals .

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


2004 Republican Convention:

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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


“We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

From the 2000 GOP Platform:

“Implement the “American Dream Down Payment” program, which will allow a half million families who currently draw federal rental assistance to become homeowners, and allow families receiving federal rental payments to apply one year’s worth of their existing assistance money toward the purchase of their own first home, thus becoming independent of any further government housing assistance. This approach builds upon our long standing commitment to resident management of public housing and other initiatives.”

Passed: December 16, 2003 — American Dream Down Payment Initiative (ADDI)

ADDI aims to increase the homeownership rate, especially among lower income and minority households, and to revitalize and stabilize communities. ADDI will help first-time homebuyers with the biggest hurdle to homeownership: downpayment and closing costs. The program was created to assist low-income first-time homebuyers in purchasing single-family homes by providing funds for downpayment, closing costs, and rehabilitation carried out in conjunction with the assisted home purchase.

President: George W. Bush (R)
US House: Rep. Dennis Hastert (R)
US Senate: Sen. Bill Frist (R)



June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


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


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


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement.

Hey dumb dumb, how do you think we ever arrived at the thought Zero Down loans where okay?

Oh, BTW can you not answer my question in regards to USDA?

Just keep on believing the spoon feed drivel, you seem to be able to slurp it down in large amounts...

Who 'thought' of getting into zero down to hoodwink the investers? Banksters Bubba, why do you think they lobbied for 30 years to change the laws?

Why the fukkkk do I care about Gov't loans when this was a WORLD WIDE BANKSTER CREATED SUBPRIME credit bubble?


Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


You can blame Dubya's regulator failure based on the GOP's 'hands off approach' is the best and the private banks for the housing crash.

The biggest culprits in the housing fiasco came from the private sector, and more specifically from a mortgage industry that was out of control. These included lenders who originated home loans, investment bankers who packaged them into securities, rating agencies that misjudged these securities, and global investors who bought them without much, if any, study.

In other words, America’s mortgage securitization machine was fundamentally broken. It created millions of mortgage loans that, even under reasonable economic assumptions, stood little chance of being repaid — and were not.

Fannie and Freddie don t deserve blame for bubble - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

It's amazing how everyone that defends Carter & Clinton believes this was all the culmination of three years...

Weird

November 27, 2007

A Snapshot of the Subprime Market


Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:

2007 $1.3 trillion

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion

Percentage increase from 2003: 292%


Number of subprime mortgages made in 2005-2006 projected to end in foreclosure:

1 in 5



Proportion of subprime mortgages made from 2004 to 2006 that come with "exploding" adjustable interest rates: 89-93%


Proportion approved without fully documented income: 43-50%


Proportion with no escrow for taxes and insurance: 75%



Proportion of completed foreclosures attributable to adjustable rate loans out of all loans made in 2006 and bundled in subprime mortgage backed securities: 93%


Subprime share of all mortgage originations in 2006: 28%


Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8%


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

Let's try this, do you even know who Brooksley Born is or what role she played in Clinton's Admin?

What was her take?

Yes, tell me was the GOP for more regulation, or less? Would it had mattered IF she won or not? lol

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

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

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



CLINTON HUH?