More economic GOOD News...DOW hits new record..on track to hit 17K.

[RKMBrown]

Stocks are literally priced to perfection.

It is prudent to pare holdings in such an environment.

Maybe.

 

[Theowl32]

Republicans didn't need a super majority ... Democrats didn't block any legislation to add oversight of the GSEs. It was Republicans who failed to even allow an up or down vote in the full Senate on any one of the numerous bills which made it to the Republican leadership in the Senate.

Republicans had the ball and they fumbled it. You don''t get to blame Democrats now who were on the sidelines.

Oh really? You not commenting on Barney Frank's speech speaks volumes. Yhe democrats did block Bush's attempts to regulate.

I have provided documented facts. Your denials of those facts does not change the facts.

Warning after warning from Bush and democrats would not allow any regulations. The democrats blocked all attempts.

Highlighted by Barney Frank.

Your little jedi mind trick will not work on me.

You have nothing. I'm well aware of your Frank/Dodd diversion. Meanwhile, at least 3 bills made it to the Republican leadership in the Senate. Not one was blocked by Democrats. One even passed in the House, get this ..... despite Barney Frank's nay vote. One was even rejected by Bush. Look up ...

S.1508 (2003)
S.190 (2005)
H.R.1461 (2008)

... and then get back to me.

Ok, want some more facts? Ok, let us see you attempt to refute this. Oh, this is an article from NY Times in 2003.

Want to read it? Good, I sure hope so.

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - NYTimes.com

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Democrats had forced lenders to assume more risk at lower interest rates in the 1990s, as IBD points out, and they didn’t want to countenance an end to their populist policies:

Political Cartoons & Opinion - Michael Ramirez - Editorial News - IBD - Investors.com

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but “predatory.”

Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the ’90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Faun]

Oh really? You not commenting on Barney Frank's speech speaks volumes. Yhe democrats did block Bush's attempts to regulate.

I have provided documented facts. Your denials of those facts does not change the facts.

Warning after warning from Bush and democrats would not allow any regulations. The democrats blocked all attempts.

Highlighted by Barney Frank.

Your little jedi mind trick will not work on me.

You have nothing. I'm well aware of your Frank/Dodd diversion. Meanwhile, at least 3 bills made it to the Republican leadership in the Senate. Not one was blocked by Democrats. One even passed in the House, get this ..... despite Barney Frank's nay vote. One was even rejected by Bush. Look up ...

S.1508 (2003)
S.190 (2005)
H.R.1461 (2008)

... and then get back to me.

Ok, want some more facts? Ok, let us see you attempt to refute this. Oh, this is an article from NY Times in 2003.

Want to read it? Good, I sure hope so.

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - NYTimes.com

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Democrats had forced lenders to assume more risk at lower interest rates in the 1990s, as IBD points out, and they didn’t want to countenance an end to their populist policies:

Political Cartoons & Opinion - Michael Ramirez - Editorial News - IBD - Investors.com

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but “predatory.”

Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the ’90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope you realize you're quoting individual members of the (b]minority party[/b] whose only power to block legislation was the use of a filibuster -- which never happened. And despite Democrats' disapproval, at least 3 bills made it as far as Republican leadership in the Senate, where all 3 bills died. Did you even look at the bills I cited?

 

[rightwinger]

All we have done is conclude in this entire thread is the unbelievable hypocrisy and double standards of liberals.

Lets see. They crush Bush for...................his drive for home ownership for low income housing. Which in every sense of the word is right in line with what the pathetic left supposedly wants.

They will of course all of a sudden deny they want that at all. A lot like how they all of a sudden celebrate wall street doing great. All of a sudden, they do not mind it all, regardless of their ignorance of what drives the market. All while they protest wall street. You tell me what they stand for. Good luck with that one.

They of course ignore the vast number of warnings put out by the Bush administration. I will not list them again, cause liberals either ignore it, or obfuscate from the warnings.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises which was formally nationalised to prevent their immediate and catastrophic collapse. Now, who do you think were among the leading figures blocking all the earlier attempts by President Bush — and other Republicans — to bring these lending behemoths under greater regulatory control? Step forward, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

In September 2003 the Bush administration launched a measure to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under stricter regulatory control, after a report by outside investigators established that they were not adequately hedging against risks and that Fannie Mae in particular had scandalously mis-stated its accounts. In 2006, it was revealed that Fannie Mae had overstated its earnings — to which its senior executives' bonuses were linked — by a stunning $9.3billion. Between 1998 and 2003, Fannie Mae's executive chairman, Franklin Raines, picked up over $90m in bonuses and stock options.

Predictably the liberals on this board will bring up the fact that republicans controlled the House during this period. However, unlike the SUPER MAJORITY Obama had for nearly two years, Bush never had that. Republicans did have control in congress but not enough majority so that they could pass their own bills. No, they needed some democrats' votes to pass anything during Bush's terms. Did they get any? No. Therefore I do not see how the republicans deserve most of the blame in this matter.

Of course, liberal scumbags who stand for nothing, will not acknowledge any of this....even though they hear and see all of the facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoPKRBD9E6Y


^^^^

Watch that liberals and comment on it. No, wait, I do not want to hear your double talk bullshit.

Ah yes...

The power of a gay Congressman to cause the greatest economic collapse in less than a year

The ability of conservatives to refuse to accept responsibility, even after having a death lock on the country, never ceases to amaze me

Blame the fag does not

 

[Theowl32]

More denial. Hear it from Bill Clinton himself.

Bill Clinton Blames Democrats for Housing Mess

When asked a poignant question about Democrat claims that the sub-primes crisis was the fault of Republicans, Bill Clinton blames the bulk of the mess on Democrats in Congress blocking Republican as well as his reforms to Fannie and Freddie.

Read more at LiveLeak.com - Bill Clinton Blames Democrats for Housing Mess

When we stop to realize that Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate during the last two years of the Bush Presidency, we must ask why they failed to take the appropriate actions to implement this legislation.

If a few Republicans are responsible for the obstruction of most of the Obama agenda, then why couldn't a Democratic majority do something to stop Bush from causing the recession?

Had the Democrat Senate passed the bill, the White House would have had to take a stand. Also, if the Democrats were so favorable towards the reform, why is it that they had 40% of their Reps vote against it when the Republicans only had 6% vote against it? Then we can also look at 2007 when President Bush went before Congress to push for regulations on Fannie and Freddie, and Pelosi wouldn't even consider it. Leadership goes both ways. Mostly, it's hard to get Congress to act on something before it becomes a crisis, unless they can garnish votes from it. It would have been very difficult for any Congressman to return to their constituents and say "See... we headed off a crisis... do you see a crisis? No, because we avoided that." Voter's don't buy that, they want to see a crisis, then a response to it... and the housing crisis, was created by Congress pushing subprime loans back in the Clinton administration.


The Democrats BTW, opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (S.190)

The point is there is plenty of blame to go around and it was a bipartisan problem. Blaming it all on Bush is ridiculous and nothing short of left wing hack shit.

 

[GWV5903]

You folks and your conflationsare hilarious.

Do you think the street lies? Who is benefiting under the current gains, middle class Americans?

Yes irony that you would use the Dows gain...

Typical double standard...

I worked for the NYSE for 13.5 years..and now I work for a new financial firm.

There's no "double standard", I have a vested interest in a healthy market.

As do most Americans who have 401ks and other retirement plans or a stock portfolio.

Additionally a healthy stock market generally indicates an economy that's either healthy or recovering.

Only doom sayers think this is bad news.

I am all for a healthy financial market, always have been...

The 20MILL who are still unemployed would love it too if they had a 401K...

The Double Standard you will display comes later, you know it and so does everyone else...

The Admin has failed miserably at creating a Recovery...

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Zander]

Stocks are literally priced to perfection.

It is prudent to pare holdings in such an environment.

Maybe.

It depends upon your time horizon. If you are young and not retiring for 25-30 years- stay fully invested. Keep buying more regardless of market gyrations. You'll be fine. if you are planning on retiring in 5 years, following that same strategy could derail your plans.....

 

[Faun]

More denial. Hear it from Bill Clinton himself.

Bill Clinton Blames Democrats for Housing Mess

When asked a poignant question about Democrat claims that the sub-primes crisis was the fault of Republicans, Bill Clinton blames the bulk of the mess on Democrats in Congress blocking Republican as well as his reforms to Fannie and Freddie.

Read more at LiveLeak.com - Bill Clinton Blames Democrats for Housing Mess

When we stop to realize that Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate during the last two years of the Bush Presidency, we must ask why they failed to take the appropriate actions to implement this legislation.

If a few Republicans are responsible for the obstruction of most of the Obama agenda, then why couldn't a Democratic majority do something to stop Bush from causing the recession?

Had the Democrat Senate passed the bill, the White House would have had to take a stand. Also, if the Democrats were so favorable towards the reform, why is it that they had 40% of their Reps vote against it when the Republicans only had 6% vote against it? Then we can also look at 2007 when President Bush went before Congress to push for regulations on Fannie and Freddie, and Pelosi wouldn't even consider it. Leadership goes both ways. Mostly, it's hard to get Congress to act on something before it becomes a crisis, unless they can garnish votes from it. It would have been very difficult for any Congressman to return to their constituents and say "See... we headed off a crisis... do you see a crisis? No, because we avoided that." Voter's don't buy that, they want to see a crisis, then a response to it... and the housing crisis, was created by Congress pushing subprime loans back in the Clinton administration.


The Democrats BTW, opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (S.190)

The point is there is plenty of blame to go around and it was a bipartisan problem. Blaming it all on Bush is ridiculous and nothing short of left wing hack shit.

Go figure, Clinton didn't actually say what you ascribe to him. In that video, he never assigned the bulk of the blame on Democrats or himself ... nor did he say that Democrats "blocked" Republicans. What he actually said was that where Democrats get blame is for "resisting calls for additional oversight by himself and Republicans. He doesn't say they "blocked" Republicans -- because they didn't, as you can see for yourself if you lookup any of the bills I mentioned which Republican leadership in the Senate killed. Furthermore, despite your fallacious claim that Clinton placed the "bulk of the blame" at Democrats' feet, had you watched the video, you would see he placed most of the blame on the repeal of the 'uptick rule.'

 

[whitehall]

Isn't the DOW still an indication of corporate wealth? The radical left hated the DOW when a republican was president.

 

[OnePercenter]

Isn't the DOW still an indication of corporate wealth? The radical left hated the DOW when a republican was president.

Yes, very good. Corporate America is sitting on >$100 Trillion cash.

 

[HenryBHough]

Isn't the DOW still an indication of corporate wealth? The radical left hated the DOW when a republican was president.

Yes, very good. Corporate America is sitting on >$100 Trillion cash.

Which really is not a smart thing to do. Not when we all know devaluation or outright currency repudiation is just around the corner. Best have transferred the cash offshore in some more stable currency or in physical gold - well away from confiscation.

 

[OnePercenter]

Isn't the DOW still an indication of corporate wealth? The radical left hated the DOW when a republican was president.

Yes, very good. Corporate America is sitting on >$100 Trillion cash.

Which really is not a smart thing to do. Not when we all know devaluation or outright currency repudiation is just around the corner. Best have transferred the cash offshore in some more stable currency or in physical gold - well away from confiscation.

Off your Canadian meds again? How are them hockey teams doin?

 

[theHawk]

Read it an weep gloom and doom conserverinos!

Dow Average and S&P 500 Hit New Highs
Stocks Notch Records as Beaten-Down Shares Mount a Rally

nvestors snapped up shares of companies large and small, driving major indexes to records and reviving beaten-down technology stocks.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 112.13 points, or 0.7%, to 16695.47, notching its second record finish in as many sessions and its third new high of 2014. The Dow notched 52 records in 2013.

The S&P 500 added 18.17 points, or 1%, to 1896.65, squeezing out its ninth record close of the year.

That along with a great April jobs report should really be making you folks cry.

How is this going to help all the people on food stamps and the unemployed?

Funny how you libs were all about "Occupy Wall Street" to protest their obscene profits at the expense of the poor, but now you try to use their "good news" as an Obama victory.

 

[idb]

Read it an weep gloom and doom conserverinos!

Dow Average and S&P 500 Hit New Highs
Stocks Notch Records as Beaten-Down Shares Mount a Rally

nvestors snapped up shares of companies large and small, driving major indexes to records and reviving beaten-down technology stocks.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 112.13 points, or 0.7%, to 16695.47, notching its second record finish in as many sessions and its third new high of 2014. The Dow notched 52 records in 2013.

The S&P 500 added 18.17 points, or 1%, to 1896.65, squeezing out its ninth record close of the year.

That along with a great April jobs report should really be making you folks cry.

How is this going to help all the people on food stamps and the unemployed?

Funny how you libs were all about "Occupy Wall Street" to protest their obscene profits at the expense of the poor, but now you try to use their "good news" as an Obama victory.

It's great for the Job Creators...and we all know that means it'll just be a matter of time before the benefits flow down to the masses.
Boy, I can't wait!

 

[HenryBHough]

It depends upon your time horizon. If you are young and not retiring for 25-30 years- stay fully invested. Keep buying more regardless of market gyrations. You'll be fine. if you are planning on retiring in 5 years, following that same strategy could derail your plans.....

It's called "dollar cost averaging". With a long horizon to retirement it has historically worked very well. It's hard, though, to convince yourself NOT to sell when the market's down, even harder to buy when you observe you've been "losing".

Too easy to get caught up in "glass is half empty" thinking.

At my age I'm cashing out. Looking today at one fund I'm almost out of. My total investment (initial plus monthly purchase plus re-invested dividends) totaled approximately $40,000. In recent years I've cashed out $37,000 and still have another $39,000 left in shares. And that was a somewhat mediocre fund. Of course we're talking a period of nearly 40-years.....

DO use a websearch to explore "dollar cost averaging".

 

[OnePercenter]

Read it an weep gloom and doom conserverinos!



That along with a great April jobs report should really be making you folks cry.

How is this going to help all the people on food stamps and the unemployed?

Funny how you libs were all about "Occupy Wall Street" to protest their obscene profits at the expense of the poor, but now you try to use their "good news" as an Obama victory.

It's great for the Job Creators...and we all know that means it'll just be a matter of time before the benefits flow down to the masses.
Boy, I can't wait!

The government creates jobs. The reason for the hardship of the middle class is that the government doesn't have the funds to subsidies business, but yet corporate America is sitting on >$100 trillion cash.

 

[Theowl32]

More denial. Hear it from Bill Clinton himself.

Bill Clinton Blames Democrats for Housing Mess

When asked a poignant question about Democrat claims that the sub-primes crisis was the fault of Republicans, Bill Clinton blames the bulk of the mess on Democrats in Congress blocking Republican as well as his reforms to Fannie and Freddie.

Read more at LiveLeak.com - Bill Clinton Blames Democrats for Housing Mess

When we stop to realize that Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate during the last two years of the Bush Presidency, we must ask why they failed to take the appropriate actions to implement this legislation.

If a few Republicans are responsible for the obstruction of most of the Obama agenda, then why couldn't a Democratic majority do something to stop Bush from causing the recession?

Had the Democrat Senate passed the bill, the White House would have had to take a stand. Also, if the Democrats were so favorable towards the reform, why is it that they had 40% of their Reps vote against it when the Republicans only had 6% vote against it? Then we can also look at 2007 when President Bush went before Congress to push for regulations on Fannie and Freddie, and Pelosi wouldn't even consider it. Leadership goes both ways. Mostly, it's hard to get Congress to act on something before it becomes a crisis, unless they can garnish votes from it. It would have been very difficult for any Congressman to return to their constituents and say "See... we headed off a crisis... do you see a crisis? No, because we avoided that." Voter's don't buy that, they want to see a crisis, then a response to it... and the housing crisis, was created by Congress pushing subprime loans back in the Clinton administration.


The Democrats BTW, opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (S.190)

The point is there is plenty of blame to go around and it was a bipartisan problem. Blaming it all on Bush is ridiculous and nothing short of left wing hack shit.

Go figure, Clinton didn't actually say what you ascribe to him. In that video, he never assigned the bulk of the blame on Democrats or himself ... nor did he say that Democrats "blocked" Republicans. What he actually said was that where Democrats get blame is for "resisting calls for additional oversight by himself and Republicans. He doesn't say they "blocked" Republicans -- because they didn't, as you can see for yourself if you lookup any of the bills I mentioned which Republican leadership in the Senate killed. Furthermore, despite your fallacious claim that Clinton placed the "bulk of the blame" at Democrats' feet, had you watched the video, you would see he placed most of the blame on the repeal of the 'uptick rule.'

Oh really? Is that what you heard him say?

Let me tell you precisely what he said.

Interviewer: "Pelosi signed the Graham Bill, she knew what was in the bill when she signed it, isn't she playing politics right now?"

Clinton: "Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. The responsibility the democrats have may rest MORE in RESISTING ANY EFFORTS of THE REPUBLICANS in congress or me when I was president to put some standards in to tighten up on Fannie May and Freddie Mac."


So, the responsibility of the democrats may rest more in the fact they resisted the republicans in congress to put any standards to tighten up on Fannie May and Freddie Mac.

What is it that I ascribe and what are you saying Clinton did not actually say?

So no, according to rightwinger it was ONLY ONE FAG (his words not mine) that resisted. Democrats never voted with any attempts the republicans made to put regulations on Fanny May and Freddie Mac.


What in your estimation does Clinton mean when he admitted democrats resisted ANY EFFORTS republicans made?

 

[Mac1958]

Isn't the DOW still an indication of corporate wealth? The radical left hated the DOW when a republican was president.

Yes, very good. Corporate America is sitting on >$100 Trillion cash.

Holy crap.

More like $2T. Not $100T. $2T.

And there are reasons.

I hope no one uses this board as a resource for financial/economic data.



.

 

[KissMy]

Oh really? You not commenting on Barney Frank's speech speaks volumes. Yhe democrats did block Bush's attempts to regulate.

I have provided documented facts. Your denials of those facts does not change the facts.

Warning after warning from Bush and democrats would not allow any regulations. The democrats blocked all attempts.

Highlighted by Barney Frank.

Your little jedi mind trick will not work on me.

You have nothing. I'm well aware of your Frank/Dodd diversion. Meanwhile, at least 3 bills made it to the Republican leadership in the Senate. Not one was blocked by Democrats. One even passed in the House, get this ..... despite Barney Frank's nay vote. One was even rejected by Bush. Look up ...

S.1508 (2003)
S.190 (2005)
H.R.1461 (2008)

... and then get back to me.

Ok, want some more facts? Ok, let us see you attempt to refute this. Oh, this is an article from NY Times in 2003.

Want to read it? Good, I sure hope so.

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - NYTimes.com

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Democrats had forced lenders to assume more risk at lower interest rates in the 1990s, as IBD points out, and they didn’t want to countenance an end to their populist policies:

Political Cartoons & Opinion - Michael Ramirez - Editorial News - IBD - Investors.com

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but “predatory.”

Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the ’90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.

These were political squabbles over Fannie, Freddie, CRA Red-Lining regs in 2003. President Bush killed CFPB regulation & was pushing hard for more deregulated private sector subprime loans for years beyond that & the majority of the bubble loans were not made by Fannie, Freddie & did not involve CRA Red-Lining. Political rhetoric had no affect because Republicans controlled all the bills that came up for vote, the House, Senate & Presidency & did nothing but blow air into the bubble as it formed.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac market share fell off a cliff when the bubble loans were made from 2003 to 2008. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06. More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. The government-sponsored enterprises were concerned with the loss of market share to these private lenders — Fannie and Freddie were chasing profits, not trying to meet low-income lending goals.

President Bush - Mobilizing the Private Sector: America's Homeownership Challenge

December 16, 2003 President Bush signed into law the American Dream Downpayment Act

President Bush 2004 - Fact Sheet: America's Ownership Society: Expanding Opportunities

Even today Republicans fight against bringing back Glass Steagall, CFPB, Dodd Frank or any type of Fiduciary Responsibility whatsoever. They prefer "Market Making" by any deceptive dishonest means necessary. That means financial professionals are allowed to deceive people who are focused on their jobs in other fields. That is very destructive to investment, trust, markets, economy, innovation & lowers living standards for everyone but market pros. Less innovation & real work get done because everyone has to focus on protecting themselves from financial vultures.

[youtube]66Z_1c-kLFM[/youtube]

Then when the market wipes out these shit peddlers, we are forced to bail them out so they can screw citizens again.