The empty hat GOP.....another trickle down bs tax policy!!

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 2000, Clinton put in place a HUD rule that prohibited GSE's from purchasing risky mortgages

link?

From Washington Post, June 10, 2008:

In 2000, as HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals, the housing market had shifted. With escalating home prices, subprime loans were more popular. Consumer advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers with low "teaser" interest rates and ignoring borrowers' qualifications.

HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay. Freddie and Fannie adopted policies not to buy some high-cost loans.​

Bush reversed that restriction in 2004. Why?

Hey, cool link.......

In 2004, as regulators warned that subprime lenders were saddling borrowers with mortgages they could not afford, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fuel more of that risky lending.


Eager to put more low-income and minority families into their own homes, the agency required that two government-chartered mortgage finance firms purchase far more "affordable" loans made to these borrowers. HUD stuck with an outdated policy that allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to count billions of dollars they invested in subprime loans as a public good that would foster affordable housing.

Sounds very familiar......

Since HUD became their regulator in 1992, Fannie and Freddie each year are supposed to buy a portion of "affordable" mortgages made to underserved borrowers. Every four years, HUD reviews the goals to adapt to market changes.

In 1995, President Bill Clinton's HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers.

Weird. Government mandates involving Clinton and subprime lending.......

In 2001, HUD researchers warned of high foreclosure rates among subprime loans.

"Given the very high concentration of these loans in low-income and African American neighborhoods, the growth in subprime lending and resulting very high levels of foreclosure is a real cause for concern," an agency report said.

But by 2004, when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure rates also were rising.

Wow!
Before Bush was involved in the 2004 revision, they had already blown up their subprime purchases TENFOLD!!

That year, President Bush's HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent.

Son-of-a-gun!!! Bush took Clinton's bad idea and made it worse.......it's like deja vu all over again.

For Wall Street, high profits could be made from securities backed by subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie targeted the least-risky loans. Still, their purchases provided more cash for a larger subprime market.

"That was a huge, huge mistake," said Patricia McCoy, who teaches securities law at the University of Connecticut. "That just pumped more capital into a very unregulated market that has turned out to be a disaster."

In 2003, the two bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004, they purchased $175 billion -- 44 percent of the market. In 2005, they bought $169 billion, or 33 percent. In 2006, they cut back to $90 billion, or 20 percent. Generally, Freddie purchased more than Fannie and relied more heavily on the securities to meet goals.

"The market knew we needed those loans," said Sharon McHale, a spokeswoman for Freddie Mac. The higher goals "forced us to go into that market to serve the targeted populations that HUD wanted us to serve," she said.

Wow, besides buying crappy mortgages, they also bought crappy MBS.
Did all their actions help inflate the bubble?

Great link!

I love it when you link stuff from the Washington Post that backs up things I've already posted. Thanks!!!

 

[The Derp]

Wow, besides buying crappy mortgages, they also bought crappy MBS

All because Bush and the Conservatives made them. That was the reason behind the 2004 change. Although, GSE loans performed better than all other loans and entered delinquency after your shitty subprimes did, as the chart below shows:

 

[The Derp]

Wow! Before Bush was involved in the 2004 revision, they had already blown up their subprime purchases TENFOLD!!

The subprimes issued prior to 2004 had default rates between 5-7%. The subprimes issued post-2004 had default rates between 21-23%.

So what if they bought risky subprime securities? The default rate on the subprimes that backed those securities was in the 5-7% range. Which was the standard for nearly a decade until you assholes had to make the economy look like it was growing.

 

[tigerred59]

A muslims kills, its a terrorist attack....and the media eats this shit up big time....but some crazy white mf' kills, oh, he's just having a bad day...and of course if a negro does shit like dis, well, what do you expect....Trump is behind this shit....the guy wasn't even prepared, he came with toy guns...yeah, this is a trump call!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not credit them?Oh, you mean some crappy loans wouldn't count toward their mandated purchases of crappy loans.And yet, they still managed to buy plenty of weak mortgages.

Fannie and Freddie were not responsible for the Bush Economic Collapse and neither were the mortgages they backed. That was all you guys and your de-regulatory zeal and laissez-faire approach; like letting banks police themselves and not enforcing lending standards for subprime loans.

Here's the chart of mortgage delinquency rates. Notice how GSE's have the best delinquency rate? Of course you don't notice that...because your eyes and brain won't let you. Why? Simple; it would ruin the fragile narrative you're trying to propagandize and your ego cannot take that bruising because it's as weak as your arguments and your upper body strength.

Fannie and Freddie were not responsible for the Bush Economic Collapse and neither were the mortgages they backed.

Of course not.

It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans.

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

No down payments. $1 trillion in low quality loans by 2002. No effect at all.

Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007. As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

19.2 million crappy mortgages in the hands of government agencies.
Not responsible in the least..........DURR

 

[The Derp]

I love it when you link stuff from the Washington Post that backs up things I've already posted. Thanks!!!

Nothing here backed up what you said and here's why:

The securities purchased by GSE's prior to 2004 were backed by subprime loans issued prior to 2004. Those subprime loans had default rates between 5-7% for the decade prior. So those securities weren't the ones that went toxic. The securities backed by subprime loans from 2004-7 were. So what happens to a security when the mortgage backing it defaults? It goes toxic. From 1993-2003, that happened 5-7% of the time. From 2004-2007, that happened 21-23% of the time. So you're trying to lump all securities together when it was really just the securities from 2004-7, backed by subprime loans issued during the period of your Laissez Faire policy from 2004-7, that turned toxic and destroyed the economy.

 

[The Derp]

It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans.

And those loans had low delinquency rates. They're not the ones that went toxic. Because the garbage subprimes you all issued from 2004-7 were garbage, you think that means all subprime loans are garbage. They're not. Just the ones you issued in your hasty and hap-hazard attempt to inflate a mortgage bubble in order to make it look like the economy was growing as a result of tax cuts, when it was growing as a result of debt. Again, here's the chart...check out the delinquency rates on subprimes from 2001 vs. delinquency rate for GSE loans...it's not even close:

No down payments. $1 trillion in low quality loans by 2002. No effect at all.

And yet, those loans were not entering delinquency at any rates greater than before. It wasn't until all the garbage loans you Conservatives flooded the market with, that things began to look bad.

19.2 million crappy mortgages in the hands of government agencies.
Not responsible in the least..........DURR

Who says they're crappy? Just because they're risky doesn't mean they're crappy. And the risk paid off...until you flooded the market with your shitty subprime loans with no standards beginning in 2004. Why did you do that? I don't believe you even have the slightest clue of what you're talking. I think you're just making it up as you go. I think you don't understand that loans issued prior to 2004 had lower delinquency rates, and I think you think all subprime loans from all lenders are the same. I think you think that way because your brain just isn't developed enough to understand something this (somewhat) complex. If what you're saying is true...that the subprime loans from pre-2003 were somehow responsible for the crisis, then the delinquency rates on those loans should be far higher than they actually were. You haven't been able to reconcile that, probably because you don't know what a mortgage-backed security even is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Unfuckinbelievable.....the GOP is again betting on the trickle down pipe dream to now raise wages in this country....this with stock market profits in the trillions for the very corporations that need a break. One would think, with profits being soooooo high, your employer would have given out mega raises or a bonus by now, ya think? I know I'm still waiting.

Lets face it, the GOP is a party of what? I have yet to see these people come up with one new idea that is for the benefit for the idiots that keep supporting this do nothing useless party. I just don't get the love....Both Reagan and Bush have had the highest deficits in US history, with Trump to top them both in the near future, yet its always democrats that take the fall for it. This budget plan is gonna kick seniors off of medicare, gut medicaid, enhance the rich, and for the middle class the working poor, an increase in personal exemptions, whoopdi do

My God, these southern white bastards are just tooo motherfuckin stupid to be voting

More "gubermint", more taxes, more fees, more entitlements and subsidies...it's what da peoples want, eh, dipshit?


More Federal Reserve notes required but what the fuck? Just crank out more of them and fuck the fact that interest is attached to every debt note printed just so long as you get freebies. If life was a chicken farm and "da gubermint" was Colonel Sanders? You would be clucking, squawking and waddling your fat ass up to the porch demanding more feed. You don't have the foggiest fucking clue as to what is really going on...........not even in the slightest.

interest is attached to every debt note printed

That's funny! I'm holding some of those notes.
I'm not paying any interest on them.

Are you? Who do you pay?

It appears you are confused.

GIVE me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws

You have probably heard that quote. Here is what that means.

Say the US wants to print a billion new dollars. Well, they have to BUY them from the Federal Reserve, a private outfit. Now the Fed, it just turns on the printing press. The dollars cost them pennies. But for every dollar printed the Government goes in debt a dollar. Hell, one years interest covers the cost of the dollars. The rest is sheer gravy. It is a sweet ass deal.

Now, QE--that is when the Fed introduced new dollars by purchasing what? Debt. They turned on the presses, printed out some dollars, and introduced them into circulation by buying up debt that, you got it, draws interest. Again, it's a sweet ass deal.

So yes, every Federal Reserve note you have in your pocket has interest attached to it. And worse, you are paying in the form of taxes that go to pay the interest on that debt. Maybe even your mortgage, it could be held by the Federal Reserve, so you could be paying interest on dollars that were used to purchase your mortgage.

Now, there is a cool solution. The Federal Government could print a couple trillion dollar coins, declare them legal tender, and pay off the Federal Reserve with them. If Trump was the man you guys think he is he would have done that already. But Trump is no more in charge than I am. ,

Say the US wants to print a billion new dollars. Well, they have to BUY them from the Federal Reserve,

Exactly which US government agency needs Federal Reserve Notes?
Do you think HUD is using stacks of $20s to pay their bills?

It appears you are confused.

the Federal Reserve, a private outfit.

Private? LOL!

Now, QE--that is when the Fed introduced new dollars by purchasing what? Debt. They turned on the presses, printed out some dollars, and introduced them into circulation by buying up debt that, you got it, draws interest.

You think the Fed bought Treasuries and MBS in exchange for a trailer full of FRNs? Hilarious!!!

So yes, every Federal Reserve note you have in your pocket has interest attached to it.

The $20 you have in your wallet, are you paying interest on it? How much?
Where do you mail the check?

Or does someone owe you interest?

And worse, you are paying in the form of taxes that go to pay the interest on that debt.

My taxes go to pay interest on that debt, no matter who owns the debt.

Maybe even your mortgage, it could be held by the Federal Reserve, so you could be paying interest on dollars that were used to purchase your mortgage.

I'm paying interest on the money I borrowed to buy my home.
I give nary a shit who bought the mortgage later or what they used to buy it.
My interest payment has nothing to do with FRNs

Yes, the Federal Reserve purchased MBS with printed dollars.

The agency MBS purchase program was announced in November 2008 and the FOMC expanded the size of the program in early 2009. In total, $1.25 trillion in agency MBS were purchased between January 2009 and March 2010, when the purchase phase of the program was completed.

The Fed - Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) Purchase Program

And yes, the Federal Reserve is privately held.

The Fed is privately owned. Its shareholders are private banks

https://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-the-federal-reserve/10489

Look and learn,

The US goverment runs a deficit annually. To cover this, the US goverment issues bonds which are bought by the FED.

Since the FED has the POWER TO PRINT MONEY, it can buy any amount of the US Government bonds at almost NO COST, save for the expense of printing money (approximately 3 cents per $100).

At this point, the owners of the FED already profit $99.97 for every 3 cents they invested to print the money. Basically, they exchange something that costs almost nothing to them with the US Government Bonds.

Since the FED can NOT be AUDITTED by the IRS (or even by Congress), most of this profit can go anywhere the FED owners want to. BTW, did I mention that the profit is TAX-FREE?

After buying the bonds, the owner of the FED can either:
1. Keep the bonds, and collect the interest the US Government now OWES them.
2. Sell the bonds to the US Tax Payers or foreigners.

In either case, the FED owners have profitted $99.97 for every 3 cents it invested to print the money. Remember, the FED is a PRIVATELY OWNED corporation, just like the Federal Express. The profit of the FED goes to the FED owners.

The US Government now owes the FED owners the interest on those bonds. Remember that the FED owners DO NOT EARN the bonds. They simply PRINT the money to buy the bonds. In other words, they created money out of thin air, and exchange it for the interest bearing bonds.

In order to pay for the bonds' interest, the US Government taxes the US population.

When a US Citizen holding US Government bonds receives his/her return of investment on the bonds, essentially the money he/she receives is the tax money he/she is paying to the Government.

The FED (Federal Reserve Bank) is a Commercial Privately Owned Bank

Yes, the Federal Reserve purchased MBS with printed dollars.

Did they use $20s? $100s?

In total, $1.25 trillion in agency MBS were purchased between January 2009 and March 2010, when the purchase phase of the program was completed.

Wow! Who guarded all the armored cars? Where did the sellers hide the FRNs?

The Fed is privately owned. Its shareholders are private banks.

They must make a ton of money from the Fed's profits, eh?
Can you tell me how much they make?

Globalresearch?
Don't you have a more reliable source? Like maybe some UFO website?

To cover this, the US goverment issues bonds which are bought by the FED.

The government doesn't issue bonds to the Fed.

At this point, the owners of the FED already profit $99.97 for every 3 cents they invested to print the money. Basically, they exchange something that costs almost nothing to them with the US Government Bonds.

I still want to know who in the US government is using $100s to spend government money.
I have never received an envelope full of cash in any of my interactions with the Federal government.
Have you?

Since the FED can NOT be AUDITTED by the IRS (or even by Congress),

They're audited every year. Deloitte used to do it. You can find their audited statements online.

The US Government now owes the FED owners the interest on those bonds. Remember that the FED owners DO NOT EARN the bonds.

That's awful!! What does the Fed do with its profits?

 

[The Derp]

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

I wouldn't disagree that the Bush government caused the housing crisis. But you don't seem to even understand what the crisis was...so...

Look, we can even see right here how fast it took private-label subprimes to enter delinquency:

And here showing quite clearly that post-2004 there was volatility in housing because loans issued from 2004+ were entering delinquency faster and at greater rates:

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow, besides buying crappy mortgages, they also bought crappy MBS

All because Bush and the Conservatives made them. That was the reason behind the 2004 change. Although, GSE loans performed better than all other loans and entered delinquency after your shitty subprimes did, as the chart below shows:

Wow, besides buying crappy mortgages, they also bought crappy MBS

All because Bush and the Conservatives made them.

I know.....In 1995, President Bill Clinton's HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers.

Darn that time traveling Bush.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow! Before Bush was involved in the 2004 revision, they had already blown up their subprime purchases TENFOLD!!

The subprimes issued prior to 2004 had default rates between 5-7%. The subprimes issued post-2004 had default rates between 21-23%.

So what if they bought risky subprime securities? The default rate on the subprimes that backed those securities was in the 5-7% range. Which was the standard for nearly a decade until you assholes had to make the economy look like it was growing.

So what if they bought risky subprime securities?

So what if they bought risky subprime securities that inflated the bubble?

The default rate on the subprimes that backed those securities was in the 5-7% range.

Buyers at the beginning of a bubble do better than buyers later in a bubble.

 

[The Derp]

Wow, besides buying crappy mortgages, they also bought crappy MBS

Only after 2004 because the MBS issued after 2004 were the shitty ones backed by loans vintage 2004-7 that had astronomically high delinquency rates.

I know.....In 1995, President Bill Clinton's HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers..

And then Clinton put a restriction on the GSE's in 2000 that Bush reversed in 2004. Why is it that you constantly leave out the parts that undermine your argument? Oh wait...I know why...because you're a propagandist.

 

[The Derp]

So what if they bought risky subprime securities that inflated the bubble?

Those subprime securities were different than the subprime securities that came from 2004-7. For one, the subprimes backing them had delinquency rates 3-5 times as high. Why did Bush issue all those garbage subprimes anyway? He nearly doubled the subprime market in just 3 years of lending.

Buyers at the beginning of a bubble do better than buyers later in a bubble.

The bubble started in 2004, not before. The bubble began when you guys dramatically weakened lending standards for subprime loans, beginning in 2004 and extending into 2007, just like the Bush Working Group on Financial Markets says:

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

The bubble appeared when you went from issuing about 100,000 subprimes a year (dating back to 1993) to 266,000 subprimes a year (from 2004-7).

The Bush Working Group goes on to say:

Despite the significant progress made in the last year to reform this process, the portfolios of two major mortgage industry entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, underperformed expectations partially due to their holdings of mortgage assets created during the period of weak underwriting.

That period was 2004-7, like they said in the paragraph before.

So Bush and the Conservatives dramatically weakened subprime loans, then forced GSE's to hold assets created during that period of weakened standards.

So how are you all not 100% entirely to blame for this?

 

[tigerred59]

Why can't muslim just have a bad day, like mass murdering white people? My heart bleeds for those people, may they rest in peace...but I am not looking forward to this unending love fest of praising cops, praising cops again, and then praising cops one more time. I don't look forward to Trump milking this tragedy like a full utter on a cow...hate me all you want....but I've seen this movie before and dread the exploiting the Trump white house will do with this shit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So what if they bought risky subprime securities that inflated the bubble?

Those subprime securities were different than the subprime securities that came from 2004-7. For one, the subprimes backing them had delinquency rates 3-5 times as high. Why did Bush issue all those garbage subprimes anyway? He nearly doubled the subprime market in just 3 years of lending.

Buyers at the beginning of a bubble do better than buyers later in a bubble.

The bubble started in 2004, not before. The bubble began when you guys dramatically weakened lending standards for subprime loans, beginning in 2004 and extending into 2007, just like the Bush Working Group on Financial Markets says:

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

The bubble appeared when you went from issuing about 100,000 subprimes a year (dating back to 1993) to 266,000 subprimes a year (from 2004-7).

The Bush Working Group goes on to say:

Despite the significant progress made in the last year to reform this process, the portfolios of two major mortgage industry entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, underperformed expectations partially due to their holdings of mortgage assets created during the period of weak underwriting.

That period was 2004-7, like they said in the paragraph before.

So Bush and the Conservatives dramatically weakened subprime loans, then forced GSE's to hold assets created during that period of weakened standards.

So how are you all not 100% entirely to blame for this?

Those subprime securities were different than the subprime securities that came from 2004-7.

You bet. Just like e-Toys.com stock at the IPO price of $20 was different than e-Toys.com stock at $84.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why can't muslim just have a bad day, like mass murdering white people? My heart bleeds for those people, may they rest in peace...but I am not looking forward to this unending love fest of praising cops, praising cops again, and then praising cops one more time. I don't look forward to Trump milking this tragedy like a full utter on a cow...hate me all you want....but I've seen this movie before and dread the exploiting the Trump white house will do with this shit.

Hitting the Crown Royal early?

 

[The Derp]

You bet. Just like e-Toys.com stock at the IPO price of $20 was different than e-Toys.com stock at $84.

You seem unable to distinguish between securities backed by mortgages prior to 2004, with securities backed by mortgages from 2004-7. Unless you know there's a distinction but are acting like a sophist anyway. Why would you do that? Is it an ego thing? Is it because you're paid to post this shit? Is it because you crave attention? We know it has nothing to do with economics...so what's the real motivation here?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You bet. Just like e-Toys.com stock at the IPO price of $20 was different than e-Toys.com stock at $84.

You seem unable to distinguish between securities backed by mortgages prior to 2004, with securities backed by mortgages from 2004-7. Unless you know there's a distinction but are acting like a sophist anyway. Why would you do that? Is it an ego thing? Is it because you're paid to post this shit? Is it because you crave attention? We know it has nothing to do with economics...so what's the real motivation here?

You seem unable to distinguish between securities backed by mortgages prior to 2004, with securities backed by mortgages from 2004-7.

When e.Toys.com imploded, who lost more money, the guy who bought it at $20 or the guy who bought it at $84?

 

[The Derp]

When e.Toys.com imploded, who lost more money, the guy who bought it at $20 or the guy who bought it at $84?

Again, you don't seem to understand how mortgage backed securities work. An MBS backed by a mortgage from 2003 is not the same MBS backed by a mortgage from 2004. They're two different, mutually exclusive assets. The fact that you think it's the same thing as stock...well...that just shows you've been posturing this entire thread.

You know this, but act like you don't. Why? Is it because you just don't know what you're talking about? Is it because it's your job to lie and spread propaganda? Is it because you have an ego that craves attention? What's your deal?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When e.Toys.com imploded, who lost more money, the guy who bought it at $20 or the guy who bought it at $84?

Again, you don't seem to understand how mortgage backed securities work. An MBS backed by a mortgage from 2003 is not the same MBS backed by a mortgage from 2004. They're two different, mutually exclusive assets. The fact that you think it's the same thing as stock...well...that just shows you've been posturing this entire thread.

You know this, but act like you don't. Why? Is it because you just don't know what you're talking about? Is it because it's your job to lie and spread propaganda? Is it because you have an ego that craves attention? What's your deal?

An MBS backed by a mortgage from 2003 is not the same MBS backed by a mortgage from 2004. They're two different, mutually exclusive assets.

Absolutely. As the bubble expands, borrowers have lower and lower credit scores.
2003 borrowers with the same credit scores as 2005 borrowers have 2 years of equity gains as well as 2 years worth of payments. The 2003 borrower is less likely to default.
If both borrowers lost their job on Jan 2, 2006 and stopped paying their mortgage, the earlier buyer is less likely to lose the house. The 2003 buyer is more likely to be able to sell the home and pay back the bank.

The 2005 buyer paid more and has little or no gain to cushion the bank's risk.

If you think you've discovered something new about this bubble, or bubbles in general, this is me chuckling at you.