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

[Dad2three]

Never mind dad2three.....

Don't appreciate your style of debating.

I will no longer respond to you.

I came back hoping I could calm you down. I was wrong.

Cya.

Calm down from WHAT? Oh you don't like FACTS and INSTEAD try to steer the argument to Gov't policies that had been around for DECADES not Dubya/Banksters creating the subprime bubble!

 

[peach174]

Every Democrat in Congress lied about the GSEs, Fannie and Freddy.

It because of their lies and their refusals to go along the Republicans and President G. W. Bush and the proposed reforms that we had that horrible housing crash.

Hmm ... can you tell me what bills Democrats blocked between 2003 and 2006, while Republicans controlled the Congress? Cite the bill numbers please, so I can look them up.

Thanks.

1. H.R.2022 introduced on 7 May 2003 by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT,4).
Title: To extend the registration and reporting requirements of the Federal securities laws to certain housing-related Government-sponsored enterprises, and for other purposes.

2. 2. H.R.2117 introduced 23 May 2003 by Rep. Pete Fortney (D-CA,13).
Title: To amend the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act to remove certain competitive advantages granted to the housing-related government-sponsored enterprises relative to other secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

3. 4.H.R.2803 introduced on 21 July 2003 by Rep. Edward R Royce (R-CA,40).
Title: To establish the Office of Housing Finance Oversight in the Department of the Treasury to ensure the financial safety and soundness of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal home loan banks.

4. 6.S.1508, introduced 31 July 2003 by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE).
Title: A bill to address regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

5. 7.S.1656, introduced 23 September 2003 by Sen. Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ).
Title: A bill to address regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

This was just in 2003 let alone all of the others. They were blocked by Dems in the Housing & Banking Committee and did not even make it to the floor.

 

[Dad2three]

The no income verification loans required the borrower list income and job history on the 1003.

The 1003 has 4 places to sign asserting the information is true. Furthermore, there is an affidavit in the settlement documents asserting the same.

Sub prime brokers told applicants the income required for the underwriter to approve the loan (based on LTV and personal income)...and suggested they put that number on the 1003 as their income.

Yes, the brokers suggested they lie.....and they did.

Would you lie on an affidavit and then call yourself a victim if the lie got you in trouble?

Weird how you keep ignoring Dubya fighting ALL 50 states who wanted to stop that PREDATORY LENDING that the FBI said Banksters were responsible for 80% + of the fraud?

MANY of those 0%-2% (ARMS) loans didn't require lying BTW, lol

No. It did not require lying. It required some forethought.

If a deal is too good to be true, it likely isn't.

Weird, IF only ONE party of the transaction were being paid to look out for the financial institutions best interest AND that party didn't have a short term motive to allow the borrower, who we all know, are very uneducated on financial matters in general to put themselves in a situation where only ONE side of the transaction benefited?

I mean perhaps they could call it UNDERWRITING STANDARDS or something? And perhaps keep them at such a place where someone LITERALLY working at McD's making $35,000 a year is qualified for a $500,000 mortgage? Wow, perhaps we could call them bankers or something?

 

[Dad2three]

Every Democrat in Congress lied about the GSEs, Fannie and Freddy.

It because of their lies and their refusals to go along the Republicans and President G. W. Bush and the proposed reforms that we had that horrible housing crash.

Hmm ... can you tell me what bills Democrats blocked between 2003 and 2006, while Republicans controlled the Congress? Cite the bill numbers please, so I can look them up.

Thanks.

1. H.R.2022 introduced on 7 May 2003 by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT,4).
Title: To extend the registration and reporting requirements of the Federal securities laws to certain housing-related Government-sponsored enterprises, and for other purposes.

2. 2. H.R.2117 introduced 23 May 2003 by Rep. Pete Fortney (D-CA,13).
Title: To amend the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act to remove certain competitive advantages granted to the housing-related government-sponsored enterprises relative to other secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

3. 4.H.R.2803 introduced on 21 July 2003 by Rep. Edward R Royce (R-CA,40).
Title: To establish the Office of Housing Finance Oversight in the Department of the Treasury to ensure the financial safety and soundness of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal home loan banks.

4. 6.S.1508, introduced 31 July 2003 by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE).
Title: A bill to address regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

5. 7.S.1656, introduced 23 September 2003 by Sen. Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ).
Title: A bill to address regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

This was just in 2003 let alone all of the others. They were blocked by Dems in the Housing & Banking Committee and did not even make it to the floor.

WEIRD, HOW DO THE DEMS BLOCK ANYTHING IN A GOP MAJORITY HOUSE? lol

The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley (R), now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.”

“What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”


Oxley was Chairman of the House Financial Services committee and sponsor of the only reform bill to pass any chamber of the republican controlled congress


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


STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY


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

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

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

 

[Dad2three]

Every Democrat in Congress lied about the GSEs, Fannie and Freddy.

It because of their lies and their refusals to go along the Republicans and President G. W. Bush and the proposed reforms that we had that horrible housing crash.

Hmm ... can you tell me what bills Democrats blocked between 2003 and 2006, while Republicans controlled the Congress? Cite the bill numbers please, so I can look them up.

Thanks.

1. H.R.2022 introduced on 7 May 2003 by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT,4).
Title: To extend the registration and reporting requirements of the Federal securities laws to certain housing-related Government-sponsored enterprises, and for other purposes.

2. 2. H.R.2117 introduced 23 May 2003 by Rep. Pete Fortney (D-CA,13).
Title: To amend the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act to remove certain competitive advantages granted to the housing-related government-sponsored enterprises relative to other secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

3. 4.H.R.2803 introduced on 21 July 2003 by Rep. Edward R Royce (R-CA,40).
Title: To establish the Office of Housing Finance Oversight in the Department of the Treasury to ensure the financial safety and soundness of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal home loan banks.

4. 6.S.1508, introduced 31 July 2003 by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE).
Title: A bill to address regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

5. 7.S.1656, introduced 23 September 2003 by Sen. Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ).
Title: A bill to address regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

This was just in 2003 let alone all of the others. They were blocked by Dems in the Housing & Banking Committee and did not even make it to the floor.

Yet the GOP got 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts, 2 UNFUNDED wars and UNFUNDED Medicare expansion AND a bill to get between a husband and a wife (Schiavo), but COULDN'T get past the Dems in the GOP Majority House where it takes simple majority to pass? THAT'S YOUR PREMISE? lol

 

[peach174]

Hmm ... can you tell me what bills Democrats blocked between 2003 and 2006, while Republicans controlled the Congress? Cite the bill numbers please, so I can look them up.

Thanks.

1. H.R.2022 introduced on 7 May 2003 by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT,4).
Title: To extend the registration and reporting requirements of the Federal securities laws to certain housing-related Government-sponsored enterprises, and for other purposes.

2. 2. H.R.2117 introduced 23 May 2003 by Rep. Pete Fortney (D-CA,13).
Title: To amend the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act to remove certain competitive advantages granted to the housing-related government-sponsored enterprises relative to other secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

3. 4.H.R.2803 introduced on 21 July 2003 by Rep. Edward R Royce (R-CA,40).
Title: To establish the Office of Housing Finance Oversight in the Department of the Treasury to ensure the financial safety and soundness of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal home loan banks.

4. 6.S.1508, introduced 31 July 2003 by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE).
Title: A bill to address regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

5. 7.S.1656, introduced 23 September 2003 by Sen. Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ).
Title: A bill to address regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

This was just in 2003 let alone all of the others. They were blocked by Dems in the Housing & Banking Committee and did not even make it to the floor.

Yet the GOP got 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts, 2 UNFUNDED wars and UNFUNDED Medicare expansion AND a bill to get between a husband and a wife (Schiavo), but COULDN'T get past the Dems in the GOP Majority House where it takes simple majority to pass? THAT'S YOUR PREMISE? lol

What part of did not get past the committee are you not understanding?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Now that he is retiring.. Barney thinks he can now tell the truth!

LIE One Barney Supported!!!!

Barney Frank on the White House Rollout of Obamacare: "They just lied to people."
"The rollout was so bad, and I was appalled -- I don't understand how the president could have sat there and not been checking on that on a weekly basis," Frank told HuffPost during a July interview.
"But frankly, he should never have said as much as he did, that if you like your current health care plan, you can keep it.
That wasn't true. And you shouldn't lie to people. And they just lied to people."

Basically, yes (although that wasn't the only Obamacare-related thing the administration misled the public about).

Frank suggests that the Obama administration could have avoided some trouble by not making the promise. But the question is whether the law would have passed without an explicit vow that people could keep their plans and doctors.
Barney Frank on the White House Rollout of Obamacare: "They just lied to people." - Hit & Run : Reason.com

LIE TWO!!!
Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis.
The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."..
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

With these TWO GIGANTIC LIES Frank Supported we have had two gigantic destructive forces in our economy..!

'House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying: "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis. '

WEIRD, SINCE WHEN IS A DEM CHAIR OF A GOP MAJPRITY (1995-2007) HOUSE?


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.”



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



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



Testimony from Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS 2003 concerning the 'regulation’ of the GSE’s

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

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.
- THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES


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.


Lots of programs have always been in place to encourage home ownership, etc, but the absolutely insane stuff came when the banks basically gave up on lending standards.


The Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004. that was the same year bush implemented his toxic housing policies

June 17, 2004




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

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



We have made significant adjustments to our mortgage loan sourcing and purchase strategies in an effort to meet the increased housing goals and subgoals. These strategies include entering into some purchase and securitization transactions with lower expected economic returns than our typical transactions. We have also relaxed some of our underwriting criteria to obtain goals-qualifying mortgage loans and increased our investments in higher-risk mortgage loan products that are more likely to serve the borrowers targeted by HUD’s goals and subgoals,
http://www.fanniemae.com/resources/file/ir/pdf/proxy-statements/2007_annual_report.pdf

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



June 17th, 2004

Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

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


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


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



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

Nice try. It was the liberal democrats which kept the policies in place which caused the housing bubble. All of the documentation is there.
This argument has been settled.

 

[healthmyths]

98% of Americans were able to keep their plans.

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.

You wrote 89% of Americans are insured and this table proves you are partially correct..
It's actual 97.17%...
Now of course there is no idea of how many are overlaps, i.e. people under Employer plans also covered by VA or Private,etc...
BUT one number we haven't really comprehended is 18 million THAT don't want,don't need, don't have insurance!
Yet they've been so bogusly counted as part of the bogus 46 million it is patently wrong!

• 149,464,500 - Employer plans... (Just to be clear.. these are people covered by their employers' plans...OK?) [48.2% by employer]
• 66,390,642 - Medicaid ---- people covered by states' Medicaid..[21.42% Medicaid]
• 49,435,610 - Medicare [15.95% ]
• 15,771,400 - Private plans [5.09%]
• 7,900,000 - Veterans Administration health care system had nearly enrolled as of October 2008. [2.55%]
• http://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_department_of_veterans_affairs.pdf
• 8,300,000 - Tricare.. TriCare Information - Military Health Care [2.68%]
• ========

301,219,252 insured people leaving of 310 million less then 8 million of which 18 million DoN"T WANT Coverage!!!

Source: Health Insurance Coverage of the Total Population | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

 

[Dad2three]

Calm down and debate like an adult.

Those loans were not "no income required" loans.

They were no income verification laons.

The 1003 is an affidavit and it required an honest response as to income and job history.

Yes, fraud was the cause of most of the defaults...

Most of the fraud was committed by those that lied on the 1003.

Some of the fraud was misleading by the sub prime brokers when they said "take the ARM and when it balloons in 5 years you can refinance"

Problem was, when it came to refinance, the value of their homes dropped.....so they could not refinance and were stuck with the balloon.

look bro...I know this shit....obviously a lot more than you do. It has been a part of my life for the better part of a quarter century.

But stick to what you believe.

Wont change my life.

Doing this for 8 years now, YOU are to simple

redatory origination practices were especially prevalent
within the HEL segment. Alt-A and subprime mortgages (sometimes called “B/C” mortgages to denote their lower credit quality) were sold to people with impaired credit history, or people who lacked the ability to make a large down payment, or people who did not have verification of their income. Alt-A is not strictly defined but is generally viewed as an intermediate category that encompasses borrowers with FICO scores to qualify for prime but who lack some other qualification.

The term subprime actually has a set of formal definitions. To qualify for a prime or conventional mortgage, a person needed 20% down and a credit FICO score of 660 or above (the average score is 710 on a scale from 450-900). Mortgagees who did not have these qualifications
were not eligible for prime or conventional mortgages


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


In 2004, for the first time, these four categories of loans exceeded the prime market or conventional market. In 2001, the largest conventional (prime, government-insured) originator did 91% of its origination business in the conventional market, and only 9% in the non-prime market.


By 2005 the largest conventional originator was doing less than half of its origination business within the conventional sector (Inside Mortgage Finance 2009). In the peak of the mortgage craze in 2006, fully 70% of all loans that were made were unconventional mortgages.

 

[healthmyths]

The LAST word on who caused the housing bubble bust!!!
Who is to Blame for the Financial Crisis and Ensuing Economic Crisis

B]Who contributed to the creation to the financial crisis and the ensuing economic crisis?[/B]
The following is a general answer followed by a section naming the key players:

Regulators who relaxed risk management regulations required by the banks and for not regulating derivative investments (please, see more specific details below)

The Federal Reserve Chairmen who dismissed the build-up of the housing bubble from 2002 to 2007 until it was too late.
They did not take actions to regulate mortgage companies or control the housing bubble

World Central Bankers who blindly copied the US Federal Reserve Bank policies

World Financial Regulators who blindly copied US financial market models and regulations

World Investment Banks who sold subprime (high risk) mortgage backed securities to their customers without fully understanding them and who hired credit rating agencies to rate them as high quality investment when in fact they included high risk loans. The same banks who sold the subprime investments later bet against their own clients without disclosing the conflict of interest to their clients

Credit Rating Agencies who overrated junk securities as investment-grade quality and misled investors about the risk and the value of these investments

Academic and Financial Economists who ignored the warnings and misjudged macroeconomic and financial market indicators

Award-winning Economists who designed flawed risk pricing models

Investment Analysts who used flawed risk pricing models and asset portfolio theories

Wall Street Banking Executives who ignored internal risk management policies out of greed to increase revenues and their bonuses in the short term at the expense of long term stability of their companies

Wall Street Boards of Directors who did not protect their shareholders against excessive executive compensation and ignored prudent risk management strategies
Wall Street Advisors who did not do their homework before advising their clients on bad investments

Investment Fund Managers who lost billions of dollars investing without adequate due diligence

Mortgage Brokers who sold loans to unqualified borrowers in order to collect more commissions

Homebuyers who took loans they could not afford to pay back and blamed the banks for predatory lending

US Presidents for hiring former Wall Street lobbyists as government policy makers who bailed out the banks without regard to the moral hazard. By doing so, they shifted the burden on the taxpayers and risked the future of the national economy

US Supreme Court Justices who ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections thus tightening the grip of Wall Street on government officials and skewing the balance of power in favor of Wall Street and big companies.

The Financial Media who took no responsibility for promoting the illusions of a healthy housing sector and for not asking the right questions. Media outlets that favored a promotional business model at the expense of investigative journalism.
In our research, we found a prevalent bias in allocating airwaves and print space to brand name experts.
Most journalists and editors seem to ignore voices that are not well-known or those who have a story that do not fit their narrative or preconception.
All we had to do is Google simple phrases like "US Economic Risks" to find a wealth of information that would raise so many critical questions.
If equal media exposure was given to the voices that warned us about the housing bubble, the damage could have been mitigated.

 

[Dad2three]

1. H.R.2022 introduced on 7 May 2003 by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT,4).
Title: To extend the registration and reporting requirements of the Federal securities laws to certain housing-related Government-sponsored enterprises, and for other purposes.

2. 2. H.R.2117 introduced 23 May 2003 by Rep. Pete Fortney (D-CA,13).
Title: To amend the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act to remove certain competitive advantages granted to the housing-related government-sponsored enterprises relative to other secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

3. 4.H.R.2803 introduced on 21 July 2003 by Rep. Edward R Royce (R-CA,40).
Title: To establish the Office of Housing Finance Oversight in the Department of the Treasury to ensure the financial safety and soundness of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal home loan banks.

4. 6.S.1508, introduced 31 July 2003 by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE).
Title: A bill to address regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

5. 7.S.1656, introduced 23 September 2003 by Sen. Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ).
Title: A bill to address regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.

This was just in 2003 let alone all of the others. They were blocked by Dems in the Housing & Banking Committee and did not even make it to the floor.

Yet the GOP got 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts, 2 UNFUNDED wars and UNFUNDED Medicare expansion AND a bill to get between a husband and a wife (Schiavo), but COULDN'T get past the Dems in the GOP Majority House where it takes simple majority to pass? THAT'S YOUR PREMISE? lol

What part of did not get past the committee are you not understanding?

lol, YOU REALIZE GOP HAD EVERY COMMITTEE IN 2003 IN THE HOUSE RIGHT? And NO bill NEEDS to go to committee, if the Speaker wants to bring it up on a floor vote, he can


Dems could've been nekid and on fire, and not stopped ONE bill out of the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007. UNLIKE where the Senate it takes a super majority (except, again to get out of committee)....

Look to 40+ 'repeal Obamacares' bills for an example

 

[Dad2three]

Now that he is retiring.. Barney thinks he can now tell the truth!

LIE One Barney Supported!!!!

Barney Frank on the White House Rollout of Obamacare: "They just lied to people."
"The rollout was so bad, and I was appalled -- I don't understand how the president could have sat there and not been checking on that on a weekly basis," Frank told HuffPost during a July interview.
"But frankly, he should never have said as much as he did, that if you like your current health care plan, you can keep it.
That wasn't true. And you shouldn't lie to people. And they just lied to people."

Basically, yes (although that wasn't the only Obamacare-related thing the administration misled the public about).

Frank suggests that the Obama administration could have avoided some trouble by not making the promise. But the question is whether the law would have passed without an explicit vow that people could keep their plans and doctors.
Barney Frank on the White House Rollout of Obamacare: "They just lied to people." - Hit & Run : Reason.com

LIE TWO!!!
Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis.
The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."..
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

With these TWO GIGANTIC LIES Frank Supported we have had two gigantic destructive forces in our economy..!

'House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying: "these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis. '

WEIRD, SINCE WHEN IS A DEM CHAIR OF A GOP MAJPRITY (1995-2007) HOUSE?


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.”



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



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



Testimony from Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS 2003 concerning the 'regulation’ of the GSE’s

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

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.
- THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES


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.


Lots of programs have always been in place to encourage home ownership, etc, but the absolutely insane stuff came when the banks basically gave up on lending standards.


The Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004. that was the same year bush implemented his toxic housing policies

June 17, 2004




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

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



We have made significant adjustments to our mortgage loan sourcing and purchase strategies in an effort to meet the increased housing goals and subgoals. These strategies include entering into some purchase and securitization transactions with lower expected economic returns than our typical transactions. We have also relaxed some of our underwriting criteria to obtain goals-qualifying mortgage loans and increased our investments in higher-risk mortgage loan products that are more likely to serve the borrowers targeted by HUD’s goals and subgoals,
http://www.fanniemae.com/resources/file/ir/pdf/proxy-statements/2007_annual_report.pdf

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



June 17th, 2004

Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

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


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


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



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

Nice try. It was the liberal democrats which kept the policies in place which caused the housing bubble. All of the documentation is there.
This argument has been settled.

True it HAS been settled, Dubya hosed US, badly...

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

 

[healthmyths]

The point of my above conclusion is best summed up by the OLD cartoon called Pogo who
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
Probably the most famous Pogo quotation is "We have met the enemy and he is us." Perhaps more than any other words written by Kelly, it perfectly sums up his attitude towards the foibles of mankind and the nature of the human condition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_(comic_strip)
In this case paraphrasing it .."we've identified who caused the housing bubble and it is ALL OF US"!!!

 

[peach174]

Government Sponsored Enterprises: The Heartbeat of the Financial Crisis

Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) essentially control the mortgage market. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae are the three main GSEs. When someone gets a mortgage from a bank or mortgage broker, that lender can hold the mortgage, but more often sells it to a GSE. The ability to sell the mortgage generates much of the mortgage volume we see today. Brokers can not hold mortgages, and banks can not tie a majority of their funds up for roughly 30 years. When you originate or refinance a mortgage, ask about what role Fannie Mae plays in your obtaining to obtain the loan, you are very likely to hear that it is quite significant. Today, Fannie and Freddie alone either own or guarantee roughly more than half of the nation’s outstanding mortgage total (the ratio would be higher if not for estimated private arrangements). Among new originations, government or government “sponsored” organizations have a hand in 9 of 10, according to the Wall Street Journal.

GSEs get the money to buy mortgages from selling bonds to investors…you, me, mutual funds, etc. Because GSEs are linked to the US federal government, which has the safest credit rating in the world (currently), investors buy those bonds while demanding low interest payments in return. Someone who gets a mortgage pays much higher interest rates than GSEs do. GSEs therefore raise money at low rates and purchase mortgages that pay higher rates. They keep some of the mortgages, and resell the rest just as the banks did with them. One big difference… when Fannie Mae, for example, resells a mortgage it has purchased — it typically guarantees the payments. Whether Fannie keeps the mortgages, or guarantees and resells them, it assumes the risks that the mortgage holder may not be able to repay, or that the interest rate environment could change, leaving it stuck with worse-than-market payment terms.

The more mortgages GSEs buy, the more profits they can make…assuming everyone pays their mortgage on time. Fannie must pay its creditors on time, but the people who get the mortgages are not always able to do the same. There comes a point at which simply buying mortgages to generate additional revenues becomes counter productive for Fannie.

If GSEs obey standard accounting rules, investors would know right away if that point of diminishing returns is being reached. As we learned this decade with the Enron, WorldComm, and Bernie Madoff scandals, if a company wildly violates those rules, management could paint nearly any picture it designs, at least until something radically changes to make the problem impossible to hide. By far the largest and most active of the GSEs…Fannie Mae would put the entire economic system at risk if its management pulled a Madoff. Because Fannie is government sponsored, that could never happen unless some very powerful force assisted the cover up, either overtly or inadvertently.

In the case of the housing crisis, that power, as President Clinton stated above, was the Democrat party. Democrats united to steadfastly resist many repeated efforts to effectively increase transparency with regard to GSE accounting and mortgage market activities. In a nutshell, as Congressman Artur Davis stated — who was one of those Democrat on the House Financial Service Committee — they were worried that increased transparency would slow GSEs’ mortgage buying, because investors might stop giving money to GSEs so freely and at such low interest rates.

It was the government and the Dem's who caused the financial crisis.
The main person behind it was Barney Frank and all the Dem's who would not budge on any reforms for the GSE.

 

[Dad2three]

The LAST word on who caused the housing bubble bust!!!
Who is to Blame for the Financial Crisis and Ensuing Economic Crisis

B]Who contributed to the creation to the financial crisis and the ensuing economic crisis?[/B]
The following is a general answer followed by a section naming the key players:

Regulators who relaxed risk management regulations required by the banks and for not regulating derivative investments (please, see more specific details below)

The Federal Reserve Chairmen who dismissed the build-up of the housing bubble from 2002 to 2007 until it was too late.
They did not take actions to regulate mortgage companies or control the housing bubble

World Central Bankers who blindly copied the US Federal Reserve Bank policies

World Financial Regulators who blindly copied US financial market models and regulations

World Investment Banks who sold subprime (high risk) mortgage backed securities to their customers without fully understanding them and who hired credit rating agencies to rate them as high quality investment when in fact they included high risk loans. The same banks who sold the subprime investments later bet against their own clients without disclosing the conflict of interest to their clients

Credit Rating Agencies who overrated junk securities as investment-grade quality and misled investors about the risk and the value of these investments

Academic and Financial Economists who ignored the warnings and misjudged macroeconomic and financial market indicators

Award-winning Economists who designed flawed risk pricing models

Investment Analysts who used flawed risk pricing models and asset portfolio theories

Wall Street Banking Executives who ignored internal risk management policies out of greed to increase revenues and their bonuses in the short term at the expense of long term stability of their companies

Wall Street Boards of Directors who did not protect their shareholders against excessive executive compensation and ignored prudent risk management strategies
Wall Street Advisors who did not do their homework before advising their clients on bad investments

Investment Fund Managers who lost billions of dollars investing without adequate due diligence

Mortgage Brokers who sold loans to unqualified borrowers in order to collect more commissions

Homebuyers who took loans they could not afford to pay back and blamed the banks for predatory lending

US Presidents for hiring former Wall Street lobbyists as government policy makers who bailed out the banks without regard to the moral hazard. By doing so, they shifted the burden on the taxpayers and risked the future of the national economy

US Supreme Court Justices who ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections thus tightening the grip of Wall Street on government officials and skewing the balance of power in favor of Wall Street and big companies.

The Financial Media who took no responsibility for promoting the illusions of a healthy housing sector and for not asking the right questions. Media outlets that favored a promotional business model at the expense of investigative journalism.
In our research, we found a prevalent bias in allocating airwaves and print space to brand name experts.
Most journalists and editors seem to ignore voices that are not well-known or those who have a story that do not fit their narrative or preconception.
All we had to do is Google simple phrases like "US Economic Risks" to find a wealth of information that would raise so many critical questions.
If equal media exposure was given to the voices that warned us about the housing bubble, the damage could have been mitigated.

All kinda true, BUT Dubya gets 80% of the blame as EXECUTIVE BRANCH (FBI, SEC, HUD, F/F, ETC)


YET, Dubya could've EASILY stopped 90%+ of the crisis (like Reagan with his S&L ) by just using the regulators he had, no new regulations needed. Of course THEN he would've had to 'believe' markets can't 'self regulate' and where does that leave him?

Federal reserve COULD'VE stopped much of it by going after predatory lending practices, but why would've Allen 'Ayn Rand' Greenspan had done that?

GLAD TO SEE YOU DIDN'T HAVE BARNEY OR FANNIE/FREDDIE ON THAT LIST

 

[Dad2three]

The LAST word on who caused the housing bubble bust!!!
Who is to Blame for the Financial Crisis and Ensuing Economic Crisis

B]Who contributed to the creation to the financial crisis and the ensuing economic crisis?[/B]
The following is a general answer followed by a section naming the key players:

Regulators who relaxed risk management regulations required by the banks and for not regulating derivative investments (please, see more specific details below)

The Federal Reserve Chairmen who dismissed the build-up of the housing bubble from 2002 to 2007 until it was too late.
They did not take actions to regulate mortgage companies or control the housing bubble

World Central Bankers who blindly copied the US Federal Reserve Bank policies

World Financial Regulators who blindly copied US financial market models and regulations

World Investment Banks who sold subprime (high risk) mortgage backed securities to their customers without fully understanding them and who hired credit rating agencies to rate them as high quality investment when in fact they included high risk loans. The same banks who sold the subprime investments later bet against their own clients without disclosing the conflict of interest to their clients

Credit Rating Agencies who overrated junk securities as investment-grade quality and misled investors about the risk and the value of these investments

Academic and Financial Economists who ignored the warnings and misjudged macroeconomic and financial market indicators

Award-winning Economists who designed flawed risk pricing models

Investment Analysts who used flawed risk pricing models and asset portfolio theories

Wall Street Banking Executives who ignored internal risk management policies out of greed to increase revenues and their bonuses in the short term at the expense of long term stability of their companies

Wall Street Boards of Directors who did not protect their shareholders against excessive executive compensation and ignored prudent risk management strategies
Wall Street Advisors who did not do their homework before advising their clients on bad investments

Investment Fund Managers who lost billions of dollars investing without adequate due diligence

Mortgage Brokers who sold loans to unqualified borrowers in order to collect more commissions

Homebuyers who took loans they could not afford to pay back and blamed the banks for predatory lending

US Presidents for hiring former Wall Street lobbyists as government policy makers who bailed out the banks without regard to the moral hazard. By doing so, they shifted the burden on the taxpayers and risked the future of the national economy

US Supreme Court Justices who ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections thus tightening the grip of Wall Street on government officials and skewing the balance of power in favor of Wall Street and big companies.

The Financial Media who took no responsibility for promoting the illusions of a healthy housing sector and for not asking the right questions. Media outlets that favored a promotional business model at the expense of investigative journalism.
In our research, we found a prevalent bias in allocating airwaves and print space to brand name experts.
Most journalists and editors seem to ignore voices that are not well-known or those who have a story that do not fit their narrative or preconception.
All we had to do is Google simple phrases like "US Economic Risks" to find a wealth of information that would raise so many critical questions.
If equal media exposure was given to the voices that warned us about the housing bubble, the damage could have been mitigated.

" World Central Bankers who blindly copied the US Federal Reserve Bank policies"




Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?

According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":

Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?




Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?


… after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate. …

When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:

Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble? | AEIdeas

 

[Dad2three]

The point of my above conclusion is best summed up by the OLD cartoon called Pogo who
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
Probably the most famous Pogo quotation is "We have met the enemy and he is us." Perhaps more than any other words written by Kelly, it perfectly sums up his attitude towards the foibles of mankind and the nature of the human condition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_(comic_strip)
In this case paraphrasing it .."we've identified who caused the housing bubble and it is ALL OF US"!!!

Nope, like the 1929 GOP crash, it was easy money, and REGULATOR FAILURE (just like Reagan's S&L crisis)

Weird it's like we elect guys who don't 'believe in' Gov't and it's regulators and then are SHOCKED when they fail in their jobs!



The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
P. J. O'Rourke

 

[Dad2three]

Government Sponsored Enterprises: The Heartbeat of the Financial Crisis

Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) essentially control the mortgage market. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae are the three main GSEs. When someone gets a mortgage from a bank or mortgage broker, that lender can hold the mortgage, but more often sells it to a GSE. The ability to sell the mortgage generates much of the mortgage volume we see today. Brokers can not hold mortgages, and banks can not tie a majority of their funds up for roughly 30 years. When you originate or refinance a mortgage, ask about what role Fannie Mae plays in your obtaining to obtain the loan, you are very likely to hear that it is quite significant. Today, Fannie and Freddie alone either own or guarantee roughly more than half of the nation’s outstanding mortgage total (the ratio would be higher if not for estimated private arrangements). Among new originations, government or government “sponsored” organizations have a hand in 9 of 10, according to the Wall Street Journal.

GSEs get the money to buy mortgages from selling bonds to investors…you, me, mutual funds, etc. Because GSEs are linked to the US federal government, which has the safest credit rating in the world (currently), investors buy those bonds while demanding low interest payments in return. Someone who gets a mortgage pays much higher interest rates than GSEs do. GSEs therefore raise money at low rates and purchase mortgages that pay higher rates. They keep some of the mortgages, and resell the rest just as the banks did with them. One big difference… when Fannie Mae, for example, resells a mortgage it has purchased — it typically guarantees the payments. Whether Fannie keeps the mortgages, or guarantees and resells them, it assumes the risks that the mortgage holder may not be able to repay, or that the interest rate environment could change, leaving it stuck with worse-than-market payment terms.

The more mortgages GSEs buy, the more profits they can make…assuming everyone pays their mortgage on time. Fannie must pay its creditors on time, but the people who get the mortgages are not always able to do the same. There comes a point at which simply buying mortgages to generate additional revenues becomes counter productive for Fannie.

If GSEs obey standard accounting rules, investors would know right away if that point of diminishing returns is being reached. As we learned this decade with the Enron, WorldComm, and Bernie Madoff scandals, if a company wildly violates those rules, management could paint nearly any picture it designs, at least until something radically changes to make the problem impossible to hide. By far the largest and most active of the GSEs…Fannie Mae would put the entire economic system at risk if its management pulled a Madoff. Because Fannie is government sponsored, that could never happen unless some very powerful force assisted the cover up, either overtly or inadvertently.

In the case of the housing crisis, that power, as President Clinton stated above, was the Democrat party. Democrats united to steadfastly resist many repeated efforts to effectively increase transparency with regard to GSE accounting and mortgage market activities. In a nutshell, as Congressman Artur Davis stated — who was one of those Democrat on the House Financial Service Committee — they were worried that increased transparency would slow GSEs’ mortgage buying, because investors might stop giving money to GSEs so freely and at such low interest rates.

It was the government and the Dem's who caused the financial crisis.
The main person behind it was Barney Frank and all the Dem's who would not budge on any reforms for the GSE.

MORE right wing garbage, I'm shocked

That';s why the Banksters are paying back F/F for the fraudulent loans F/F bought? It was F/F that caused the crisis? lol


The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession



Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

Look at the numbers. While the credit bubble was peaking from 2003 to 2006, the amount of loans originated by Fannie and Freddie dropped from $2.7 trillion to $1 trillion. Meanwhile, in the private sector, the amount of subprime loans originated jumped to $600 billion from $335 billion and Alt-A loans hit $400 billion from $85 billion in 2003. Fannie and Freddie, which wouldn’t accept crazy floating rate loans, which required income verification and minimum down payments, were left out of the insanity.


The Myth of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, the Housing Bubble and the Recession | The Long Goodbye



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.




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

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards


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

F/F WERE AROUND FOR 70 YEARS WHAT CHANGED?

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.”

 

[80zephyr]

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

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.”



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

March 26, 2004

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership | Fox News


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




How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

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

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



STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

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

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

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



The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley (R), now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.”

“What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”


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


LOL

Battling QUOTES!!!
The White House released this list of attempts by President Bush to reform Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac since he took office in 2001.
Unfortunately, Congress did not act on the president’s warnings:

** 2001

April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

** 2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

** 2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

** 2004

February: The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.” (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market's] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, “Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order,” Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.” (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

** 2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.” (Secretary John W. Snow, “Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee,” 4/13/05)

** 2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

** 2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.” (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and “move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation
and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

“Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

“[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

“Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying “we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President’s call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
Pelosi Caught In Major Lie- Says Bush Didn't Warn Congress About Financial Crisis? Records Show He Warned Congress 17 Times in 2008 Alone | The Gateway Pundit

WEIRD, 17 TIMES AND DUBYA STILL FORCED F/F TO UP THEIR 'AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS' IN 2004 FROM 50% YO 56% AND DROPPED THE CLINTON RULE THAT REIGNED THEM IN? LOL

Bush forced Freddie and Fannie to purchase more low income home loans, $440 billion in MBSs and then reversed the Clinton rule that actually reigned in Freddie and Fannie


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




How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

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


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


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan

Groups ask HUD to rethink plan that would increase financing of homes to low-income people.


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


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.”



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

WHY DIDN'T THE GOP CONGRESS DO ANYTHING ABOUT DUBYA'S 'WARNINGS'???


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

Are...are you saying that the GOP passed laws they thought would help low income people?

That doesn't quite fit the "Republicans are evil" narrative does it?

Mark

 

[peach174]

Yet the GOP got 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts, 2 UNFUNDED wars and UNFUNDED Medicare expansion AND a bill to get between a husband and a wife (Schiavo), but COULDN'T get past the Dems in the GOP Majority House where it takes simple majority to pass? THAT'S YOUR PREMISE? lol

What part of did not get past the committee are you not understanding?

lol, YOU REALIZE GOP HAD EVERY COMMITTEE IN 2003 IN THE HOUSE RIGHT? And NO bill NEEDS to go to committee, if the Speaker wants to bring it up on a floor vote, he can


Dems could've been nekid and on fire, and not stopped ONE bill out of the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007. UNLIKE where the Senate it takes a super majority (except, again to get out of committee)....

Look to 40+ 'repeal Obamacares' bills for an example

Dems were able to block and delay.

The House Financial Services Committee began debate on September 11, 2003 and held multiple hearings over the next several weeks. In supporting the bills, Republicans focused on GSE’s potential impact on the broader financial system. Democrats focused solely on the mortgage lending targets, stating there was no risk to the broader financial system because the federal government would bail out the GSEs if necessary.


Democrat Delay Tactics: There was a particularly illustrative example of Democrat Party administrative tactics during the September 25, 2003 House Financial Services Committee hearing, in which Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) argued it should take a very long time for Congress to debate any serious GSE regulation. Steve Bartlett, President of the Financial Services Rountable — an organization that represents practically every major US bank — responded,

“Mr. Kanjorski, our organization and our companies have been quite concerned about this from a safety and soundness as well as mission, for the last several years. We have communicated that concern, but recently that concern seems to have been highlighted by a number of factors. So yes sir, I believe there is an urgency to the tune of some $3.3 trillion that is either owned or guaranteed by these two agencies…We think they are not being properly regulated, and we believe that with $3.3 trillion, you don’t want to wait too long, and so now is the time to act.”

Mr. Kanjorski then continued as if Mr. Bartlett had never spoken, and brought up something Franklin Raines had suggested Congress debate, saying, “I could anticipate it taking weeks and weeks and weeks“ just to do that.

A few minutes after this exchange, Mr. Bartlett tried to persuade David Scott (D-GA) that Democrat statements of concern about regulation potentially impacting Fannie’s mortgage lending “mission” was becoming empty, stating,

“It’s gotten to a $3.3 trillion overhang over the nation’s economy, and unless strong, independent regulation is provided, the housing goals for Fannie and Freddie will go in the tank, because the system will ultimately not…will be in jeopardy.”


Democrat Delay Tactics: There was a particularly illustrative example of Democrat Party administrative tactics during the September 25, 2003 House Financial Services Committee hearing, in which Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) argued it should take a very long time for Congress to debate any serious GSE regulation.

Democrats’ Last Line of Defense Was Impenetrable

Under Senate rules, any legislation not passed into law by the end of the session automatically expires, and that’s exactly what Democrat stonewalling achieved. The 108th Congress ended in January 2005, and with it, the Senate bill. Senator Charles Hagel (R-NE) re-introduced the on January 26, 2005, with the co-sponsorship of John McCain (R-AZ), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) and John Sununu (R-NH).

As a new bill, it had to go through committee again before coming up for full Senate vote. Alan Greenspan testified at these hearings in April 2005, stating, ”We at the Federal Reserve remain concerned about the growth and magnitude of the mortgage portfolios of the government-sponsored enterprises, which concentrate interest rate risk and prepayment risk at these two institutions and makes our financial system dependent on their ability to manage these risks” … “To fend off possible future systemic difficulties, which we assess as likely if G.S.E. expansion continues unabated, preventive actions are required sooner rather than later.”

The Senate Committee for Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs passed the legislation on a party-line vote on July 28, 2005… all 11 Republicans voted in favor of the new regulations; all 9 Democrats voted against. The Senate bill took a stronger approach than the House measure, in that it gave the new regulator broad power over the kinds of assets Fannie and Freddie would be allowed to hold. By 2005, GSEs held or guaranteed $1.5 trillion in mortgage debt, having grown the amount by a 20% annual rate since President Clinton’s 1994 GSA changes.

At this point, GSE regulation had passed through the full House and through Senate committee… essentially all that remained was the full Senate to pass it. This was Democrats’ last line of defense, and it was impenetrable.

Under Senate Rule 22, any Senator can filibuster a piece of legislation simply by threatening to do so, without having to formally stand at the podium and read the phone book or anything like that. Such a “filibuster” requires 60 Senators to break, as we have seen more recently with regard to the Health Care legislation. In other words, the minority party can force approval of any bill to require 60 votes, rather than the usual 50.

In the 109th Congress of 2005, there were 55 Republican Senators — five Democrats would have had to have supported the GSE regulatory bill. Chris Dodd (D-CT), ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee for Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs — and the Democrat party general with regard to GSE regulation strategy — let it be known that he recommended opposition to the bill. Every one of Mr. Dodd’s Democrats had opposed the bill in committee, and not one Democrat from the larger Senate offered support to bring the legislation to the floor. Barack Obama (D-IL) had joined the Senate in January 2005 and was among the people de-facto supporting the “filibuster.”

At the time, Democrats were using the Rule 22 filibuster with extraordinary regularity and effect. Democrats and Republicans were in tense negotiations with regard to ending many filibusters on Bush judicial nominees.

By mid 2006, the Senate Republican sponsors of the regulatory bill became frustrated, as it would expire with the coming of the 109th Congressional session. On May 5, 2006, they wrote an open letter to Senate leadership that began, “We are concerned that if effective regulatory legislation for the housing-finance government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”

Despite the evidence presented by OFHEO, Deloitte & Touche, the SEC, and several financial analysts, Democrats never wavered in shielding Fannie Mae from effectively increased regulation or transparency. Despite the regulatory bills passing out of committees in the House and Senate, and passing the full House, it never had a chance of being enacted as long as Senate Democrats remained unified in opposition — it needed five Democrats; none stepped forward.