How many more lies did Barney Frank participate in???

[Dad2three]

Still wont answer the questions.

The drive for profit will ALWAYS be there....so saying that is what caused it is the same as saying that such a problem will always exist.

If you were aware of the answers to my questions, you would think differently and actually understand WHY it happened as it happened. Saying it was the drive for profit is immature and in no way addresses why it happened THIS time and not all other times there was a drive for profit...which is everyday in every industry since the beginning of time.

So tell me.....

Who was at fault? Not referring to policy....who was at fault for the collapse?

Brokers?
Underwriters?
Banks?
Lending institutions?
Loan Officers?
Fannie Mae?
The "victims"?

Another question......asked this earlier.....

What does Fannie Mae do? Do you know? How are they involved in the lending world? Do you know? What does the government, (the people) expect of them? Do you know?

And please...answer with maturity and fact....not opinion with large font and bolds.

" What does Fannie Mae do? Do you know? How are they involved in the lending world? Do you know? What does the government, (the people) expect of them? Do you know?"

STOP BEING AN IGNORANT TOOL BUBBA!


Already answered you

How many more lies did Barney Frank participate in??? - Page 5 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

BUT:

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


1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom


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

3. There is a lot of research to back this up and little against it: This is not exactly an obscure corner of the wonk world — it is one of the most studied capital markets in the world.




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


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


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

So you don't know what Fannie Mae does.

Didn't think so.

By the way......Peter Wallison was correct....Fannie does not lend you fucking moron...so of course they did not do as much as lending institutions in providing financing....

But it is WHAT they do that is important.

But you don't want to know what they do.

You prefer regurgitating opinions of others...who like to have people like you regurgitate their opinions....

And by the way, I just checked.....the bank did NOT sign my settlement papers....
I signed them.
I initialed each page.
I signed the note.
I signed the consolidated note.
I signed the mortgage.
I signed the truth in lending statement.
I signed the HUD.

Sooooo.....it seems I was the one who decided to accept the terms of the loan. The bank did not decide that for me.

Now....answer my questions....or admit you are clueless.

STOP BEING AN IGNORANT TOOL BUBBA!


Already answered you


How many more lies did Barney Frank participate in??? - Page 5 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

" Sooooo.....it seems I was the one who decided to accept the terms of the loan. The bank did not decide that for me."

Weird, did you make up your own terms too? How about underwriting standards? lol

It is the banks job to determine credit worthiness. THAT IS WHAT THEY DO. If they do not care to be bother to make this determination, then perhaps they should consider something other than the money lending business as a vocation.

 

[Jarhead]

How about this...

Let me ask you a question.....(which you will divert from answering).....

Lending institutions (not just banks you dolt....LENDING INSTITUTIONS) have intelligent individuals running them. That is fact. They have well trained underwriters determining the credit worthiness of the PROPERTY vs. the income/credit worthiness of the borrower...

So tell me....if it is so obvious that lending money to an individual who does not have the income to support the loan is a bad idea, why would they do it?

You cant say "profit and greed" because it is so obvious that such a loan would go into default...

So what would prompt them to do it?

And something else you said bothers me....

The "human nature" thing.....

It is human nature to want to have as much as you can have....so does that excuse those that steal?

Anyway.......answer my question above?

 

[Dad2three]

Still wont answer the questions.

The drive for profit will ALWAYS be there....so saying that is what caused it is the same as saying that such a problem will always exist.

If you were aware of the answers to my questions, you would think differently and actually understand WHY it happened as it happened. Saying it was the drive for profit is immature and in no way addresses why it happened THIS time and not all other times there was a drive for profit...which is everyday in every industry since the beginning of time.

So tell me.....

Who was at fault? Not referring to policy....who was at fault for the collapse?

Brokers?
Underwriters?
Banks?
Lending institutions?
Loan Officers?
Fannie Mae?
The "victims"?

Another question......asked this earlier.....

What does Fannie Mae do? Do you know? How are they involved in the lending world? Do you know? What does the government, (the people) expect of them? Do you know?

And please...answer with maturity and fact....not opinion with large font and bolds.

" What does Fannie Mae do? Do you know? How are they involved in the lending world? Do you know? What does the government, (the people) expect of them? Do you know?"

STOP BEING AN IGNORANT TOOL BUBBA!


Already answered you

How many more lies did Barney Frank participate in??? - Page 5 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

BUT:

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


1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom


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

3. There is a lot of research to back this up and little against it: This is not exactly an obscure corner of the wonk world — it is one of the most studied capital markets in the world.




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


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


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

So you don't know what Fannie Mae does.

Didn't think so.

By the way......Peter Wallison was correct....Fannie does not lend you fucking moron...so of course they did not do as much as lending institutions in providing financing....

But it is WHAT they do that is important.

But you don't want to know what they do.

You prefer regurgitating opinions of others...who like to have people like you regurgitate their opinions....

And by the way, I just checked.....the bank did NOT sign my settlement papers....
I signed them.
I initialed each page.
I signed the note.
I signed the consolidated note.
I signed the mortgage.
I signed the truth in lending statement.
I signed the HUD.

Sooooo.....it seems I was the one who decided to accept the terms of the loan. The bank did not decide that for me.

Now....answer my questions....or admit you are clueless.

"By the way......Peter Wallison was correct....Fannie does not lend you fucking moron"



COOL, THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID NOR WHAT HE MEANT DUMBASS


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

 

[Dad2three]

.

Dad2Three, seriously, could you lighten up on the sheer volume of your posts?

I know they're all going to be all hardcore left wing all the time, but I might be more likely to read them. Right now they're just scroll-past material.

Calm down, remember that brevity is the soul of wit, and keep it concise.

Just a suggestion.

.

Keep scrolling then, right wingers HATE real facts anyways

 

[Jarhead]

" What does Fannie Mae do? Do you know? How are they involved in the lending world? Do you know? What does the government, (the people) expect of them? Do you know?"

STOP BEING AN IGNORANT TOOL BUBBA!


Already answered you

How many more lies did Barney Frank participate in??? - Page 5 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

BUT:

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


1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom


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

3. There is a lot of research to back this up and little against it: This is not exactly an obscure corner of the wonk world — it is one of the most studied capital markets in the world.




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


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


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

So you don't know what Fannie Mae does.

Didn't think so.

By the way......Peter Wallison was correct....Fannie does not lend you fucking moron...so of course they did not do as much as lending institutions in providing financing....

But it is WHAT they do that is important.

But you don't want to know what they do.

You prefer regurgitating opinions of others...who like to have people like you regurgitate their opinions....

And by the way, I just checked.....the bank did NOT sign my settlement papers....
I signed them.
I initialed each page.
I signed the note.
I signed the consolidated note.
I signed the mortgage.
I signed the truth in lending statement.
I signed the HUD.

Sooooo.....it seems I was the one who decided to accept the terms of the loan. The bank did not decide that for me.

Now....answer my questions....or admit you are clueless.

STOP BEING AN IGNORANT TOOL BUBBA!


Already answered you


How many more lies did Barney Frank participate in??? - Page 5 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

" Sooooo.....it seems I was the one who decided to accept the terms of the loan. The bank did not decide that for me."

Weird, did you make up your own terms too? How about underwriting standards? lol

It is the banks job to determine credit worthiness. THAT IS WHAT THEY DO. If they do not care to be bother to make this determination, then perhaps they should consider something other than the money lending business as a vocation.

you have not answered me. You send me to USMB links with opinions of others.....

I did not make up the terms of my loan. I opted to go with a loan that worked for me. I was offered several...including an ARM which I passed on as it was a gamble.

So I decided on the terms I was willing to abide by.

I will say that again....

I PASSED ON THE TERMS I DID NOT APPRECIATE AND SIGNED FOR THE TERMS I WAS WILLKING TO ABIDE BY.

So...in a way, yes, I decided on the terms.

So I again ask....

Do you know what the government, (the people) expect of fannie Mae?

 

[Mac1958]

.

Dad2Three, seriously, could you lighten up on the sheer volume of your posts?

I know they're all going to be all hardcore left wing all the time, but I might be more likely to read them. Right now they're just scroll-past material.

Calm down, remember that brevity is the soul of wit, and keep it concise.

Just a suggestion.

.

Keep scrolling then, right wingers HATE real facts anyways

You'd have to ask a right winger.

Mature, civil adults prefer civility, honesty and clarity.

So, never mind.

.

 

[Jarhead]

I bet you being a libtard can't prove that.

89% of Americans are insured
61% of the people are insured through their employer...so they are not included yet
30% are on Medicaid or medicare...so they lost nothing

So 91% of all Americans were not affected by the ACA yet.

So the 2% that lost their coverage were 2% of the 9% that were affected

So a shade under 25% of those that could lose their insurance, lost their insurance.

See how easily NYCarbineer is fooled by stats?

Or is it that he tries to fool others with stats.

I am going to continue to bump this so all can see how disingenuous NYCarbineer is.....

Bumping again so all can see how NY Carbineer is easily fooled by stats or abuses stats to win a debate.

He claimed only 2% of all Americans lost their insurance due to the ACA.

He is correct. But that stat does not reflect the truth...as I showed him and he ignored.

 

[Dad2three]

How about this...

Let me ask you a question.....(which you will divert from answering).....

Lending institutions (not just banks you dolt....LENDING INSTITUTIONS) have intelligent individuals running them. That is fact. They have well trained underwriters determining the credit worthiness of the PROPERTY vs. the income/credit worthiness of the borrower...

So tell me....if it is so obvious that lending money to an individual who does not have the income to support the loan is a bad idea, why would they do it?

You cant say "profit and greed" because it is so obvious that such a loan would go into default...

So what would prompt them to do it?

And something else you said bothers me....

The "human nature" thing.....

It is human nature to want to have as much as you can have....so does that excuse those that steal?

Anyway.......answer my question above?

Gawwwd you are as ignorant as Rabbi and Ed B




The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along.



The former Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, has conceded that the global financial crisis has exposed a "mistake" in the free market ideology which guided his 18-year stewardship of US monetary policy.

A long-time cheerleader for deregulation, Greenspan admitted to a congressional committee yesterday that he had been "partially wrong" in his hands-off approach towards the banking industry and that the credit crunch had left him in a state of shocked disbelief. "I have found a flaw," said Greenspan, referring to his economic philosophy. "I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact."



"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," said Greenspan.

Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of | Business | The Guardian


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.



...The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.



Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes



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

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

A Yes.




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

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

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



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

 

[Dad2three]

.

Dad2Three, seriously, could you lighten up on the sheer volume of your posts?

I know they're all going to be all hardcore left wing all the time, but I might be more likely to read them. Right now they're just scroll-past material.

Calm down, remember that brevity is the soul of wit, and keep it concise.

Just a suggestion.

.

Keep scrolling then, right wingers HATE real facts anyways

You'd have to ask a right winger.

Mature, civil adults prefer civility, honesty and clarity.

So, never mind.

.

Libertarians are FARRRR right on economics, that's really ALL they care about...

 

[Jarhead]

.

Dad2Three, seriously, could you lighten up on the sheer volume of your posts?

I know they're all going to be all hardcore left wing all the time, but I might be more likely to read them. Right now they're just scroll-past material.

Calm down, remember that brevity is the soul of wit, and keep it concise.

Just a suggestion.

.

Keep scrolling then, right wingers HATE real facts anyways

You'd have to ask a right winger.

Mature, civil adults prefer civility, honesty and clarity.

So, never mind.

.

The irony?

With all of his "yelling" and ranting....what came out of it is that he believes opinion pieces and posts on USMB by those with his ideology are facts.

I mean....he directs you to links to other USMB threads discussing the same topic.

Whatever....I know the lending industry...I know where the blame lies.....it lies all over the dam place...it lays with the congress for not overseeing FM...it lies with the President who did not INISIST on better oversight....it lies with the lending institutions for not spe3aking out about what was expected of them, it lies with the sub prime brokers, it lies with the borrowers who did not read before signing.

But FM dropped the ball big time. They should have seen it coming and they ignored it.

Gotta go.

Cant deal with debating with a child anymore.

 

[Jarhead]

Last note to you dad2three....

You said this....

The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along.

You are correct.

Who was the one who did that for them?

Do you know?

Find out.

Then tell me who reprimanded the IG who reported issues with the above entity and how they did the above transactions.

Then tell me who said "there is no issue with the above referenced entity" and implied that claiming there was an issue was racially motivated.

Then take your childish way of posting and.....well......learn to act like an adult.

 

[Jarhead]

Keep scrolling then, right wingers HATE real facts anyways

You'd have to ask a right winger.

Mature, civil adults prefer civility, honesty and clarity.

So, never mind.

.

Libertarians are FARRRR right on economics, that's really ALL they care about...

So you know as little about libertarians as you do about conservatives and the lending industry.

Now it all makes sense

Cya. .

 

[Dad2three]

So you don't know what Fannie Mae does.

Didn't think so.

By the way......Peter Wallison was correct....Fannie does not lend you fucking moron...so of course they did not do as much as lending institutions in providing financing....

But it is WHAT they do that is important.

But you don't want to know what they do.

You prefer regurgitating opinions of others...who like to have people like you regurgitate their opinions....

And by the way, I just checked.....the bank did NOT sign my settlement papers....
I signed them.
I initialed each page.
I signed the note.
I signed the consolidated note.
I signed the mortgage.
I signed the truth in lending statement.
I signed the HUD.

Sooooo.....it seems I was the one who decided to accept the terms of the loan. The bank did not decide that for me.

Now....answer my questions....or admit you are clueless.

STOP BEING AN IGNORANT TOOL BUBBA!


Already answered you


How many more lies did Barney Frank participate in??? - Page 5 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

" Sooooo.....it seems I was the one who decided to accept the terms of the loan. The bank did not decide that for me."

Weird, did you make up your own terms too? How about underwriting standards? lol

It is the banks job to determine credit worthiness. THAT IS WHAT THEY DO. If they do not care to be bother to make this determination, then perhaps they should consider something other than the money lending business as a vocation.

you have not answered me. You send me to USMB links with opinions of others.....

I did not make up the terms of my loan. I opted to go with a loan that worked for me. I was offered several...including an ARM which I passed on as it was a gamble.

So I decided on the terms I was willing to abide by.

I will say that again....

I PASSED ON THE TERMS I DID NOT APPRECIATE AND SIGNED FOR THE TERMS I WAS WILLKING TO ABIDE BY.

So...in a way, yes, I decided on the terms.

So I again ask....

Do you know what the government, (the people) expect of fannie Mae?

STOP BEING AN IGNORANT TOOL BUBBA!


Already answered you



Of course YOU are to ignorant to understand, PRIVATE MARKETS DID THAT!


TRY TO KEEP UP BUBBA


" What does Fannie Mae do?"

INSURES AND BUYS LOANS, SOMETIMES SELLS THEM (MBS's) , BUT THEY LOST MARKET SHARE ON BOTH UNDER DUBYA'S 'HOME OWNERSHIP SOCIETY' PUSH 2004-2007


"Do they write loans?"

FUCK NO, LIKE VA, FHA, ETC!!!


" DO you know who insures loans? Any idea?"

F/F DID SOME, BUT IF THEY HAD INSURED THE PRIVATE SECTOR SUBPRIME CRAP, IT MEANS THE DUBYA CRISIS WOULDN'T HAD HAPPENED RIGHT? YOU KNOW WHAT BACKING OR INSURING MEANS RIGHT? LOL



" Do you know what the government, (the people) expect of fannie Mae? "


WHEN A REPUGNANT IS IN CHARGE OR A DEM? You see it REALLY does matter



June 17, 2004

Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan



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


July 8, 2004



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


New regulations will increase mortgage financing for homebuyers and underserved communities


HUD estimates that if the GSEs had matched the overall single-family market during this period, they would have acquired an additional 470,000 single-family loans for low- and moderate-income families



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



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

 

[Dad2three]

Last note to you dad2three....

You said this....

The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along.

You are correct.

Who was the one who did that for them?

Do you know?

Find out.

Then tell me who reprimanded the IG who reported issues with the above entity and how they did the above transactions.

Then tell me who said "there is no issue with the above referenced entity" and implied that claiming there was an issue was racially motivated.

Then take your childish way of posting and.....well......learn to act like an adult.

WEIRD:

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.”



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


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


LOL

 

[Dad2three]

Keep scrolling then, right wingers HATE real facts anyways

You'd have to ask a right winger.

Mature, civil adults prefer civility, honesty and clarity.

So, never mind.

.

The irony?

With all of his "yelling" and ranting....what came out of it is that he believes opinion pieces and posts on USMB by those with his ideology are facts.

I mean....he directs you to links to other USMB threads discussing the same topic.

Whatever....I know the lending industry...I know where the blame lies.....it lies all over the dam place...it lays with the congress for not overseeing FM...it lies with the President who did not INISIST on better oversight....it lies with the lending institutions for not spe3aking out about what was expected of them, it lies with the sub prime brokers, it lies with the borrowers who did not read before signing.

But FM dropped the ball big time. They should have seen it coming and they ignored it.

Gotta go.

Cant deal with debating with a child anymore.

"FM dropped the ball big time. They should have seen it coming and they ignored it."

WEIRD, YOU DON'T KNOW HUD HAD OVERSIGHT OF F/F? WHICH BRANCH OF GOV';T IS THAT IN AGAIN? OH RIGHT EXECUTIVE BRANCH CABINET POSITION!



Dubya FORCED F/F to lower their standards by REQUIRING them to purchase $440 BILLION in MBS's (you know from the 'private markets') in 2004-2007 period and required f/f to go from 50% to 56% and dropped Clinton's rule that 'high cost loans' (see subprime) couldn't be counted in the goals

GROW A BRAIN MR IDEOLOGUE!

AND I KEPT LINKING TO WHAT I HAD ALREADY ANSWERED DUMMY!

Bet you were a lifer right? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Last note to you dad2three....

You said this....

The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along.

You are correct.

Who was the one who did that for them?

Do you know?

Find out.

Then tell me who reprimanded the IG who reported issues with the above entity and how they did the above transactions.

Then tell me who said "there is no issue with the above referenced entity" and implied that claiming there was an issue was racially motivated.

Then take your childish way of posting and.....well......learn to act like an adult.

I'LL NOTE YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED THIS THREE TIMES. Weird


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

A Yes.




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

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

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

 

[Dad2three]

Last note to you dad2three....

You said this....

The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along.

You are correct.

Who was the one who did that for them?

Do you know?

Find out.

Then tell me who reprimanded the IG who reported issues with the above entity and how they did the above transactions.

Then tell me who said "there is no issue with the above referenced entity" and implied that claiming there was an issue was racially motivated.

Then take your childish way of posting and.....well......learn to act like an adult.

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


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

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





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

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.



Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing laws overseen by either Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Community Reinvestment Act — Source: McClatchy



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




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

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

 

[Jarhead]

Last note to you dad2three....

You said this....

The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along.

You are correct.

Who was the one who did that for them?

Do you know?

Find out.

Then tell me who reprimanded the IG who reported issues with the above entity and how they did the above transactions.

Then tell me who said "there is no issue with the above referenced entity" and implied that claiming there was an issue was racially motivated.

Then take your childish way of posting and.....well......learn to act like an adult.

I'LL NOTE YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED THIS THREE TIMES. Weird


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

A Yes.

Actually, it is not that they did not have to document it. They had to, under the oath of an affidavit, list their income on the application. This is required so an underwriter can make an educated decision based on the value of the home and the income of the borrower. What they did NOT have to do is produce a w-2 or a tax return.
Many lied. Many lied when they signed the affidavit at closing. Yes, the "victims" lied to get the loan.



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

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

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

Why would they do it? It is a recipe for disaster and any lending institution is well aware of it. Unless, of course, there is an impetus to take the risk of major losses. Hmmm....what could that have been? I mean, why would a lending institution take such a great risk for a mere 5% return on their money?

Seems you are confused with your facts sparky.

 

[Jarhead]

Last note to you dad2three....

You said this....

The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along.

You are correct.

Who was the one who did that for them?

Do you know?

Find out.

Then tell me who reprimanded the IG who reported issues with the above entity and how they did the above transactions.

Then tell me who said "there is no issue with the above referenced entity" and implied that claiming there was an issue was racially motivated.

Then take your childish way of posting and.....well......learn to act like an adult.

I'LL NOTE YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED THIS THREE TIMES. Weird


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

A Yes.

Actually, it is not that they did not have to document it. They had to, under the oath of an affidavit, list their income on the application. This is required so an underwriter can make an educated decision based on the value of the home and the income of the borrower. What they did NOT have to do is produce a w-2 or a tax return.
Many lied. Many lied when they signed the affidavit at closing. Yes, the "victims" lied to get the loan.



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

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

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

Why would they do it? It is a recipe for disaster and any lending institution is well aware of it. Unless, of course, there is an impetus to take the risk of major losses. Hmmm....what could that have been? I mean, why would a lending institution take such a great risk for a mere 5% return on their money?

Seems you are confused with your facts sparky.

Are you aware that the borrower must sign the application 4 different times at closing? They also have to sign a separate affidavit asserting that all information they offered the lender is accurate to the best of their knowledge.

So they lied on an affidavit......and they are victims?

Wow.

 

[Bush92]

Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest | Fox News

Barney's conflict of interest with Fannie Mae boyfriend. "Hey when I get done fucking you, lets fuck America!"