Thanks Trump, for destroying the GOP

[PoliticalChic]

....his [Bush] average unemployment is lower than Obama's...
..

By the way .... while I believe averaging out the unemployment rate is a rather meaningless metric (a president who takes the unemployment rate from 10% to 4% could have the same average as a president taking it from 4% to 10%, yet the former is unquestionably preferable to the latter); Obama happens to have a slightly lower average unemployment rate than Reagan had at this same point in his presidency. Perhaps that's one of the reasons America scores Obama's job approval at 53% (according to Gallup) while scoring only 51% for Reagan?

And....I didn't see you point out any of the 50 or 60 items I documented in post #1095 as untrue......

...so....why would you ignore culpability of the President whose policies resulted in these failures?



How about this one...
Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "...annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama’s Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. "....first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire


The very first since Hoover.

Significant?


After a recession....the bounce-back is usually strong.
Not under Obama.


So?

You and Redfish are so typical of the confederates in the south that refuse to accept the fact that they lost....You like them, point to the stupid ideologies of the GOP, and say, "See, we are right" by using false propaganda like Obama's recovery, and claiming that Shrub warned about the collapse. That's what makes you morons.

Why don't you attempt to explain post #1095- some 60 documented failures of the very worst President in American history.....and, your very own failure in ability to choose the right candidate.


After you give up doing that....explain why the several times I've offered to provide a similar list of Obama's inept attempts at foreign policy have also been failures, have been ignored by you Obamunist drones.


Shall I wait for a cogent response, or go on with a charmed and eventful life?

 

[PoliticalChic]

....his [Bush] average unemployment is lower than Obama's...
..

By the way .... while I believe averaging out the unemployment rate is a rather meaningless metric (a president who takes the unemployment rate from 10% to 4% could have the same average as a president taking it from 4% to 10%, yet the former is unquestionably preferable to the latter); Obama happens to have a slightly lower average unemployment rate than Reagan had at this same point in his presidency. Perhaps that's one of the reasons America scores Obama's job approval at 53% (according to Gallup) while scoring only 51% for Reagan?

And....I didn't see you point out any of the 50 or 60 items I documented in post #1095 as untrue......

...so....why would you ignore culpability of the President whose policies resulted in these failures?



How about this one...
Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "...annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama’s Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. "....first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire


The very first since Hoover.

Significant?


After a recession....the bounce-back is usually strong.
Not under Obama.


So?

You and Redfish are so typical of the confederates in the south that refuse to accept the fact that they lost....You like them, point to the stupid ideologies of the GOP, and say, "See, we are right" by using false propaganda like Obama's recovery, and claiming that Shrub warned about the collapse. That's what makes you morons.

".... claiming that Shrub warned about the collapse. That's what makes you morons."

Now....watch how the 'moron' comment becomes a boomerang...and I jam your stupidity down your throat.


"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001

• April:The Administration'sFY02 budgetdeclares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002

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

2003

• February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

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

• September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA)strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,"The New York Times, 9/11/03)

• October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE)refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)

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

2004

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

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

• April: Rep. Frankignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue,"American Banker, 4/21/04)

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

2005

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

• July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reidrejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure,"United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007

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

• August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Doddignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism,"The New York Times, 8/11/07)

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

2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• July:Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

• September:Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, asSenator Doddquestions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover,"Bloomberg, 9/9/08)"

Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform



In your face, boooyyyyyeeeeeee!

 

[Faun]

....his [Bush] average unemployment is lower than Obama's...
..

By the way .... while I believe averaging out the unemployment rate is a rather meaningless metric (a president who takes the unemployment rate from 10% to 4% could have the same average as a president taking it from 4% to 10%, yet the former is unquestionably preferable to the latter); Obama happens to have a slightly lower average unemployment rate than Reagan had at this same point in his presidency. Perhaps that's one of the reasons America scores Obama's job approval at 53% (according to Gallup) while scoring only 51% for Reagan?

And....I didn't see you point out any of the 50 or 60 items I documented in post #1095 as untrue......

...so....why would you ignore culpability of the President whose policies resulted in these failures?



How about this one...
Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "...annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama’s Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. "....first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire


The very first since Hoover.

Significant?


After a recession....the bounce-back is usually strong.
Not under Obama.


So?

You and Redfish are so typical of the confederates in the south that refuse to accept the fact that they lost....You like them, point to the stupid ideologies of the GOP, and say, "See, we are right" by using false propaganda like Obama's recovery, and claiming that Shrub warned about the collapse. That's what makes you morons.

Why don't you attempt to explain post #1095- some 60 documented failures of the very worst President in American history.....and, your very own failure in ability to choose the right candidate.


After you give up doing that....explain why the several times I've offered to provide a similar list of Obama's inept attempts at foreign policy have also been failures, have been ignored by you Obamunist drones.


Shall I wait for a cogent response, or go on with a charmed and eventful life?

I already pointed out the fatal sucking head wound of that post -- you're blaming Obama for the Great Recession Bush handed him.

Now maybe you're dumb enough to believe that but don't expect others to be as stupid as you.

Again, just one example ... your post holds him responsible for for every penny the debt increased even though much of it was directly due to the economy he inherited.

Another example of your stupidity was repeating the claim that 92 million people have dropped out of the labor force.

Beyond retarded. Most of them were never in the labor force to begin with.

 

[PoliticalChic]

....his [Bush] average unemployment is lower than Obama's...
..

By the way .... while I believe averaging out the unemployment rate is a rather meaningless metric (a president who takes the unemployment rate from 10% to 4% could have the same average as a president taking it from 4% to 10%, yet the former is unquestionably preferable to the latter); Obama happens to have a slightly lower average unemployment rate than Reagan had at this same point in his presidency. Perhaps that's one of the reasons America scores Obama's job approval at 53% (according to Gallup) while scoring only 51% for Reagan?

And....I didn't see you point out any of the 50 or 60 items I documented in post #1095 as untrue......

...so....why would you ignore culpability of the President whose policies resulted in these failures?



How about this one...
Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "...annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama’s Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. "....first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire


The very first since Hoover.

Significant?


After a recession....the bounce-back is usually strong.
Not under Obama.


So?

You and Redfish are so typical of the confederates in the south that refuse to accept the fact that they lost....You like them, point to the stupid ideologies of the GOP, and say, "See, we are right" by using false propaganda like Obama's recovery, and claiming that Shrub warned about the collapse. That's what makes you morons.

Why don't you attempt to explain post #1095- some 60 documented failures of the very worst President in American history.....and, your very own failure in ability to choose the right candidate.


After you give up doing that....explain why the several times I've offered to provide a similar list of Obama's inept attempts at foreign policy have also been failures, have been ignored by you Obamunist drones.


Shall I wait for a cogent response, or go on with a charmed and eventful life?

I already pointed out the fatal sucking head wound of that post -- you're blaming Obama for the Great Recession Bush handed him.

Now maybe you're dumb enough to believe that but don't expect others to be as stupid as you.

Again, just one example ... your post holds him responsible for for every penny the debt increased even though much of it was directly due to the economy he inherited.

Another example of your stupidity was repeating the claim that 92 million people have dropped out of the labor force.

Beyond retarded. Most of them were never in the labor force to begin with.

"- you're blaming Obama for the Great Recession Bush handed him."

On the contrary....I blame Democrats et al.

I've asked you thrice...but you've been too fearful to respond(for obvious reasons)....
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown.



And....you haven't been able to deny the 59 failures in economic policy for which Obama has been responsible.


Fear much?

 

[Faun]

....his [Bush] average unemployment is lower than Obama's...
..

By the way .... while I believe averaging out the unemployment rate is a rather meaningless metric (a president who takes the unemployment rate from 10% to 4% could have the same average as a president taking it from 4% to 10%, yet the former is unquestionably preferable to the latter); Obama happens to have a slightly lower average unemployment rate than Reagan had at this same point in his presidency. Perhaps that's one of the reasons America scores Obama's job approval at 53% (according to Gallup) while scoring only 51% for Reagan?

And....I didn't see you point out any of the 50 or 60 items I documented in post #1095 as untrue......

...so....why would you ignore culpability of the President whose policies resulted in these failures?



How about this one...
Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "...annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama’s Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. "....first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire


The very first since Hoover.

Significant?


After a recession....the bounce-back is usually strong.
Not under Obama.


So?

You and Redfish are so typical of the confederates in the south that refuse to accept the fact that they lost....You like them, point to the stupid ideologies of the GOP, and say, "See, we are right" by using false propaganda like Obama's recovery, and claiming that Shrub warned about the collapse. That's what makes you morons.

".... claiming that Shrub warned about the collapse. That's what makes you morons."

Now....watch how the 'moron' comment becomes a boomerang...and I jam your stupidity down your throat.


"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001

• April:The Administration'sFY02 budgetdeclares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002

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

2003

• February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

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

• September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA)strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,"The New York Times, 9/11/03)

• October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE)refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)

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

2004

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

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

• April: Rep. Frankignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue,"American Banker, 4/21/04)

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

2005

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

• July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reidrejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure,"United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007

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

• August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Doddignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism,"The New York Times, 8/11/07)

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

2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• July:Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

• September:Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, asSenator Doddquestions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover,"Bloomberg, 9/9/08)"

Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform



In your face, boooyyyyyeeeeeee!

"In your face, boooyyyyyeeeeeee?"

Really???

Let's take a look at who controlled the Congress during those years, shall we...?

	HOUSE	SENATE
2001	Republican	Rep/Dem
2002	Republican	Democrat
2003	Republican	Republican
2004	Republican	Republican
2005	Republican	Republican
2006	Republican	Republican
2007	Democrat	Democrat
2008*	Democrat	Democrat

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

* = Democrats passed GSE reform in both chambers before being signed into law in July, 2008

From April, 2001 through July, 2008, Republicans controlled the House for 72 months (79%) compared to Democrats 19 months. Republicans controlled the Senate for 51 months (58%) Democrats 37 months.

and by the way, most of the damage to the real estate markets had already occurred before Democrats took over in 2007. By 2006, some states were already reporting a record number of foreclosers. By 2007, the markets were in critical mode, by 2008, the wheels completely came off the bus.

In all those years, Republicans passed 1 GSE reform bill in the House and zero in the Senate.

Within 7 months into 2007, Democrats passed 2 GSE reform bills in the House and 1 in the Senate in July, 2008, which was signed into law by Bush.

If you had a brain in your head, you would understand this is a big part of why Republicans were to blame for the Great Recession.

 

[Faun]

By the way .... while I believe averaging out the unemployment rate is a rather meaningless metric (a president who takes the unemployment rate from 10% to 4% could have the same average as a president taking it from 4% to 10%, yet the former is unquestionably preferable to the latter); Obama happens to have a slightly lower average unemployment rate than Reagan had at this same point in his presidency. Perhaps that's one of the reasons America scores Obama's job approval at 53% (according to Gallup) while scoring only 51% for Reagan?

And....I didn't see you point out any of the 50 or 60 items I documented in post #1095 as untrue......

...so....why would you ignore culpability of the President whose policies resulted in these failures?



How about this one...
Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "...annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama’s Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. "....first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire


The very first since Hoover.

Significant?


After a recession....the bounce-back is usually strong.
Not under Obama.


So?

You and Redfish are so typical of the confederates in the south that refuse to accept the fact that they lost....You like them, point to the stupid ideologies of the GOP, and say, "See, we are right" by using false propaganda like Obama's recovery, and claiming that Shrub warned about the collapse. That's what makes you morons.

Why don't you attempt to explain post #1095- some 60 documented failures of the very worst President in American history.....and, your very own failure in ability to choose the right candidate.


After you give up doing that....explain why the several times I've offered to provide a similar list of Obama's inept attempts at foreign policy have also been failures, have been ignored by you Obamunist drones.


Shall I wait for a cogent response, or go on with a charmed and eventful life?

I already pointed out the fatal sucking head wound of that post -- you're blaming Obama for the Great Recession Bush handed him.

Now maybe you're dumb enough to believe that but don't expect others to be as stupid as you.

Again, just one example ... your post holds him responsible for for every penny the debt increased even though much of it was directly due to the economy he inherited.

Another example of your stupidity was repeating the claim that 92 million people have dropped out of the labor force.

Beyond retarded. Most of them were never in the labor force to begin with.

"- you're blaming Obama for the Great Recession Bush handed him."

On the contrary....I blame Democrats et al.

I've asked you thrice...but you've been too fearful to respond(for obvious reasons)....
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown.



And....you haven't been able to deny the 59 failures in economic policy for which Obama has been responsible.


Fear much?

I already dispelled your idiocy that a 33 year old law crashed the economy. I posted a study which concluded only 6% of higher priced residential toxic loans were CRA loans, 0% of commercial tocix loans were CRA loans, and 80% of the lenders were not subject to CRA regulations.

You can ignore that all you want, but your nonsense has been firmly refuted.

But if you want to look at the problems caused by Fannie and Freddie, take a look at who did contribute to them....

Bush Minority Homeownership Plan Rests Heavily on Fannie and Freddie

When President Bush announced his Minority Homeownership plans last week in Atlanta, his top priorities were new federal programs: a $2.4 billion tax credit to facilitate home purchases by lower-income first-time buyers, and a $200 million national downpayment grant fund.

But none of the new federal programs--if passed by Congress--will come even close to achieving the 5.5 million-household increase in minority homeownership the President set as his target.

Instead, most of the heavy lifting was assigned to two mortgage market players that have sometimes come under fire from Bush administration officials and Congressional Republicans: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fannie's and Freddie's commitments are the bedrock core of the President's ambitious plans--but didn't get the headlines. Fannie Mae agreed to increase its already substantial lending efforts to minority families by targeting another $260 billion of mortgage purchases to them during the next nine years. Freddie Mac agreed to buy an additional $180 billion in minority-household home loans during the same period.

Besides its $180 billion mortgage purchase commitment, Freddie Mac gave President Bush a promise to implement a 25-point program aimed at increasing minority homeownership. Some of the points were cutting-edge. For example, as part of an effort to remove the fear of financial loss from first-time minority home buyers, Freddie committed itself to "explor(e) the viability of equity assurance products to protect home values in economically distressed areas."​

 

[PoliticalChic]

....his [Bush] average unemployment is lower than Obama's...
..

By the way .... while I believe averaging out the unemployment rate is a rather meaningless metric (a president who takes the unemployment rate from 10% to 4% could have the same average as a president taking it from 4% to 10%, yet the former is unquestionably preferable to the latter); Obama happens to have a slightly lower average unemployment rate than Reagan had at this same point in his presidency. Perhaps that's one of the reasons America scores Obama's job approval at 53% (according to Gallup) while scoring only 51% for Reagan?

And....I didn't see you point out any of the 50 or 60 items I documented in post #1095 as untrue......

...so....why would you ignore culpability of the President whose policies resulted in these failures?



How about this one...
Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "...annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama’s Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. "....first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire


The very first since Hoover.

Significant?


After a recession....the bounce-back is usually strong.
Not under Obama.


So?

You and Redfish are so typical of the confederates in the south that refuse to accept the fact that they lost....You like them, point to the stupid ideologies of the GOP, and say, "See, we are right" by using false propaganda like Obama's recovery, and claiming that Shrub warned about the collapse. That's what makes you morons.

".... claiming that Shrub warned about the collapse. That's what makes you morons."

Now....watch how the 'moron' comment becomes a boomerang...and I jam your stupidity down your throat.


"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001

• April:The Administration'sFY02 budgetdeclares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002

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

2003

• February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

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

• September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA)strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,"The New York Times, 9/11/03)

• October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE)refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)

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

2004

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

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

• April: Rep. Frankignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue,"American Banker, 4/21/04)

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

2005

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

• July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reidrejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure,"United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007

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

• August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Doddignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism,"The New York Times, 8/11/07)

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

2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• July:Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

• September:Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, asSenator Doddquestions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover,"Bloomberg, 9/9/08)"

Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform



In your face, boooyyyyyeeeeeee!

"In your face, boooyyyyyeeeeeee?"

Really???

Let's take a look at who controlled the Congress during those years, shall we...?

	HOUSE	SENATE
2001	Republican	Rep/Dem
2002	Republican	Democrat
2003	Republican	Republican
2004	Republican	Republican
2005	Republican	Republican
2006	Republican	Republican
2007	Democrat	Democrat
2008*	Democrat	Democrat

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

* = Democrats passed GSE reform in both chambers before being signed into law in July, 2008

From April, 2001 through July, 2008, Republicans controlled the House for 72 months (79%) compared to Democrats 19 months. Republicans controlled the Senate for 51 months (58%) Democrats 37 months.

and by the way, most of the damage to the real estate markets had already occurred before Democrats took over in 2007. By 2006, some states were already reporting a record number of foreclosers. By 2007, the markets were in critical mode, by 2008, the wheels completely came off the bus.

Republicans passed 1 GSE reform bill in the House and zero in the Senate.

Democrats passed 2 GSE reform bills in the House (7 months into their 2007 session) and 1 in the Senate which was signed into law by Bush in July, 2008.

If you had a brain in your head, you would understand this is a big part of why Republicans were to blame for the Great Recession.

I provided the warnings....none of which you appear ready to deny.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And....I didn't see you point out any of the 50 or 60 items I documented in post #1095 as untrue......

...so....why would you ignore culpability of the President whose policies resulted in these failures?



How about this one...
Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "...annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama’s Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. "....first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire


The very first since Hoover.

Significant?


After a recession....the bounce-back is usually strong.
Not under Obama.


So?

You and Redfish are so typical of the confederates in the south that refuse to accept the fact that they lost....You like them, point to the stupid ideologies of the GOP, and say, "See, we are right" by using false propaganda like Obama's recovery, and claiming that Shrub warned about the collapse. That's what makes you morons.

Why don't you attempt to explain post #1095- some 60 documented failures of the very worst President in American history.....and, your very own failure in ability to choose the right candidate.


After you give up doing that....explain why the several times I've offered to provide a similar list of Obama's inept attempts at foreign policy have also been failures, have been ignored by you Obamunist drones.


Shall I wait for a cogent response, or go on with a charmed and eventful life?

I already pointed out the fatal sucking head wound of that post -- you're blaming Obama for the Great Recession Bush handed him.

Now maybe you're dumb enough to believe that but don't expect others to be as stupid as you.

Again, just one example ... your post holds him responsible for for every penny the debt increased even though much of it was directly due to the economy he inherited.

Another example of your stupidity was repeating the claim that 92 million people have dropped out of the labor force.

Beyond retarded. Most of them were never in the labor force to begin with.

"- you're blaming Obama for the Great Recession Bush handed him."

On the contrary....I blame Democrats et al.

I've asked you thrice...but you've been too fearful to respond(for obvious reasons)....
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown.



And....you haven't been able to deny the 59 failures in economic policy for which Obama has been responsible.


Fear much?

I already dispelled your idiocy that a 33 year old law crashed the economy. I posted a study which concluded only 6% of higher priced residential toxic loans were CRA loans, 0% of commercial tocix loans were CRA loans, and 80% of the lenders were not subject to CRA regulations.

You can ignore that all you want, but your nonsense has been firmly refuted.

But if you want to look at the problems caused by Fannie and Freddie, take a look at who did contribute to them....

Bush Minority Homeownership Plan Rests Heavily on Fannie and Freddie

When President Bush announced his Minority Homeownership plans last week in Atlanta, his top priorities were new federal programs: a $2.4 billion tax credit to facilitate home purchases by lower-income first-time buyers, and a $200 million national downpayment grant fund.

But none of the new federal programs--if passed by Congress--will come even close to achieving the 5.5 million-household increase in minority homeownership the President set as his target.

Instead, most of the heavy lifting was assigned to two mortgage market players that have sometimes come under fire from Bush administration officials and Congressional Republicans: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fannie's and Freddie's commitments are the bedrock core of the President's ambitious plans--but didn't get the headlines. Fannie Mae agreed to increase its already substantial lending efforts to minority families by targeting another $260 billion of mortgage purchases to them during the next nine years. Freddie Mac agreed to buy an additional $180 billion in minority-household home loans during the same period.

Besides its $180 billion mortgage purchase commitment, Freddie Mac gave President Bush a promise to implement a 25-point program aimed at increasing minority homeownership. Some of the points were cutting-edge. For example, as part of an effort to remove the fear of financial loss from first-time minority home buyers, Freddie committed itself to "explor(e) the viability of equity assurance products to protect home values in economically distressed areas."​

The claim you provided was incorrect.

I showed that via three references to the pressure Democrats put on banks via the CRA.

And....you still avoid the dispositive query...
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown.

 

[Faun]

By the way .... while I believe averaging out the unemployment rate is a rather meaningless metric (a president who takes the unemployment rate from 10% to 4% could have the same average as a president taking it from 4% to 10%, yet the former is unquestionably preferable to the latter); Obama happens to have a slightly lower average unemployment rate than Reagan had at this same point in his presidency. Perhaps that's one of the reasons America scores Obama's job approval at 53% (according to Gallup) while scoring only 51% for Reagan?

And....I didn't see you point out any of the 50 or 60 items I documented in post #1095 as untrue......

...so....why would you ignore culpability of the President whose policies resulted in these failures?



How about this one...
Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "...annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama’s Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. "....first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire


The very first since Hoover.

Significant?


After a recession....the bounce-back is usually strong.
Not under Obama.


So?

You and Redfish are so typical of the confederates in the south that refuse to accept the fact that they lost....You like them, point to the stupid ideologies of the GOP, and say, "See, we are right" by using false propaganda like Obama's recovery, and claiming that Shrub warned about the collapse. That's what makes you morons.

".... claiming that Shrub warned about the collapse. That's what makes you morons."

Now....watch how the 'moron' comment becomes a boomerang...and I jam your stupidity down your throat.


"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001

• April:The Administration'sFY02 budgetdeclares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002

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

2003

• February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

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

• September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA)strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,"The New York Times, 9/11/03)

• October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE)refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)

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

2004

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

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

• April: Rep. Frankignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue,"American Banker, 4/21/04)

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

2005

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

• July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reidrejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure,"United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007

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

• August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Doddignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism,"The New York Times, 8/11/07)

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

2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• July:Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

• September:Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, asSenator Doddquestions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover,"Bloomberg, 9/9/08)"

Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform



In your face, boooyyyyyeeeeeee!

"In your face, boooyyyyyeeeeeee?"

Really???

Let's take a look at who controlled the Congress during those years, shall we...?

	HOUSE	SENATE
2001	Republican	Rep/Dem
2002	Republican	Democrat
2003	Republican	Republican
2004	Republican	Republican
2005	Republican	Republican
2006	Republican	Republican
2007	Democrat	Democrat
2008*	Democrat	Democrat

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

* = Democrats passed GSE reform in both chambers before being signed into law in July, 2008

From April, 2001 through July, 2008, Republicans controlled the House for 72 months (79%) compared to Democrats 19 months. Republicans controlled the Senate for 51 months (58%) Democrats 37 months.

and by the way, most of the damage to the real estate markets had already occurred before Democrats took over in 2007. By 2006, some states were already reporting a record number of foreclosers. By 2007, the markets were in critical mode, by 2008, the wheels completely came off the bus.

Republicans passed 1 GSE reform bill in the House and zero in the Senate.

Democrats passed 2 GSE reform bills in the House (7 months into their 2007 session) and 1 in the Senate which was signed into law by Bush in July, 2008.

If you had a brain in your head, you would understand this is a big part of why Republicans were to blame for the Great Recession.

I provided the warnings....none of which you appear ready to deny.

I never denied he warned Congress. I just pointed out the deaf ears they fell on were almost all Republican. I also don't deny Democrats were also against GSE reform during all of those critical years -- but for almost all of that period, Republicans were in charge. Republicans wouldn't allow for a full up/down vote in the Senate for any one of the number of GSE reform bills which fell upon Republican leadership.

By 2007, it was too late. Still, within 2 months, Democrats passed a bill in the House. When that one went nowhere, Democrats passed another bill in the House in July, 2007. Two bills in 7 months compared to 1 bill in 6 years when Republicans were in charge.

In the Senate, it did take 19 months to pass the House bill, but they did pass it. Compared to 51 months by Republicans who passed zero bills.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And....I didn't see you point out any of the 50 or 60 items I documented in post #1095 as untrue......

...so....why would you ignore culpability of the President whose policies resulted in these failures?



How about this one...
Obama is the first President never to have had a year of 3% or better economic growth: "...annual growth during Obama’s “recovery” has never topped 3%. By comparison, it never fell below 3% during the Reagan recovery. And in the nine years following the 1990-91 recession, GDP grew faster than 3% in all but two. Heck, even Jimmy Carter had some strong growth years." President Obama’s Growth Gap Hits $1.31 Trillion

a. "The years since 2007 have been a macroeconomic disaster for the United States of a magnitude unprecedented since the Great Depression." Obama: Always Wrong, Never In Doubt

b. "....first president since Hoover to never have a single year above 3% GDP growth." Obama economy is 'amazing,' says hedge fund billionaire


The very first since Hoover.

Significant?


After a recession....the bounce-back is usually strong.
Not under Obama.


So?

You and Redfish are so typical of the confederates in the south that refuse to accept the fact that they lost....You like them, point to the stupid ideologies of the GOP, and say, "See, we are right" by using false propaganda like Obama's recovery, and claiming that Shrub warned about the collapse. That's what makes you morons.

".... claiming that Shrub warned about the collapse. That's what makes you morons."

Now....watch how the 'moron' comment becomes a boomerang...and I jam your stupidity down your throat.


"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001

• April:The Administration'sFY02 budgetdeclares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002

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

2003

• February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

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

• September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA)strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,"The New York Times, 9/11/03)

• October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE)refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)

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

2004

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

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

• April: Rep. Frankignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue,"American Banker, 4/21/04)

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

2005

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

• July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reidrejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure,"United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007

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

• August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Doddignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism,"The New York Times, 8/11/07)

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

2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• July:Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

• September:Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, asSenator Doddquestions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover,"Bloomberg, 9/9/08)"

Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform



In your face, boooyyyyyeeeeeee!

"In your face, boooyyyyyeeeeeee?"

Really???

Let's take a look at who controlled the Congress during those years, shall we...?

	HOUSE	SENATE
2001	Republican	Rep/Dem
2002	Republican	Democrat
2003	Republican	Republican
2004	Republican	Republican
2005	Republican	Republican
2006	Republican	Republican
2007	Democrat	Democrat
2008*	Democrat	Democrat

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

* = Democrats passed GSE reform in both chambers before being signed into law in July, 2008

From April, 2001 through July, 2008, Republicans controlled the House for 72 months (79%) compared to Democrats 19 months. Republicans controlled the Senate for 51 months (58%) Democrats 37 months.

and by the way, most of the damage to the real estate markets had already occurred before Democrats took over in 2007. By 2006, some states were already reporting a record number of foreclosers. By 2007, the markets were in critical mode, by 2008, the wheels completely came off the bus.

Republicans passed 1 GSE reform bill in the House and zero in the Senate.

Democrats passed 2 GSE reform bills in the House (7 months into their 2007 session) and 1 in the Senate which was signed into law by Bush in July, 2008.

If you had a brain in your head, you would understand this is a big part of why Republicans were to blame for the Great Recession.

I provided the warnings....none of which you appear ready to deny.

I never denied he warned Congress. I just pointed out the deaf ears they fell on were almost all Republican. I also don't deny Democrats were also against GSE reform during all of those critical years -- but for almost all of that period, Republicans were in charge. Republicans wouldn't allow for a full up/down vote in the Senate for any one of the number of GSE reform bills which fell upon Republican leadership.

By 2007, it was too late. Still, within 2 months, Democrats passed a bill in the House. When that one went nowhere, Democrats passed another bill in the House in July, 2007. Two bills in 7 months compared to 1 bill in 6 years when Republicans were in charge.

In the Senate, it did take 19 months to pass the House bill, but they did pass it. Compared to 51 months by Republicans who passed zero bills.

"I never denied he warned Congress."

Your pal, Hangnail, did.

You will notice that the post was directed toward him.


BTW....

Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

 

[Faun]

You and Redfish are so typical of the confederates in the south that refuse to accept the fact that they lost....You like them, point to the stupid ideologies of the GOP, and say, "See, we are right" by using false propaganda like Obama's recovery, and claiming that Shrub warned about the collapse. That's what makes you morons.

Why don't you attempt to explain post #1095- some 60 documented failures of the very worst President in American history.....and, your very own failure in ability to choose the right candidate.


After you give up doing that....explain why the several times I've offered to provide a similar list of Obama's inept attempts at foreign policy have also been failures, have been ignored by you Obamunist drones.


Shall I wait for a cogent response, or go on with a charmed and eventful life?

I already pointed out the fatal sucking head wound of that post -- you're blaming Obama for the Great Recession Bush handed him.

Now maybe you're dumb enough to believe that but don't expect others to be as stupid as you.

Again, just one example ... your post holds him responsible for for every penny the debt increased even though much of it was directly due to the economy he inherited.

Another example of your stupidity was repeating the claim that 92 million people have dropped out of the labor force.

Beyond retarded. Most of them were never in the labor force to begin with.

"- you're blaming Obama for the Great Recession Bush handed him."

On the contrary....I blame Democrats et al.

I've asked you thrice...but you've been too fearful to respond(for obvious reasons)....
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown.



And....you haven't been able to deny the 59 failures in economic policy for which Obama has been responsible.


Fear much?

I already dispelled your idiocy that a 33 year old law crashed the economy. I posted a study which concluded only 6% of higher priced residential toxic loans were CRA loans, 0% of commercial tocix loans were CRA loans, and 80% of the lenders were not subject to CRA regulations.

You can ignore that all you want, but your nonsense has been firmly refuted.

But if you want to look at the problems caused by Fannie and Freddie, take a look at who did contribute to them....

Bush Minority Homeownership Plan Rests Heavily on Fannie and Freddie

When President Bush announced his Minority Homeownership plans last week in Atlanta, his top priorities were new federal programs: a $2.4 billion tax credit to facilitate home purchases by lower-income first-time buyers, and a $200 million national downpayment grant fund.

But none of the new federal programs--if passed by Congress--will come even close to achieving the 5.5 million-household increase in minority homeownership the President set as his target.

Instead, most of the heavy lifting was assigned to two mortgage market players that have sometimes come under fire from Bush administration officials and Congressional Republicans: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fannie's and Freddie's commitments are the bedrock core of the President's ambitious plans--but didn't get the headlines. Fannie Mae agreed to increase its already substantial lending efforts to minority families by targeting another $260 billion of mortgage purchases to them during the next nine years. Freddie Mac agreed to buy an additional $180 billion in minority-household home loans during the same period.

Besides its $180 billion mortgage purchase commitment, Freddie Mac gave President Bush a promise to implement a 25-point program aimed at increasing minority homeownership. Some of the points were cutting-edge. For example, as part of an effort to remove the fear of financial loss from first-time minority home buyers, Freddie committed itself to "explor(e) the viability of equity assurance products to protect home values in economically distressed areas."​

The claim you provided was incorrect.

I showed that via three references to the pressure Democrats put on banks via the CRA.

And....you still avoid the dispositive query...
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown.

And I showed you a vast majority of the toxic loans which cratered the economy were not subjected to CRA regulations. 6% of higher priced residential toxic loans were CRA loans and zero percent of commercial toxic loans were CRA loans.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why don't you attempt to explain post #1095- some 60 documented failures of the very worst President in American history.....and, your very own failure in ability to choose the right candidate.


After you give up doing that....explain why the several times I've offered to provide a similar list of Obama's inept attempts at foreign policy have also been failures, have been ignored by you Obamunist drones.


Shall I wait for a cogent response, or go on with a charmed and eventful life?

I already pointed out the fatal sucking head wound of that post -- you're blaming Obama for the Great Recession Bush handed him.

Now maybe you're dumb enough to believe that but don't expect others to be as stupid as you.

Again, just one example ... your post holds him responsible for for every penny the debt increased even though much of it was directly due to the economy he inherited.

Another example of your stupidity was repeating the claim that 92 million people have dropped out of the labor force.

Beyond retarded. Most of them were never in the labor force to begin with.

"- you're blaming Obama for the Great Recession Bush handed him."

On the contrary....I blame Democrats et al.

I've asked you thrice...but you've been too fearful to respond(for obvious reasons)....
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown.



And....you haven't been able to deny the 59 failures in economic policy for which Obama has been responsible.


Fear much?

I already dispelled your idiocy that a 33 year old law crashed the economy. I posted a study which concluded only 6% of higher priced residential toxic loans were CRA loans, 0% of commercial tocix loans were CRA loans, and 80% of the lenders were not subject to CRA regulations.

You can ignore that all you want, but your nonsense has been firmly refuted.

But if you want to look at the problems caused by Fannie and Freddie, take a look at who did contribute to them....

Bush Minority Homeownership Plan Rests Heavily on Fannie and Freddie

When President Bush announced his Minority Homeownership plans last week in Atlanta, his top priorities were new federal programs: a $2.4 billion tax credit to facilitate home purchases by lower-income first-time buyers, and a $200 million national downpayment grant fund.

But none of the new federal programs--if passed by Congress--will come even close to achieving the 5.5 million-household increase in minority homeownership the President set as his target.

Instead, most of the heavy lifting was assigned to two mortgage market players that have sometimes come under fire from Bush administration officials and Congressional Republicans: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fannie's and Freddie's commitments are the bedrock core of the President's ambitious plans--but didn't get the headlines. Fannie Mae agreed to increase its already substantial lending efforts to minority families by targeting another $260 billion of mortgage purchases to them during the next nine years. Freddie Mac agreed to buy an additional $180 billion in minority-household home loans during the same period.

Besides its $180 billion mortgage purchase commitment, Freddie Mac gave President Bush a promise to implement a 25-point program aimed at increasing minority homeownership. Some of the points were cutting-edge. For example, as part of an effort to remove the fear of financial loss from first-time minority home buyers, Freddie committed itself to "explor(e) the viability of equity assurance products to protect home values in economically distressed areas."​

The claim you provided was incorrect.

I showed that via three references to the pressure Democrats put on banks via the CRA.

And....you still avoid the dispositive query...
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown.

And I showed you a vast majority of the toxic loans which cratered the economy were not subjected to CRA regulations. 6% of higher priced residential toxic loans were CRA loans and zero percent of commercial toxic loans were CRA loans.

Edward Pinto

Edward Pinto, a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry, was the chief credit officer at Fannie Mae in the 1980s.

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic

So why is Congress thinking about expanding it?

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic


1. The question of how well CRA loans have performed is of vital importance because of the trillions of dollars in such lending. During the first 15 years of the act’s existence, total announced commitments under the CRA totaled $9 billion. But starting in 1992, volume exploded. Over the next 16 years, from 1992 to 2008, announced CRA commitments totaled $6 trillion. And incredible though it may seem, the same federal regulators who forced the CRA on banks have neglected to track the performance of trillions of dollars of loans made to satisfy it. But there is a strong prima facie case that they constitute toxic lending—that is, lending that leads to unsustainable loans, resulting in an unacceptable level of foreclosures.


2. …approximately 50 percent of CRA loans for single-family residences were nevertheless made to borrowers who made down payments of 5 percent or less or had low credit scores—characteristics that indicated high credit risk. Whether or not anyone called these loans “subprime,” in other words, the chances are good that many of them have defaulted or remain at high risk of doing so.


3. Though the feds, again, haven’t collected figures for CRA loans’ performance as a whole, we do have statistics from a few lenders that are troubling indeed. In Cleveland, Third Federal Savings and Loan has a 35 percent delinquency rate on its CRA-mandated “Home Today” loans, versus a 2 percent delinquency rate on its non–Home Today portfolio. Chicago’s Shorebank—the nation’s first community development bank, with largely CRA-related loans on its books—has a 19 percent delinquency and nonaccrual rate for its portfolio of first-mortgage loans for single-family residences. And Bank of America said in 2008 that while its CRA loans constituted 7 percent of its owned residential-mortgage portfolio, they represented 29 percent of that portfolio’s net losses.


4. Over the last 20 years, the percentage of conventional home-purchase mortgages made with the borrower putting 5 percent or less down more than tripled, from 8 percent in 1990 to 29 percent in 2007. Adding to the default risk: of these loans with 5 percent or less down, the average down payment declined from 5 percent to 3 percent of the loan’s value.


5. As for Fannie and Freddie, most of the loans with 5 percent or less down that they had acquired by 2005 had down payments of 3 percent or even no down payment at all. From 1992 to 2007, the two entities acquired over $3.1 trillion in low-down-payment or credit-impaired loans and private securities backed by credit-impaired loans—and these are performing horribly: the delinquency rate on Fannie’s and Freddie’s remaining $1.1 trillion in such high-risk loans is 15.5 percent as of this past June 30, about 6.5 times the rate on the entities’ traditionally underwritten loans. All this risky lending, of course, drove the nation’s homeownership rate up and inflated a housing-price bubble.


6. Taxpayers deserve to know why not one regulator had the common sense to track the performance of CRA loans. They also deserve to know why the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and other regulators appear to have no idea how trillions of dollars in CRA loans are performing now.


7. Incredibly, the House Financial Services Committee is considering legislation that would broaden the scope of the CRA. Before it takes any action on HR 1479—which would expand the CRA’s mandates from banks to bank subsidiaries, mortgage bankers, credit unions, insurance companies, and other nonbank financial institutions—the committee should demand that regulators request detailed CRA performance data from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as from the four banks that have announced 94 percent of the nation’s $6 trillion in CRA commitments: Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America. These six institutions should be able to provide performance information for an estimated 70 percent of outstanding CRA loans.





The Clinton administration changed this state of affairs dramatically. Ignoring the sweeping transformation of the banking industry since the CRA was passed, the Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A's for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count. Where and to whom have home loans been made?


Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation.


"To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application," advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, "lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations." By intervening—even just threatening to intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do."
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html



The CRA forced banks to give NINJA loans.
Or else.



BTW...
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

 

[Faun]

You and Redfish are so typical of the confederates in the south that refuse to accept the fact that they lost....You like them, point to the stupid ideologies of the GOP, and say, "See, we are right" by using false propaganda like Obama's recovery, and claiming that Shrub warned about the collapse. That's what makes you morons.

".... claiming that Shrub warned about the collapse. That's what makes you morons."

Now....watch how the 'moron' comment becomes a boomerang...and I jam your stupidity down your throat.


"Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001

• April:The Administration'sFY02 budgetdeclares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002

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

2003

• February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

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

• September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA)strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,"The New York Times, 9/11/03)

• October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE)refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)

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

2004

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

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

• April: Rep. Frankignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue,"American Banker, 4/21/04)

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

2005

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

• July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reidrejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure,"United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007

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

• August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Doddignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism,"The New York Times, 8/11/07)

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

2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• July:Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

• September:Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, asSenator Doddquestions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover,"Bloomberg, 9/9/08)"

Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform



In your face, boooyyyyyeeeeeee!

"In your face, boooyyyyyeeeeeee?"

Really???

Let's take a look at who controlled the Congress during those years, shall we...?

	HOUSE	SENATE
2001	Republican	Rep/Dem
2002	Republican	Democrat
2003	Republican	Republican
2004	Republican	Republican
2005	Republican	Republican
2006	Republican	Republican
2007	Democrat	Democrat
2008*	Democrat	Democrat

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

* = Democrats passed GSE reform in both chambers before being signed into law in July, 2008

From April, 2001 through July, 2008, Republicans controlled the House for 72 months (79%) compared to Democrats 19 months. Republicans controlled the Senate for 51 months (58%) Democrats 37 months.

and by the way, most of the damage to the real estate markets had already occurred before Democrats took over in 2007. By 2006, some states were already reporting a record number of foreclosers. By 2007, the markets were in critical mode, by 2008, the wheels completely came off the bus.

Republicans passed 1 GSE reform bill in the House and zero in the Senate.

Democrats passed 2 GSE reform bills in the House (7 months into their 2007 session) and 1 in the Senate which was signed into law by Bush in July, 2008.

If you had a brain in your head, you would understand this is a big part of why Republicans were to blame for the Great Recession.

I provided the warnings....none of which you appear ready to deny.

I never denied he warned Congress. I just pointed out the deaf ears they fell on were almost all Republican. I also don't deny Democrats were also against GSE reform during all of those critical years -- but for almost all of that period, Republicans were in charge. Republicans wouldn't allow for a full up/down vote in the Senate for any one of the number of GSE reform bills which fell upon Republican leadership.

By 2007, it was too late. Still, within 2 months, Democrats passed a bill in the House. When that one went nowhere, Democrats passed another bill in the House in July, 2007. Two bills in 7 months compared to 1 bill in 6 years when Republicans were in charge.

In the Senate, it did take 19 months to pass the House bill, but they did pass it. Compared to 51 months by Republicans who passed zero bills.

"I never denied he warned Congress."

Your pal, Hangnail, did.

You will notice that the post was directed toward him.


BTW....

Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Why would I give a shit about what others post? I am only responsible for what I post.

Meanwhile, as you were shown, it was Republicans who ignored Bush's warnings 100% of the time they were in control of the Congresss; whereas Democrats were the ones to pass GSE reform.

You were also shown it was Bush who leveraged the weight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to push his American Dream Act in order to increase home ownership by 5½ million.

Don't believe me?

Maybe you'll believe it coming straight from the horses mouth....

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech​

Guess to whom George Bush was speaking when he said, "our policies?" The clue is in the venue.

 

[Faun]

I already pointed out the fatal sucking head wound of that post -- you're blaming Obama for the Great Recession Bush handed him.

Now maybe you're dumb enough to believe that but don't expect others to be as stupid as you.

Again, just one example ... your post holds him responsible for for every penny the debt increased even though much of it was directly due to the economy he inherited.

Another example of your stupidity was repeating the claim that 92 million people have dropped out of the labor force.

Beyond retarded. Most of them were never in the labor force to begin with.

"- you're blaming Obama for the Great Recession Bush handed him."

On the contrary....I blame Democrats et al.

I've asked you thrice...but you've been too fearful to respond(for obvious reasons)....
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown.



And....you haven't been able to deny the 59 failures in economic policy for which Obama has been responsible.


Fear much?

I already dispelled your idiocy that a 33 year old law crashed the economy. I posted a study which concluded only 6% of higher priced residential toxic loans were CRA loans, 0% of commercial tocix loans were CRA loans, and 80% of the lenders were not subject to CRA regulations.

You can ignore that all you want, but your nonsense has been firmly refuted.

But if you want to look at the problems caused by Fannie and Freddie, take a look at who did contribute to them....

Bush Minority Homeownership Plan Rests Heavily on Fannie and Freddie

When President Bush announced his Minority Homeownership plans last week in Atlanta, his top priorities were new federal programs: a $2.4 billion tax credit to facilitate home purchases by lower-income first-time buyers, and a $200 million national downpayment grant fund.

But none of the new federal programs--if passed by Congress--will come even close to achieving the 5.5 million-household increase in minority homeownership the President set as his target.

Instead, most of the heavy lifting was assigned to two mortgage market players that have sometimes come under fire from Bush administration officials and Congressional Republicans: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fannie's and Freddie's commitments are the bedrock core of the President's ambitious plans--but didn't get the headlines. Fannie Mae agreed to increase its already substantial lending efforts to minority families by targeting another $260 billion of mortgage purchases to them during the next nine years. Freddie Mac agreed to buy an additional $180 billion in minority-household home loans during the same period.

Besides its $180 billion mortgage purchase commitment, Freddie Mac gave President Bush a promise to implement a 25-point program aimed at increasing minority homeownership. Some of the points were cutting-edge. For example, as part of an effort to remove the fear of financial loss from first-time minority home buyers, Freddie committed itself to "explor(e) the viability of equity assurance products to protect home values in economically distressed areas."​

The claim you provided was incorrect.

I showed that via three references to the pressure Democrats put on banks via the CRA.

And....you still avoid the dispositive query...
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown.

And I showed you a vast majority of the toxic loans which cratered the economy were not subjected to CRA regulations. 6% of higher priced residential toxic loans were CRA loans and zero percent of commercial toxic loans were CRA loans.

Edward Pinto

Edward Pinto, a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry, was the chief credit officer at Fannie Mae in the 1980s.

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic

So why is Congress thinking about expanding it?

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic


1. The question of how well CRA loans have performed is of vital importance because of the trillions of dollars in such lending. During the first 15 years of the act’s existence, total announced commitments under the CRA totaled $9 billion. But starting in 1992, volume exploded. Over the next 16 years, from 1992 to 2008, announced CRA commitments totaled $6 trillion. And incredible though it may seem, the same federal regulators who forced the CRA on banks have neglected to track the performance of trillions of dollars of loans made to satisfy it. But there is a strong prima facie case that they constitute toxic lending—that is, lending that leads to unsustainable loans, resulting in an unacceptable level of foreclosures.


2. …approximately 50 percent of CRA loans for single-family residences were nevertheless made to borrowers who made down payments of 5 percent or less or had low credit scores—characteristics that indicated high credit risk. Whether or not anyone called these loans “subprime,” in other words, the chances are good that many of them have defaulted or remain at high risk of doing so.


3. Though the feds, again, haven’t collected figures for CRA loans’ performance as a whole, we do have statistics from a few lenders that are troubling indeed. In Cleveland, Third Federal Savings and Loan has a 35 percent delinquency rate on its CRA-mandated “Home Today” loans, versus a 2 percent delinquency rate on its non–Home Today portfolio. Chicago’s Shorebank—the nation’s first community development bank, with largely CRA-related loans on its books—has a 19 percent delinquency and nonaccrual rate for its portfolio of first-mortgage loans for single-family residences. And Bank of America said in 2008 that while its CRA loans constituted 7 percent of its owned residential-mortgage portfolio, they represented 29 percent of that portfolio’s net losses.


4. Over the last 20 years, the percentage of conventional home-purchase mortgages made with the borrower putting 5 percent or less down more than tripled, from 8 percent in 1990 to 29 percent in 2007. Adding to the default risk: of these loans with 5 percent or less down, the average down payment declined from 5 percent to 3 percent of the loan’s value.


5. As for Fannie and Freddie, most of the loans with 5 percent or less down that they had acquired by 2005 had down payments of 3 percent or even no down payment at all. From 1992 to 2007, the two entities acquired over $3.1 trillion in low-down-payment or credit-impaired loans and private securities backed by credit-impaired loans—and these are performing horribly: the delinquency rate on Fannie’s and Freddie’s remaining $1.1 trillion in such high-risk loans is 15.5 percent as of this past June 30, about 6.5 times the rate on the entities’ traditionally underwritten loans. All this risky lending, of course, drove the nation’s homeownership rate up and inflated a housing-price bubble.


6. Taxpayers deserve to know why not one regulator had the common sense to track the performance of CRA loans. They also deserve to know why the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and other regulators appear to have no idea how trillions of dollars in CRA loans are performing now.


7. Incredibly, the House Financial Services Committee is considering legislation that would broaden the scope of the CRA. Before it takes any action on HR 1479—which would expand the CRA’s mandates from banks to bank subsidiaries, mortgage bankers, credit unions, insurance companies, and other nonbank financial institutions—the committee should demand that regulators request detailed CRA performance data from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as from the four banks that have announced 94 percent of the nation’s $6 trillion in CRA commitments: Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America. These six institutions should be able to provide performance information for an estimated 70 percent of outstanding CRA loans.





The Clinton administration changed this state of affairs dramatically. Ignoring the sweeping transformation of the banking industry since the CRA was passed, the Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A's for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count. Where and to whom have home loans been made?


Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation.


"To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application," advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, "lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations." By intervening—even just threatening to intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do."
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities



The CRA forced banks to give NINJA loans.
Or else.



BTW...
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Oh, my ... your own link!

“CRA was not the cause of the crisis”​

I love it when you rightards destroy your own arguments.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"- you're blaming Obama for the Great Recession Bush handed him."

On the contrary....I blame Democrats et al.

I've asked you thrice...but you've been too fearful to respond(for obvious reasons)....
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown.



And....you haven't been able to deny the 59 failures in economic policy for which Obama has been responsible.


Fear much?

I already dispelled your idiocy that a 33 year old law crashed the economy. I posted a study which concluded only 6% of higher priced residential toxic loans were CRA loans, 0% of commercial tocix loans were CRA loans, and 80% of the lenders were not subject to CRA regulations.

You can ignore that all you want, but your nonsense has been firmly refuted.

But if you want to look at the problems caused by Fannie and Freddie, take a look at who did contribute to them....

Bush Minority Homeownership Plan Rests Heavily on Fannie and Freddie

When President Bush announced his Minority Homeownership plans last week in Atlanta, his top priorities were new federal programs: a $2.4 billion tax credit to facilitate home purchases by lower-income first-time buyers, and a $200 million national downpayment grant fund.

But none of the new federal programs--if passed by Congress--will come even close to achieving the 5.5 million-household increase in minority homeownership the President set as his target.

Instead, most of the heavy lifting was assigned to two mortgage market players that have sometimes come under fire from Bush administration officials and Congressional Republicans: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fannie's and Freddie's commitments are the bedrock core of the President's ambitious plans--but didn't get the headlines. Fannie Mae agreed to increase its already substantial lending efforts to minority families by targeting another $260 billion of mortgage purchases to them during the next nine years. Freddie Mac agreed to buy an additional $180 billion in minority-household home loans during the same period.

Besides its $180 billion mortgage purchase commitment, Freddie Mac gave President Bush a promise to implement a 25-point program aimed at increasing minority homeownership. Some of the points were cutting-edge. For example, as part of an effort to remove the fear of financial loss from first-time minority home buyers, Freddie committed itself to "explor(e) the viability of equity assurance products to protect home values in economically distressed areas."​

The claim you provided was incorrect.

I showed that via three references to the pressure Democrats put on banks via the CRA.

And....you still avoid the dispositive query...
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown.

And I showed you a vast majority of the toxic loans which cratered the economy were not subjected to CRA regulations. 6% of higher priced residential toxic loans were CRA loans and zero percent of commercial toxic loans were CRA loans.

Edward Pinto

Edward Pinto, a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry, was the chief credit officer at Fannie Mae in the 1980s.

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic

So why is Congress thinking about expanding it?

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic


1. The question of how well CRA loans have performed is of vital importance because of the trillions of dollars in such lending. During the first 15 years of the act’s existence, total announced commitments under the CRA totaled $9 billion. But starting in 1992, volume exploded. Over the next 16 years, from 1992 to 2008, announced CRA commitments totaled $6 trillion. And incredible though it may seem, the same federal regulators who forced the CRA on banks have neglected to track the performance of trillions of dollars of loans made to satisfy it. But there is a strong prima facie case that they constitute toxic lending—that is, lending that leads to unsustainable loans, resulting in an unacceptable level of foreclosures.


2. …approximately 50 percent of CRA loans for single-family residences were nevertheless made to borrowers who made down payments of 5 percent or less or had low credit scores—characteristics that indicated high credit risk. Whether or not anyone called these loans “subprime,” in other words, the chances are good that many of them have defaulted or remain at high risk of doing so.


3. Though the feds, again, haven’t collected figures for CRA loans’ performance as a whole, we do have statistics from a few lenders that are troubling indeed. In Cleveland, Third Federal Savings and Loan has a 35 percent delinquency rate on its CRA-mandated “Home Today” loans, versus a 2 percent delinquency rate on its non–Home Today portfolio. Chicago’s Shorebank—the nation’s first community development bank, with largely CRA-related loans on its books—has a 19 percent delinquency and nonaccrual rate for its portfolio of first-mortgage loans for single-family residences. And Bank of America said in 2008 that while its CRA loans constituted 7 percent of its owned residential-mortgage portfolio, they represented 29 percent of that portfolio’s net losses.


4. Over the last 20 years, the percentage of conventional home-purchase mortgages made with the borrower putting 5 percent or less down more than tripled, from 8 percent in 1990 to 29 percent in 2007. Adding to the default risk: of these loans with 5 percent or less down, the average down payment declined from 5 percent to 3 percent of the loan’s value.


5. As for Fannie and Freddie, most of the loans with 5 percent or less down that they had acquired by 2005 had down payments of 3 percent or even no down payment at all. From 1992 to 2007, the two entities acquired over $3.1 trillion in low-down-payment or credit-impaired loans and private securities backed by credit-impaired loans—and these are performing horribly: the delinquency rate on Fannie’s and Freddie’s remaining $1.1 trillion in such high-risk loans is 15.5 percent as of this past June 30, about 6.5 times the rate on the entities’ traditionally underwritten loans. All this risky lending, of course, drove the nation’s homeownership rate up and inflated a housing-price bubble.


6. Taxpayers deserve to know why not one regulator had the common sense to track the performance of CRA loans. They also deserve to know why the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and other regulators appear to have no idea how trillions of dollars in CRA loans are performing now.


7. Incredibly, the House Financial Services Committee is considering legislation that would broaden the scope of the CRA. Before it takes any action on HR 1479—which would expand the CRA’s mandates from banks to bank subsidiaries, mortgage bankers, credit unions, insurance companies, and other nonbank financial institutions—the committee should demand that regulators request detailed CRA performance data from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as from the four banks that have announced 94 percent of the nation’s $6 trillion in CRA commitments: Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America. These six institutions should be able to provide performance information for an estimated 70 percent of outstanding CRA loans.





The Clinton administration changed this state of affairs dramatically. Ignoring the sweeping transformation of the banking industry since the CRA was passed, the Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A's for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count. Where and to whom have home loans been made?


Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation.


"To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application," advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, "lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations." By intervening—even just threatening to intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do."
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities



The CRA forced banks to give NINJA loans.
Or else.



BTW...
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Oh, my ... your own link!

“CRA was not the cause of the crisis”​

I love it when you rightards destroy your own arguments.

You can run but you can't hide.

I said this was the cause:

Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?


I said it here:

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.



That's the CliffNotes version.




Or...you could simply say Democrats.

 

[Faun]

5. As for Fannie and Freddie, most of the loans with 5 percent or less down that they had acquired by 2005 had down payments of 3 percent or even no down payment at all. From 1992 to 2007, the two entities acquired over $3.1 trillion in low-down-payment or credit-impaired loans and private securities backed by credit-impaired loans—and these are performing horribly: the delinquency rate on Fannie’s and Freddie’s remaining $1.1 trillion in such high-risk loans is 15.5 percent as of this past June 30, about 6.5 times the rate on the entities’ traditionally underwritten loans. All this risky lending, of course, drove the nation’s homeownership rate up and inflated a housing-price bubble.

Oh, I LOVE this example.

Lower down payments "horribly" increased delinquency rates.

Yes, of course it did since once a homeowner with an adjustable rate mortgage saw their rates increase, they had virtually no equity built up in their home and virtually nothing to lose but credit by walking away from their loan.

but .... and here's the kicker, ya dumb bitch ... that was a centerpiece Of Bush's 2003 American Dream Downpayment Act, passed by a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President, which in some cases, resulted in HUD assisting with the entire down payment ... i.e., no down payment ....

President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003

One of the biggest hurdles to homeownership is getting money for a down payment. This administration has recognized that, and so today I'm honored to be here to sign a law that will help many low-income buyers to overcome that hurdle, and to achieve an important part of the American Dream.​

I've never seen anybody on the right condemn Bush and Republicans for the housing mess as much you are doing.

 

[Faun]

I already dispelled your idiocy that a 33 year old law crashed the economy. I posted a study which concluded only 6% of higher priced residential toxic loans were CRA loans, 0% of commercial tocix loans were CRA loans, and 80% of the lenders were not subject to CRA regulations.

You can ignore that all you want, but your nonsense has been firmly refuted.

But if you want to look at the problems caused by Fannie and Freddie, take a look at who did contribute to them....

Bush Minority Homeownership Plan Rests Heavily on Fannie and Freddie

When President Bush announced his Minority Homeownership plans last week in Atlanta, his top priorities were new federal programs: a $2.4 billion tax credit to facilitate home purchases by lower-income first-time buyers, and a $200 million national downpayment grant fund.

But none of the new federal programs--if passed by Congress--will come even close to achieving the 5.5 million-household increase in minority homeownership the President set as his target.

Instead, most of the heavy lifting was assigned to two mortgage market players that have sometimes come under fire from Bush administration officials and Congressional Republicans: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fannie's and Freddie's commitments are the bedrock core of the President's ambitious plans--but didn't get the headlines. Fannie Mae agreed to increase its already substantial lending efforts to minority families by targeting another $260 billion of mortgage purchases to them during the next nine years. Freddie Mac agreed to buy an additional $180 billion in minority-household home loans during the same period.

Besides its $180 billion mortgage purchase commitment, Freddie Mac gave President Bush a promise to implement a 25-point program aimed at increasing minority homeownership. Some of the points were cutting-edge. For example, as part of an effort to remove the fear of financial loss from first-time minority home buyers, Freddie committed itself to "explor(e) the viability of equity assurance products to protect home values in economically distressed areas."​

The claim you provided was incorrect.

I showed that via three references to the pressure Democrats put on banks via the CRA.

And....you still avoid the dispositive query...
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown.

And I showed you a vast majority of the toxic loans which cratered the economy were not subjected to CRA regulations. 6% of higher priced residential toxic loans were CRA loans and zero percent of commercial toxic loans were CRA loans.

Edward Pinto

Edward Pinto, a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry, was the chief credit officer at Fannie Mae in the 1980s.

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic

So why is Congress thinking about expanding it?

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic


1. The question of how well CRA loans have performed is of vital importance because of the trillions of dollars in such lending. During the first 15 years of the act’s existence, total announced commitments under the CRA totaled $9 billion. But starting in 1992, volume exploded. Over the next 16 years, from 1992 to 2008, announced CRA commitments totaled $6 trillion. And incredible though it may seem, the same federal regulators who forced the CRA on banks have neglected to track the performance of trillions of dollars of loans made to satisfy it. But there is a strong prima facie case that they constitute toxic lending—that is, lending that leads to unsustainable loans, resulting in an unacceptable level of foreclosures.


2. …approximately 50 percent of CRA loans for single-family residences were nevertheless made to borrowers who made down payments of 5 percent or less or had low credit scores—characteristics that indicated high credit risk. Whether or not anyone called these loans “subprime,” in other words, the chances are good that many of them have defaulted or remain at high risk of doing so.


3. Though the feds, again, haven’t collected figures for CRA loans’ performance as a whole, we do have statistics from a few lenders that are troubling indeed. In Cleveland, Third Federal Savings and Loan has a 35 percent delinquency rate on its CRA-mandated “Home Today” loans, versus a 2 percent delinquency rate on its non–Home Today portfolio. Chicago’s Shorebank—the nation’s first community development bank, with largely CRA-related loans on its books—has a 19 percent delinquency and nonaccrual rate for its portfolio of first-mortgage loans for single-family residences. And Bank of America said in 2008 that while its CRA loans constituted 7 percent of its owned residential-mortgage portfolio, they represented 29 percent of that portfolio’s net losses.


4. Over the last 20 years, the percentage of conventional home-purchase mortgages made with the borrower putting 5 percent or less down more than tripled, from 8 percent in 1990 to 29 percent in 2007. Adding to the default risk: of these loans with 5 percent or less down, the average down payment declined from 5 percent to 3 percent of the loan’s value.


5. As for Fannie and Freddie, most of the loans with 5 percent or less down that they had acquired by 2005 had down payments of 3 percent or even no down payment at all. From 1992 to 2007, the two entities acquired over $3.1 trillion in low-down-payment or credit-impaired loans and private securities backed by credit-impaired loans—and these are performing horribly: the delinquency rate on Fannie’s and Freddie’s remaining $1.1 trillion in such high-risk loans is 15.5 percent as of this past June 30, about 6.5 times the rate on the entities’ traditionally underwritten loans. All this risky lending, of course, drove the nation’s homeownership rate up and inflated a housing-price bubble.


6. Taxpayers deserve to know why not one regulator had the common sense to track the performance of CRA loans. They also deserve to know why the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and other regulators appear to have no idea how trillions of dollars in CRA loans are performing now.


7. Incredibly, the House Financial Services Committee is considering legislation that would broaden the scope of the CRA. Before it takes any action on HR 1479—which would expand the CRA’s mandates from banks to bank subsidiaries, mortgage bankers, credit unions, insurance companies, and other nonbank financial institutions—the committee should demand that regulators request detailed CRA performance data from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as from the four banks that have announced 94 percent of the nation’s $6 trillion in CRA commitments: Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America. These six institutions should be able to provide performance information for an estimated 70 percent of outstanding CRA loans.





The Clinton administration changed this state of affairs dramatically. Ignoring the sweeping transformation of the banking industry since the CRA was passed, the Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A's for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count. Where and to whom have home loans been made?


Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation.


"To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application," advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, "lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations." By intervening—even just threatening to intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do."
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities



The CRA forced banks to give NINJA loans.
Or else.



BTW...
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Oh, my ... your own link!

“CRA was not the cause of the crisis”​

I love it when you rightards destroy your own arguments.

You can run but you can't hide.

I said this was the cause:

Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?


I said it here:

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.



That's the CliffNotes version.




Or...you could simply say Democrats.

Riiiiiight .... because it was really a law in place for 70 years which caused the crisis.

4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

Cite the bill(s) they blocked.......

 

[PoliticalChic]

The claim you provided was incorrect.

I showed that via three references to the pressure Democrats put on banks via the CRA.

And....you still avoid the dispositive query...
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown.

And I showed you a vast majority of the toxic loans which cratered the economy were not subjected to CRA regulations. 6% of higher priced residential toxic loans were CRA loans and zero percent of commercial toxic loans were CRA loans.

Edward Pinto

Edward Pinto, a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry, was the chief credit officer at Fannie Mae in the 1980s.

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic

So why is Congress thinking about expanding it?

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic


1. The question of how well CRA loans have performed is of vital importance because of the trillions of dollars in such lending. During the first 15 years of the act’s existence, total announced commitments under the CRA totaled $9 billion. But starting in 1992, volume exploded. Over the next 16 years, from 1992 to 2008, announced CRA commitments totaled $6 trillion. And incredible though it may seem, the same federal regulators who forced the CRA on banks have neglected to track the performance of trillions of dollars of loans made to satisfy it. But there is a strong prima facie case that they constitute toxic lending—that is, lending that leads to unsustainable loans, resulting in an unacceptable level of foreclosures.


2. …approximately 50 percent of CRA loans for single-family residences were nevertheless made to borrowers who made down payments of 5 percent or less or had low credit scores—characteristics that indicated high credit risk. Whether or not anyone called these loans “subprime,” in other words, the chances are good that many of them have defaulted or remain at high risk of doing so.


3. Though the feds, again, haven’t collected figures for CRA loans’ performance as a whole, we do have statistics from a few lenders that are troubling indeed. In Cleveland, Third Federal Savings and Loan has a 35 percent delinquency rate on its CRA-mandated “Home Today” loans, versus a 2 percent delinquency rate on its non–Home Today portfolio. Chicago’s Shorebank—the nation’s first community development bank, with largely CRA-related loans on its books—has a 19 percent delinquency and nonaccrual rate for its portfolio of first-mortgage loans for single-family residences. And Bank of America said in 2008 that while its CRA loans constituted 7 percent of its owned residential-mortgage portfolio, they represented 29 percent of that portfolio’s net losses.


4. Over the last 20 years, the percentage of conventional home-purchase mortgages made with the borrower putting 5 percent or less down more than tripled, from 8 percent in 1990 to 29 percent in 2007. Adding to the default risk: of these loans with 5 percent or less down, the average down payment declined from 5 percent to 3 percent of the loan’s value.


5. As for Fannie and Freddie, most of the loans with 5 percent or less down that they had acquired by 2005 had down payments of 3 percent or even no down payment at all. From 1992 to 2007, the two entities acquired over $3.1 trillion in low-down-payment or credit-impaired loans and private securities backed by credit-impaired loans—and these are performing horribly: the delinquency rate on Fannie’s and Freddie’s remaining $1.1 trillion in such high-risk loans is 15.5 percent as of this past June 30, about 6.5 times the rate on the entities’ traditionally underwritten loans. All this risky lending, of course, drove the nation’s homeownership rate up and inflated a housing-price bubble.


6. Taxpayers deserve to know why not one regulator had the common sense to track the performance of CRA loans. They also deserve to know why the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and other regulators appear to have no idea how trillions of dollars in CRA loans are performing now.


7. Incredibly, the House Financial Services Committee is considering legislation that would broaden the scope of the CRA. Before it takes any action on HR 1479—which would expand the CRA’s mandates from banks to bank subsidiaries, mortgage bankers, credit unions, insurance companies, and other nonbank financial institutions—the committee should demand that regulators request detailed CRA performance data from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as from the four banks that have announced 94 percent of the nation’s $6 trillion in CRA commitments: Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America. These six institutions should be able to provide performance information for an estimated 70 percent of outstanding CRA loans.





The Clinton administration changed this state of affairs dramatically. Ignoring the sweeping transformation of the banking industry since the CRA was passed, the Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A's for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count. Where and to whom have home loans been made?


Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation.


"To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application," advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, "lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations." By intervening—even just threatening to intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, "CRA is the backbone of everything we do."
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities



The CRA forced banks to give NINJA loans.
Or else.



BTW...
Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

Oh, my ... your own link!

“CRA was not the cause of the crisis”​

I love it when you rightards destroy your own arguments.

You can run but you can't hide.

I said this was the cause:

Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?


I said it here:

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.

He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.


2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy


3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA

Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.

Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.


4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.



That's the CliffNotes version.




Or...you could simply say Democrats.

Riiiiiight .... because it was really a law in place for 70 years which caused the crisis.

4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.

Cite the bill(s) they blocked.......

BTW.....

Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?

 

[Faun]

Y'all notice how PoliticalChic completely glossed over this without answering ...?

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech​

... given the venue at which he was speaking, whose policies for the explosive growth in home ownership was he giving credit to when he said, "our policies?"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Y'all notice how PoliticalChic completely glossed over this without answering ...?

"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech​

... given the venue at which he was speaking, whose policies for the explosive growth in home ownership was he giving credit to when he said, "our policies?"

What????

You're claiming that George Bush was a politician????

Shocking!




BTW, Uggg.....

Had Democrats not infected the private housing economy, and created Fanny and Freddie....
....would there have been a mortgage meltdown?