If GOP takes Senate, how long until 2nd Great Depression?

[Dad2three]

Still waiting for the ONE bill the Dems passed under Dubya that changed his policies?

IF the GOP gets the Senate, nothing changes, the GOP has been dragging Obama down from day one, fighting EVERYTHING that might help US, all in the name of their failed ideology!


THE PREZ USES EXECUTIVE BRANCH POWER WITH THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESS. DUBYA'S REGULATOR FAILURE PROVED IT!

Even better question what Bush policy has obama done away with or has not extended and made worse?

HE PUT REGULATORS BACK ON THE BEAT!


“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.”

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

You're bitching about a failed freddy and Fanny that bush want more regulatory? You do realize it had to be bailed out? Your democrats fat calf needed to be killed but no democrats whined like little bitches and here we are economy crashed

BUSH WANTED MORE REGULATORY? LOL

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.

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

July 8, 2004

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

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
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development released data today giving a state-by-state breakdown of the performance of Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This data covering 1999-2002 shows that combined, the GSEs have lagged behind the primary market in 44 states in their commitment to provide affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income families.

"While the GSEs met the affordable housing goals in 2002, they must further utilize their entrepreneurial talents and power in the marketplace to genuinely lead the mortgage finance industry as Congress intended," said HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson. "HUD recently proposed new housing goals, which over the next four years, would simply push the GSEs to do what is expected of them-helping low- and moderate-income families at least at the same percentage levels as primary market lenders."


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


June 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


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". And here's what the House Republican Mike Oxley, Chairman of the House Financial Services committee said

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

You left out the rest of that statement, so here it is.

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

· The Administration has long called for legislation to create a stronger, more effective regulatory regime to improve oversight of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks ("housing government-sponsored enterprises" or "housing GSEs") and appreciates the considerable efforts of Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker in crafting H.R. 1461. However,

· H.R. 1461 fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large. As a result, the Administration opposes the bill.

· The regulatory regime envisioned by H.R. 1461 is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial institutions. This regime is of particular concern given that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac currently hold only about half of the capital of comparable financial institutions. In order for a financial regulator to be respected and credible, it must have the authority and ability to adjust capital requirements of the institutions it oversees as circumstances dictate to ensure prudential operations. An effective oversight regime must also provide for clear review of business activities to ensure the integrity of the housing finance system and consistency with the GSEs' housing mission. The Administration does not believe that the housing GSEs should be exempt from these important standards of world-class regulation.

· The dramatic growth of the housing GSEs over the last decade, as well as recent accounting and operational problems, underscore the importance of protecting the broader financial markets from systemic risks caused by their actions. The housing GSEs' outstanding debt is approximately $2.5 trillion, and they provide credit guarantees on another $2.4 trillion of mortgages. By comparison, the privately held debt of the Federal government is $4.1 trillion. Housing GSE debt is issued largely to support sizable portfolio investments that are unnecessary to fulfill the GSEs' housing mission. Given the size and importance of the GSEs, Congress must ensure that their large mortgage portfolios do not place the U.S. financial system at risk. H.R. 1461 fails to provide critical policy guidance in this area.

Weird the ONLY bill to make it out of EITHER GOP CONGRESSIONAL HOUSE ON F/F REFORM 1995-2007 WAS OPPOSED BY DUBYA? And it was AFTER he REQUIRED F/F to up their 'affordable housing goals' from 50% to 56% AND AFTER Dubya required them to buy $440 BILLION in MBS's to feed his ponzi scheme?

HR 1461 HAD HUGE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT? Why did Dubya oppose it? lol

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.


The National Association of Home Builders, along with the National Association of Realtors and the Mortgage Bankers Association, are drafting a letter to Alphonso Jackson, secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), arguing that middle-income home buyers are the ones that will get hurt by the proposed plan, the NAHB told CNN/Money.

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

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

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

 

[Antares]

just 6'4", scumbag insurance man lol...

....and very stupid,but you are OUR village idiot franco and that counts for something.

Seriously, NOTHING you ever type speaks of an education.

 

[francoHFW]

I'm slumming- mainly just screaming at functional moron Pub dupes who hold the country back- And I'm always right and never lie. See sig, dumbass.

 

[Antares]

I'm slumming- mainly just screaming at functional moron Pub dupes who hold the country back- And I'm always right and never lie. See sig, dumbass.

Sorry dude, NOBODY on this board see's ANY education in you.

 

[francoHFW]

I admire and respect your dumbass Pubtroll opinion. BTW, you just ignored 2 pages of Dad proving everything hater dupes believe about the Boosh economy to be totally bs propaganda. Pub dupes. So gd thick.

 

[Antares]

I admire and respect your dumbass Pubtroll opinion. BTW, you just ignored 2 pages of Dad proving everything hater dupes believe about the Boosh economy to be totally bs propaganda. Pub dupes. So gd thick.

Dad is a troll much like yourself.

I already proved it started with Bill, sorry.

 

[francoHFW]

Horse patoot, brainwashed dingbat.

 

[Dad2three]

I admire and respect your dumbass Pubtroll opinion. BTW, you just ignored 2 pages of Dad proving everything hater dupes believe about the Boosh economy to be totally bs propaganda. Pub dupes. So gd thick.

Dad is a troll much like yourself.

I already proved it started with Bill, sorry.

Weird, YOU 'proved' it started with Bill? lol



Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

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

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



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


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

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


Q Why is it commonly called the “subprime bubble” ?

A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006. In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending. (and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)

“Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages. Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006

https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf

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

 

[Antares]

I admire and respect your dumbass Pubtroll opinion. BTW, you just ignored 2 pages of Dad proving everything hater dupes believe about the Boosh economy to be totally bs propaganda. Pub dupes. So gd thick.

Dad is a troll much like yourself.

I already proved it started with Bill, sorry.

Weird, YOU 'proved' it started with Bill? lol



Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

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

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



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


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

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


Q Why is it commonly called the “subprime bubble” ?

A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006. In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending. (and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)

“Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages. Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006

https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf

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

Poor Dad,the ENTIRE issue started with Bill,just because you aren't educated enough to figure it out is not my issue.

 

[Dad2three]

I admire and respect your dumbass Pubtroll opinion. BTW, you just ignored 2 pages of Dad proving everything hater dupes believe about the Boosh economy to be totally bs propaganda. Pub dupes. So gd thick.

Dad is a troll much like yourself.

I already proved it started with Bill, sorry.

Weird, YOU 'proved' it started with Bill? lol



Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

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

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



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


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

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


Q Why is it commonly called the “subprime bubble” ?

A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006. In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending. (and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)

“Some 80 percent of outstanding U.S. mortgages are prime, while 14 percent are subprime and 6 percent fall into the near-prime category. These numbers, however, mask the explosive growth of nonprime mortgages. Subprime and near-prime loans shot up from 9 percent of newly originated securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006

https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf

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

Poor Dad,the ENTIRE issue started with Bill,just because you aren't educated enough to figure it out is not my issue.

Got it, YOU get to make a posit that's NOT supported by ANY evidence except right wing myths, distortions and lies, and the credible links saying you are full of it, means nothing. Typical right winger

 

[Billy000]

2-3 years if changes aren't made is my prediction. The middle class is shrinking and the poor are getting poorer. This is a consumption based economy. If our middle class is growing weaker, the economy cannot sustain itself from the decrease in consumer spending. Republicans are either too stupid or are full of shit when put all their faith in the investment class. Investment, while critical, means dick if consumer spending is down.

Republicans will do NOTHING to stop this middle class crisis.

 

[HenryBHough]

Republicans will do NOTHING to stop this middle class crisis.

And Obamacrats have done THEIR ALL to make it happen with the promise of Hillary or Fauxahontas helping the fire with a little gasoline. See, you're screwed - but when it's Democrats doing the screwin' you love it.

 

[Billy000]

Republicans will do NOTHING to stop this middle class crisis.

And Obamacrats have done THEIR ALL to make it happen with the promise of Hillary or Fauxahontas helping the fire with a little gasoline. See, you're screwed - but when it's Democrats doing the screwin' you love it.

For one thing, Obama is responsible for the biggest middle class tax cut since Reagan. He also wants to raise the minimum wage. According the the CBO, that would lift 16 million people out of poverty. 10 million private jobs have been created since his terms started.

What will republicans do? What polices do they have? NOTHING. How are you people so simple minded to see that? Republicans have NOTHING to offer you.

 

[whitehall]

Democrats held a majority in congress for Bush's last two years in his 2nd term. Democrat Barney Frank became chairperson of the powerful "House Banking Committee" which had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae. While whe White House was distracted by dirty tricks democrats who were undermining the Military mission in Iraq it seems that Frank was busy undermining the economy. Frank was on record claiming that Fannie Mae was solvent when it was in desperate trouble. What did Frank mean? Nobody ever asked him. Meanwhile the democrat majority leader was trying to impact the morale of the Troops when he said "the war (in Iraq) is lost". Nobody in the media was interested enough to ask Harry Reid whether he was playing a game of treason either.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If we should take a giant leap backwards and put the party of greed and excess back in charge cutting social programs while going hog wild on spending on corporate subsidies, tax breaks, defense contracts, and Federal Salaries and benefits -- the income gap will quickly grow to pre-Depression levels and when people have no money to spend in a Consumer Driven Economy -- the country will fall apart pretty fast.

And while the ship is sinking, the scumbags at Fox will blame Obama.

I suspect a Republican Senate, House and President would result in 3 things:

1) Massive tax cuts for the wealthy
2) Massive cut to services to the poor.
3) Massive uptick in claims we are a Christian nation.

1) Coming from a Democrat who doesn't even see the rich people in his own party. But oh hey, it's just Republicans.

2) And just how do you suppose they'd do that?

3) We are until stated otherwise.

1) Having 'rich folks' in a party mean nothing, a party however who does EVERYTHING to keep the 'job creators' at the lowest effective SUSTAINED tax burden in 80 years (half of what they were in the 1940-s and 1950's), THAT'S the difference dummy


2) NOT like the GOP has voted to cut EVERYTHING that MIGHT help the poor and working classes, like food stamps and their austerity, right?


3) lol, MORON...

First, while the Democrats gain control of Congress you want to blame Bush for the economy, believing in your own little world that the housing bubble which lead to this recession on banks under the President's policies.

Now that a Democrat President is in the helm, you want to switch up your argument to say it was the Repoblicans in Congress that is standing in the way of a growing economy and NOT Presidential policies of Barrack Obama.

Congratulations! You are talking from both sides of your mouth and don't have the slightest clue of what you are talking about with this economy.

Let me know which side of your flip flopping excuses you want to be on, as your obsession with Bush and your tunnel vision blind ideology is obviously clouding your judgement.

 

[elektra]

If the GOP wins the white house long before the next recession, 4-8 years depending on if the democrats win so that they can screw everything up again.

 

[Papageorgio]

I admire and respect your dumbass Pubtroll opinion. BTW, you just ignored 2 pages of Dad proving everything hater dupes believe about the Boosh economy to be totally bs propaganda. Pub dupes. So gd thick.

Dad is a troll much like yourself.

I already proved it started with Bill, sorry.

They don't care, the will spout the same lies over and over. In another thread, Dad has a link that tied it to Clinton but that does fit with his rhetoric. So, they keep blasting the same lies over and over.

 

[francoHFW]

Yup, Bush's Presidential working group report were dirty Dem commies!!!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Democrats held a majority in congress for Bush's last two years in his 2nd term. Democrat Barney Frank became chairperson of the powerful "House Banking Committee" which had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae. While whe White House was distracted by dirty tricks democrats who were undermining the Military mission in Iraq it seems that Frank was busy undermining the economy. Frank was on record claiming that Fannie Mae was solvent when it was in desperate trouble. What did Frank mean? Nobody ever asked him. Meanwhile the democrat majority leader was trying to impact the morale of the Troops when he said "the war (in Iraq) is lost". Nobody in the media was interested enough to ask Harry Reid whether he was playing a game of treason either.

Here is a transcript of how the Democrts handled oversight of Fannie and Freddie, and their efforts to stonewall any investigation into the two giants. Where WAS the concern over mortgage loans and it's impact on the economy by Democrats? Was their any effort made to conduct an investigation, or would Democrats simply blow it off by saying "there is no financial crisis to be found"?

September 1999

With pressure from the Clinton Administration, Fannie Mae eased credit requirements on loans it would purchase from lenders, making it easier for banks to lend to borrowers unqualified for conventional loans. Raines explained that "there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market," reported the New York Times.

With this action, Fannie Mae put itself at substantial risk in the event of an economic downturn. "From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," warned Peter Wallison. "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry." The danger was known.


March 2000

Rep. Richard Baker (R-Louisiana) proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight in a House Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

Rep. Frank (D-Massachusetts) dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."


June 2000

Rep. Marge Roukema (R-New Jersey): "very few banks or S&Ls could, even in this day and age, even now, meet the stress-testing requirements which Fannie and Freddie are required to meet."

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) regarding the Treasury Department line of credit: "It is really symbolic, it is obsolete, it has never been used." "Would you explain why it would be important to repeal something that seems to be of little use?"

Smith: "as long as the pipeline is there, it is like it is very expandable. . . . It is only $2 billion today. It could be $200 billion tomorrow."

Because of Democrat obfuscation, Smith's "tomorrow" arrived in 2008 when Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship.


February 2003

OFHEO reports that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations . . . the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them," warning that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market, according to a White House release.


June 2003

Freddie Mac reported it had understated its profits by $6.9 billion. OFHEO director Armando Falcon Jr. requested that the White House audit Fannie Mae.


July 2003

Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina) and John Sununu (R-New Hampshire) introduced legislation to address Regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill was blocked by Democrats.


September 2003

In an interview with Ron Insana for CNN Money, Rep. Baker warned, "I have concerns that if appropriate resources aren't allocated for internal risk management, the consequences will be far more severe than just a real estate slowdown. The losses would fall quickly through the capital these companies have and down to shareholders and taxpayers.These companies have some of the lowest capital margins of any financial institution in the nation, yet, at the same time, they are two of the largest. The concern is that if something doesn't work out the way they predict, the American taxpayer could be called on to pay off the debt in some sort of bailout."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "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."


October 2003

Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.


November 2003

Council of the Economic Advisers Chairman Greg Mankiw warned, "The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole. This risk is a systemic issue also because the debt obligations of the housing GSEs are widely held by other financial institutions. The importance of GSE debt in the portfolios of other financial entities means that even a small mistake in GSE risk management could have ripple effects throughout the financial system," from a White House release.


February 2004

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," says a White House release.

OFHEO reported that Fannie Mae and CEO Raines had manipulated its accounting to overstate its profits. Congress and the Bush administration sought strong new regulation and authority to put the GSEs under conservatorship if necessary. As the Washington Post reports, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac responded by orchestrating a major campaign "by traditional allies including real estate agents, home builders and mortgage lenders. Fannie Mae ran radio and television ads ahead of a key Senate committee meeting, depicting a Latino couple who fretted that if the bill passed, mortgage rates would go up."Again, GSE pressure prevailed.


October 2004

In a subcommittee testimony, Democrats vehemently reject regulation of Fannie Mae in the face of dire warning of a Fannie Mae oversight report. A few of them, Black Caucus members in particular, are very angry at the OFHEO Director as they attempt to defend Fannie Mae and protect their CRA extortion racket.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines."

Rep. Ed Royce (R-California): "In addition to our important oversight role in this committee, I hope that we will move swiftly to create a new regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, for Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks."

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Missouri): "This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines."

Rep. Ed Royce (R-California): "There is a very simple solution. Congress must create a new regulator with powers at least equal to those of other financial regulators, such as the OCC or Federal Reserve."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "Uh, I, this, you, you, you seem to me saying, ‘Well, these are in areas which could raise safety and soundness problems.' I don't see anything in your report that raises safety and soundness problems."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California): "Under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines, everything in the 1992 Act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop underwriting to 100% loans."

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): "Mr. Raines, 1.1 million bonus and a $526,000 salary. Jamie Gorelick, $779,000 bonus on a salary of 567,000. This is, what you state on page eleven is nothing less than staggering."

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): "The 1998 earnings per share number turned out to be $3.23 and 9 mills, a result that Fannie Mae met the EPS maximum payout goal right down to the penny."

Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois): "Fannie Mae understood the rules and simply chose not to follow them that if Fannie Mae had followed the practices, there wouldn't have been a bonus that year."

"The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006," reports the Wall Street Journal.

Greenspan testified that the size of GSE portfolios "poses a risk to the global financial system. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to bail out the lenders [GSEs] . . . should one get into financial trouble." He added, "If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis . . . We put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States, a key ingredient of support for homeownership."

Greenspan warned that if the GSEs "continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road . . . We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."

Bloomberg writes, "If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. . . .But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter. That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then."



April 2007

In "A Nightmare Grows Darker," the New York Times writes that the "democratization of credit" is "turning the American dream of homeownership into a nightmare for many borrowers." The "newfangled mortgage loans" called "affordability loans" "represent 60 percent of foreclosures."


2007-2008

The housing bubble began to burst, bad mortgages began to default, and finally the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac portfolios were revealed to be what they were, in collapse. And the testimony is evident as to why. As Wallison noted, "Fannie and Freddie were, I would say, the poster children for corporate welfare."


Archived-Articles: Why the Mortgage Crisis Happened

 

[Rotagilla]

If we should take a giant leap backwards and put the party of greed and excess back in charge cutting social programs while going hog wild on spending on corporate subsidies, tax breaks, defense contracts, and Federal Salaries and benefits -- the income gap will quickly grow to pre-Depression levels and when people have no money to spend in a Consumer Driven Economy -- the country will fall apart pretty fast.

And while the ship is sinking, the scumbags at Fox will blame Obama.

silly partisans will say anything.....exaggerate, fantasize, use hyperbole.... and if all that fails, just lie..