Right vs. Left is Logic vs. Emotion

[P@triot]

Even the left is starting to wake up to how fuck'n intolerant and disturbed they are...

 

[JonKoch]

SERIOUSLY CUPCAKE?

Yes....seriously, snowflake. Indisputable video. Ask an adult to tell you many times the word ELECTORAL is used here:

She a pollster Cupcake? When was this video created? Before or after Comey helped Russia interfere with the US elections? Oops

She's reporting on the Electoral College polls that you are desperately trying to deny exist.

There is no such thing as "popular vote polls" because the popular vote doesn't elect the President of the United States, snowflake. Therefore, nobody would waste their time on a poll that wouldn't matter. It's fall down hilarious that you are just hearing about the Electoral College for the first time - though not at all surprising since you are a Dumbocrat.

Sure she is Cupcake, since we "believe" you right? When was this clip from? Can't answer huh, it might blow your premise out of the water?


Hint NATIONAL POLLS were used Cupcake

You don't have to "believe" me, asshat - she says it in the video.

You just proved once again that you commented without watching. We all knew you were too fuck'n lazy to read (as all progressives are) - we didn't know you were also too fuck'n lazy to watch.

Got it Cupcake, ignore the FALSE PREMISE (date of her saying this) but keep trolling

 

[danielpalos]

National Thong Day for MonoCulturalism!

 

[JonKoch]

Even the left is starting to wake up to how fuck'n intolerant and disturbed they are...

CONServatives Morning Joey? lol

Intolerant?


Trump's Muslim Ban 2.0, "Dripping With Intolerance," Ruled Unconstitutional

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-d...h-intolerance-on-its-way-to-the-supreme-court

 

[danielpalos]

Advance modern textile technologies, simply for the sake of modern times!

 

[P@triot]

Got it Cupcake, ignore the FALSE PREMISE (date of her saying this) but keep trolling

Only a left-wing nitwit could call indisputable video "trolling". You'll never accept reality over your ideology. Never.

 

[P@triot]

CONServatives Morning Joey? lol Intolerant? Trump's Muslim Ban 2.0, "Dripping With Intolerance," Ruled Unconstitutional

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/trumps-travel-ban-drips-with-intolerance-on-its-way-to-the-supreme-court

I'm not sure why you think that if you keep repeating the same lie over and over that people will suddenly believe it. I guess you're just that stupid.

1. There was never a "muslim ban". Never. That's just a fact.

2. The travel ban is 100% constitutional (and will be upheld by the Supreme Court)

3. The U.S. Constitution is not an international document

4. Non-U.S. citizens have no constitutional rights

Do you enjoy looking stupid in front of everyone?

 

[P@triot]

More indisputable evidence that Right vs. Left is Logic vs. Emotion. Obamacare has been a catastrophic disaster (just as Republicans accurately predicted it would be before it was passed). And yet the left passed it anyway and continues to support it because it feels good to them. Never mind that it has stripped millions of their health insurance, has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket, and has added trillions to the national debt.

5 Ways Obamacare Proves That Government-Run Health Care Is a Disaster

 

[danielpalos]

A permanent lunar presence, simply for the greater glory of human understanding!

 

[JonKoch]

Got it Cupcake, ignore the FALSE PREMISE (date of her saying this) but keep trolling

Only a left-wing nitwit could call indisputable video "trolling". You'll never accept reality over your ideology. Never.

Got it Cupcake, ignore the FALSE PREMISE (date of her saying this) but keep trolling

Only a left-wing nitwit could call indisputable video "trolling". You'll never accept reality over your ideology. Never.

Only a Cupcake like you wouldn't accept REALITY of TIMING of the vid in question as CONTEXT Buttercup

 

[danielpalos]

More indisputable evidence that Right vs. Left is Logic vs. Emotion. Obamacare has been a catastrophic disaster (just as Republicans accurately predicted it would be before it was passed). And yet the left passed it anyway and continues to support it because it feels good to them. Never mind that it has stripped millions of their health insurance, has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket, and has added trillions to the national debt.

5 Ways Obamacare Proves That Government-Run Health Care Is a Disaster

End the drug war, right wingers!

 

[JonKoch]

CONServatives Morning Joey? lol Intolerant? Trump's Muslim Ban 2.0, "Dripping With Intolerance," Ruled Unconstitutional

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/trumps-travel-ban-drips-with-intolerance-on-its-way-to-the-supreme-court

I'm not sure why you think that if you keep repeating the same lie over and over that people will suddenly believe it. I guess you're just that stupid.

1. There was never a "muslim ban". Never. That's just a fact.

2. The travel ban is 100% constitutional (and will be upheld by the Supreme Court)

3. The U.S. Constitution is not an international document

4. Non-U.S. citizens have no constitutional rights

Do you enjoy looking stupid in front of everyone?

Sorry Cupcake EVERY court decision so far says YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT ON CHEETO'S MUSLIM BAN




No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Sep 29, 2015



...The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory."


Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights


Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes
Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes

 

[007]

More indisputable evidence that Right vs. Left is Logic vs. Emotion. Obamacare has been a catastrophic disaster (just as Republicans accurately predicted it would be before it was passed). And yet the left passed it anyway and continues to support it because it feels good to them. Never mind that it has stripped millions of their health insurance, has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket, and has added trillions to the national debt.

5 Ways Obamacare Proves That Government-Run Health Care Is a Disaster

End the drug war, right wingers!

Are you having an Ambien induced sleep walking, typing on your computer episode?

 

[P@triot]

Only a left-wing nitwit could call indisputable video "trolling". You'll never accept reality over your ideology. Never.

Only a Cupcake like you wouldn't accept REALITY of TIMING of the vid in question as CONTEXT Buttercup

And once again, the snowflake who is incapable of accepting reality, dons his tinfoil hat.

 

[P@triot]

Sorry Cupcake EVERY court decision so far says YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT ON CHEETO'S MUSLIM BAN

Please post President Trump's actual Executive Order and highlight for the class where it cites "muslims"

I'm not sure why you think that if you keep repeating the same lie over and over that people will suddenly believe it. I guess you're just that stupid.

 

[P@triot]

Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights
Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

Oh you poor, dumb little monkey. If foreigners had "constitutional rights" then nobody could prevent them from voting in our elections.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Did you miss the government document siting the lowering of banks standards as a condition for bank mergers in allowing for more homeowners that previously failed through basic credit checks to be approved. Nothing you've stated had been able to discredit a government document source I provided which outlied the standards banks are to follow and used those standards as weight into bank mergers. You can keep challenging if you like, I've done the research with plenty more that I can provide. Trust me ... from what I've seen, you don't have enough knowledge on the subject. Keep your conspiracy theories, fruitcake, and let me know when you are old enough to have an honest discussion. You see, anyone who knows anything about the housing market KNOWS these changes that took effect happened well before the Bush Administration.

"You see, anyone who knows anything about the housing market KNOWS these changes that took effect happened well before the Bush Administration."

WEIRD CUPCAKE

From Bush's President's Working Group on Financial Markets March 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. "

Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown? | Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

SOMETHING HAPPENED ABOUT 2003 CUPCAKE, CAN YOU FIGURE IT OUT?

FACTS on Dubya's great recession

Oh my little fruitcake, you really don't know anything about housing market or the recession that followed. This below is a matter of public record. Plenty more additional evidence to follow if you need any actual facts on the subject. If you want to continue down this path, you won't get very far


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

"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."


WHO IS THIS "BLOOMBERG WRITES GUY?




Freddie Mac Tried to Kill Republican Regulatory Bill in 2005


...In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September.



...the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote.


....Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.

FOX "NEWS" CUPCAKE
Freddie Mac Tried to Kill Republican Regulatory Bill in 2005

NOW THAT WE'VE PROVED YOUR A LIAR ONCE AGAIN,. WHAT ELSE DO YOU HAVE?

BTW, THAT WASN'T REALLY "REFORM" OF F/F BUT GUTTING F/F....

Hey dumb dumb .... that whole Congressional discussion I posted with dates from September 1999 through April 2007 was ABOUT more government oversight.


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."


Again, I already supplied CLEAR evidence debunking your claim. You're obviously new at this aren't you fruitcake? Care to go on? Be sure to check your facts next time, as my previous response already included 1999 New York Times article (before president Bush) that did a pretty good job showing Fannie Mae was lowering lending standards

Cupcake, Yes Clinton lowered standards in 1999 THEN changed that in late 2000

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 W's Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation of the GSE's

September 10, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Financial Services

(BARNEY) 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

October 26, 2005

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"





June 17, 2004

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

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


"We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home," the President(DUBYA) said in a 2002 speech "We can change the print, and we've got to"


"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."

WAPO
How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis


"In 2004,(DUBYA) 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



Q I'm serious, my conservative friends are really really really adamant that policies from 1864, 1977, 1992, 1995, 1997 1999 and 2000 are to blame. What do I say to them?

A just explain the facts to them and show them the actual data that proves it didnt start until late 2004.

Q Yea, that didnt work. try again.

A Just point out to them that what they believe cannot be supported by any data whatsoever and that their empty factless rhetoric in no way changes any facts. For example, say they claim that the Bush Mortgage Bubble started in 1997 and they claim this is backed by almost every mainstream economist supported by empirical data. First ask them to back up their claims. And then ask them "how do you ignore the empirical data already posted in this thread?". Then ask them how anything from 1997 prevented Bush's regulators from enforcing proper lending standards. (of course they will do nothing but repeat their 'claims')

Q They really dont want to 'let go' of their beliefs. Why do they cling to such specious beliefs?
A Sorry, I cant explain it. Mental health issues are not my field of study

Q Where to they get such factless baseless beliefs?
A the 'conservative entertainment complex' has literally put out 1000's of lying editorials about this. What proves they are lying is not one of them has ever mentioned anything I posted in this Q&A. You cant explain Bush's working group telling you it started late 2004. So dont mention it. You cant explain away "bush protecting predatory lenders" so you absolutely can never ever mention it in an editorial. You cant explain away Bush lifting restrictions Clinton placed on GSE purchases of subprime mortgages when you are crafting a narrative that "bush tried to stop the bubble"


Q What about the conservative 'narrative' that Bush tried to stop the bubble?

A Its simply another false narrative created by the 'conservative entertainment complex'. That narrative is 'crafted' around the statements of Bush saying fannie and freddie needed to be regulated. Lets look at the structure of this narrative

Bush said GSEs needed to be regulated (actually true)
Barney Frank and other dems said GSEs were fine (actually true)
Democrats blocked reform (false)
GSEs caused the crisis (false)

Just another mish mosh of lies spin and half truths the 'conservative entertainment complex' relies on to push their agenda. Lets deconstruct the narrative. Yes, Bush repeatedly talked about GSE reform. The problem is reform in 2003 had nothing to do with subprime mortgages. As I've already documented, Bush lifted the restrictions Clinton placed on the GSEs to limit their purchase of abusive subprime loans. Later in 2004, Bush would increase the GSE housing goals forcing them to buy more low income home loans and get them to buy $440 billion more minority home loans in the secondary market.

"•Substantially increase by at least $440 billion, the financial commitment made by the government sponsored enterprises involved in the secondary mortgage market, specifically targeted toward the minority market;"

Homeownership Policy Book - Executive Summary

"In April, HUD proposed new federal regulations that would raise the GSEs targeted lending requirements. HUD estimates that over the next four years an additional one million low- and moderate-income families would be served as a result of the new goals."

July 8, 2004

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



there goes the narrative that Bush tried to stop anything
FACTS on Dubya's great recession

Fruitcake going after the Kool Aid of blaming Bush. Based on your lack of knowledge on this subject, it does not surprise me. If you had done ANY research on what the CRA actually is and what President Clinton aimed to do through it, you would know your humorous "opinion" that he wanted stricter standards are simply not true to his administration's agenda.

Response after response, and you are no closer to knowing anything on the subject and debunked through every post. Unlike you, I don't base my views on mere commentaries and opinion articles, but government source based facts, another of which I provided below.

Let me attempt to educate a fruitcake who uses opinion pieces and commentaries over facts, by facts I clearly mean I include supported evidence through government sources and investigations which only collaborate fact based articles.



CRA facts for frutecakes and Kool Aid drinkers


Government Source:
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-cont...ordablehousingpolicyandthefinancialcrisis.pdf

In 1994, Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson announced the company’s first affordable housing initiative, the $1 trillion “Opening the Doors to Affordable Housing” program. Johnson, a long-time friend of both President Clinton and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, took the helm of Fannie in 1991 after a stint at Lehman Brothers. In an article entitled “Fannie Mae’s Trillion-Dollar Giveaway,” written about this initial affordable housing initiative, the Los Angeles-based Family Savings Bank criticized Fannie Mae’s past practices for relying too heavily on borrowers’ income and debt levels when underwriting loans.
It praised Mr. Johnson’s $1 trillion commitment because it would introduce “qualifying flexibility,” for low-income borrowers, allowing them to reduce their down payments to as little as 3%. The article cited “pressure from President Clinton’s administration,” as the primary influence on Fannie Mae’s decision to lower its lending standards.

In 1995, the Clinton Administration implemented a major regulatory reform of CRA which emphasized “performance-based evaluation.” The impact of this reform was that regulators would no longer rate banks based on their efforts to lend to customers using equitable procedures but rather on the volume of their lending. According to one academic study of CRA, this regulatory change marked “a shift of emphasis from procedural equity to equity in outcome.” Furthermore, the “lending test” component of the regulatory review process, which was the “most heavily weighted component of CRA examination,” included criteria for the “use of innovative or flexible lending practices.” As demonstrated time and again by congressional advocates of affordable mortgage

lending, “innovative and flexible” means reduced down payments and riskier, unsustainable lending. This shift of regulatory emphasis from ensuring equitable lending procedures to ensuring equitable lending outcomes regardless of borrowers’ ability to repay was subtle but significant. When combined with the endorsement of “flexible and innovative” mortgage underwriting, this change in the CRA represented a troubling move away from prudent and sustainable mortgage lending towards government endorsement of lower quality lending to those of modest means.

The other important event of 1995 was the release of the Clinton Administration’s National Homeownership Strategy. It observed that, "low- and moderate-income families often cannot become homeowners because they are unable to come up with the required downpayment.” It goes on to direct that, "lending institutions, secondary market investors [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the dominant players in the secondary market], and other...should work collaboratively to reduce homebuyer downpayment requirements.” The Clinton Strategy also called for increased use of “flexible underwriting criteria,” which it said could be achieved in concert with “liberalized affordable housing underwriting criteria established by...Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” It also called for “financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors to help homeowners that lack cash to buy a home or to MAKE THE PAYMENTS.”

The amount of borrower equity is an important factor in assessing mortgage loan quality. However, many low-income families do not have access to sufficient funds for a downpayment.

The report noted that in 1989 only 7% of mortgages had less than a 10% down payment but that by 1994 this had increased to 29%. The Strategy praised lenders for developing “innovative low-down payment programs” and applauded Fannie Mae for announcing 3%-down payment mortgages. HUD also issued new rules that allowed the GSEs to count subprime mortgages made to low-income borrowers toward their affordable housing goals.

As with the 1995 CRA reform and the Clinton Administration’s decision to allow the GSEs to count subprime loans toward their affordable housing goals, this represented a shift in government policy from one that emphasized equity of procedure to equity of outcome. This emphasis on equity of outcome inevitably created tremendous pressure on regulated institutions to make more loans to low-income borrowers. It also created pressure for secondary market investors such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy these loans. The correspondingly lower emphasis on how the loans were being made inevitably meant less attention would be paid to their quality and sustainability.


SOURCE TWO - collaborating to those government findings
Minorities' Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites'

Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat "redlining" by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.

Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments--or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer's income. That's made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected.



THIS LEAD TO SOURCE THREE - Lowering of loan standards previously confirmed through the government regulation

Source: New York Times 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com




SOURCE FOUR - Democrat's reaction and response in Congressional public hearing

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.

October 2003

Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error


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."



WHO BENEFITED FROM THE CHANGES?

In the period 1989-2008, topping the list of recipients of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is

chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Dodd (D-Connecticut), who received $165,400.

Second on the list is Sen. Obama (D-Illinois), receiving $126,349 with only three years in the Senate.

Rep. Frank (D-Massachusetts), received $42,350.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/

 

[danielpalos]

More indisputable evidence that Right vs. Left is Logic vs. Emotion. Obamacare has been a catastrophic disaster (just as Republicans accurately predicted it would be before it was passed). And yet the left passed it anyway and continues to support it because it feels good to them. Never mind that it has stripped millions of their health insurance, has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket, and has added trillions to the national debt.

5 Ways Obamacare Proves That Government-Run Health Care Is a Disaster

End the drug war, right wingers!

Are you having an Ambien induced sleep walking, typing on your computer episode?

nothing but red herrings, right winger? even wo-men in the non-porn sector, can be as good.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

More indisputable evidence that Right vs. Left is Logic vs. Emotion. Obamacare has been a catastrophic disaster (just as Republicans accurately predicted it would be before it was passed). And yet the left passed it anyway and continues to support it because it feels good to them. Never mind that it has stripped millions of their health insurance, has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket, and has added trillions to the national debt.

5 Ways Obamacare Proves That Government-Run Health Care Is a Disaster

End the drug war, right wingers!

Are you having an Ambien induced sleep walking, typing on your computer episode?

nothing but red herrings, right winger? even wo-men in the non-porn sector, can be as good.

Interesting that you have nothing to say about the rise in premiums, a growing lack of health insurance providers to provide care since Obamacare implemented their mandatory health care policy. It doesn't appear you have an argument to prove government care equates to better care.

 

[easyt65]

Right vs Left - Fact vs Emotion / Denial
Trump won the WH vs 'Hillary should be President because Hillary won the popular vote'

'Nuff said.