The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008. Pick your poison, the economy is either controlled through the policies of the executive branch or with approval of the legislative.

How can you rightards possibly be this retarded?? The economy began collapsing towards the end of 2007 due to toxic loans written years earlier. You have to be a special kind of stupid to think it was policies of the 110th Congress which caused the collapse.

The loans were forced upon by banks under CRA, new regulations that were signed by President Clinton. institutions were not allowed to use tools like credit history that could potentially disqualify minority groups for fear of discrimination.

Community Reinvestment Act prodded banks to take bad, costly risks in lending

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT December 28, 2012 By: Hans Bader


The Community Reinvestment Act was enacted in 1977, but it was not enforced stringently until regulations dramatically expanded its reach in the 1990s. It then became one of the factors that contributed to the financial crisis.

Banks and mortgage companies have long been under pressure from Congressmen and regulators to give loans to people with bad credit, in order to provide “affordable housing” and promote “diversity.” That played a key role in triggering the mortgage crisis, judging from a 2008 story in The New York Times. For example, “a high-ranking Democrat telephoned executives and screamed at them to purchase more loans from low-income borrowers.” The executives of government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “eventually yielded to those pressures, effectively wagering that if things got too bad, the government would bail them out.” But they realized the risk: “In 2004, Freddie Mac warned regulators that affordable housing goals could force the company to buy riskier loans.” Ultimately, though, Freddie Mac’s CEO, Richard F. Syron, told colleagues that “we couldn’t afford to say no to anyone.”

Lenders also face the risk of being sued for discrimination if they fail to lend money to people with bad credit, which can have a racially-disparate impact. The Justice Department is now extorting multimillion dollar settlements from banks, by accusing them of racial discrimination because they use traditional, non-racist lending criteria that minority borrowers are, on average, less likely to satisfy, such as having a high credit score, or being able to afford a substantial downpayment. Its Civil Rights Division chief, Tom Perez, “has compared bankers to Klansmen.” The “only difference, he says, is bankers discriminate ‘with a smile’ and ‘fine print,’” calling their lending criteria “every bit as destructive as the cross burned in a neighborhood.” Investor’s Business Daily chronicles this attack on small banks in “DOJ Begins Bank Witch Hunt." (These lawsuits are brought under other laws regulating banks, not the CRA, which is but one of many tools the federal government used to promote risky lending).

Moron ... nothing you're pointing at implicates the 110th Congress. That was your claim. What the fuck is wrong with you?

You can't defend your idiocy; so you move onto deflect with some other idiocy??

You just stated in your last post that the economy began collapsing due to toxic loans years earlier. I just showed how those toxic loans were made.

IF you want me to go further into the economic collapse I have a timeline showing how Democrats believed Fannie and Freddie were sound, requiring no oversight despite repeated Republican attempts. You do remember what happened to Fannie and Freddie by the end of 2008, don't you?

September 1999.

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

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


March 2000

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

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


June 2000

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

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

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

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


February 2003

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


June 2003

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


July 2003

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


September 2003

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

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis. . . . The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."


October 2003

Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.


November 2003

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


February 2004

Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator," says a White House release.

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


October 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



April 2007

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


2007-2008

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

 

[Faun]

If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008. Pick your poison, the economy is either controlled through the policies of the executive branch or with approval of the legislative.

How can you rightards possibly be this retarded?? The economy began collapsing towards the end of 2007 due to toxic loans written years earlier. You have to be a special kind of stupid to think it was policies of the 110th Congress which caused the collapse.

The loans were forced upon by banks under CRA, new regulations that were signed by President Clinton. institutions were not allowed to use tools like credit history that could potentially disqualify minority groups for fear of discrimination.

Community Reinvestment Act prodded banks to take bad, costly risks in lending

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT December 28, 2012 By: Hans Bader


The Community Reinvestment Act was enacted in 1977, but it was not enforced stringently until regulations dramatically expanded its reach in the 1990s. It then became one of the factors that contributed to the financial crisis.

Banks and mortgage companies have long been under pressure from Congressmen and regulators to give loans to people with bad credit, in order to provide “affordable housing” and promote “diversity.” That played a key role in triggering the mortgage crisis, judging from a 2008 story in The New York Times. For example, “a high-ranking Democrat telephoned executives and screamed at them to purchase more loans from low-income borrowers.” The executives of government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “eventually yielded to those pressures, effectively wagering that if things got too bad, the government would bail them out.” But they realized the risk: “In 2004, Freddie Mac warned regulators that affordable housing goals could force the company to buy riskier loans.” Ultimately, though, Freddie Mac’s CEO, Richard F. Syron, told colleagues that “we couldn’t afford to say no to anyone.”

Lenders also face the risk of being sued for discrimination if they fail to lend money to people with bad credit, which can have a racially-disparate impact. The Justice Department is now extorting multimillion dollar settlements from banks, by accusing them of racial discrimination because they use traditional, non-racist lending criteria that minority borrowers are, on average, less likely to satisfy, such as having a high credit score, or being able to afford a substantial downpayment. Its Civil Rights Division chief, Tom Perez, “has compared bankers to Klansmen.” The “only difference, he says, is bankers discriminate ‘with a smile’ and ‘fine print,’” calling their lending criteria “every bit as destructive as the cross burned in a neighborhood.” Investor’s Business Daily chronicles this attack on small banks in “DOJ Begins Bank Witch Hunt." (These lawsuits are brought under other laws regulating banks, not the CRA, which is but one of many tools the federal government used to promote risky lending).

Moron ... nothing you're pointing at implicates the 110th Congress. That was your claim. What the fuck is wrong with you?

You can't defend your idiocy; so you move onto deflect with some other idiocy??

You just stated in your last post that the economy began collapsing due to toxic loans years earlier. I just showed how those toxic loans were made.

IF you want me to go further into the economic collapse I have a timeline showing how Democrats believed Fannie and Freddie were sound, requiring no oversight despite repeated Republican attempts. You do remember what happened to Fannie and Freddie by the end of 2008, don't you?

September 1999.

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

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


March 2000

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

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


June 2000

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

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

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

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


February 2003

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


June 2003

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


July 2003

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


September 2003

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

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis. . . . The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."


October 2003

Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.


November 2003

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


February 2004

Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator," says a White House release.

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


October 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



April 2007

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


2007-2008

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

Great, even more deflection.

Again ... here's what you said ...

If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008.
​

Why are you spending more time & effort proving yourself wrong than proving yourself right??



Was that comment of yours that idiotic that you're abandoning it entirely???

 

[edthecynic]

The loans were forced upon by banks under CRA

Total racist hogwash. Racists always blame the CRA because it ended "Red Lining" by banks and as a result QUALIFIED minorities were able to suddenly get mortgages in previously bank protected WHITE neighborhoods.

 

[Faun]

The loans were forced upon by banks under CRA

Total racist hogwash. Racists always blame the CRA because it ended "Red Lining" by banks and as a result QUALIFIED minorities were able to suddenly get mortgages in previously protected WHITE neighborhoods.

Don't fall for his deflection. He said ...

If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008.​

... either he can prove that or he proves he's just another imbecile.

And so far, he's proving the latter.

 

[edthecynic]

You just stated in your last post that the economy began collapsing due to toxic loans years earlier.

Yeah, with Bush's 2004 election push to get 5 MILLION minority homeowners. Bush will ALWAYS own the housing crash.

Record of Achievement - Expanding Home Ownership

Expanding Home Ownership
"This Administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country."

- President George W. Bush, December 16, 2003

The Accomplishments

Increasing Homeownership

• The US homeownership rate reached a record 69.2 percent in the second quarter of 2004. The number of homeowners in the United States reached 73.4 million, the most ever. And for the first time, the majority of minority Americans own their own homes.
• The President set a goal to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million families by the end of the decade. Through his homeownership challenge, the President called on the private sector to help in this effort. More than two dozen companies and organizations have made commitments to increase minority homeownership - including pledges to provide more than $1.1 trillion in mortgage purchases for minority homebuyers this decade.
• President Bush signed the $200 million-per-year American Dream Downpayment Act which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.
• The Administration proposed the Zero-Downpayment Initiative to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages for first-time homebuyers without a downpayment. Projections indicate this could generate over 150,000 new homeowners in the first year alone.
• President Bush proposed a new Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit to increase the supply of affordable homes.
• The President has proposed to more than double funding for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), where government and non-profit organizations work closely together to increase homeownership opportunities.
• The President proposed $2.7 billion in USDA home loan guarantees to support rural homeownership and $1.1 billion in direct loans for low-income borrowers unable to secure a mortgage through a conventional lender.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008. Pick your poison, the economy is either controlled through the policies of the executive branch or with approval of the legislative.

How can you rightards possibly be this retarded?? The economy began collapsing towards the end of 2007 due to toxic loans written years earlier. You have to be a special kind of stupid to think it was policies of the 110th Congress which caused the collapse.

The loans were forced upon by banks under CRA, new regulations that were signed by President Clinton. institutions were not allowed to use tools like credit history that could potentially disqualify minority groups for fear of discrimination.

Community Reinvestment Act prodded banks to take bad, costly risks in lending

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT December 28, 2012 By: Hans Bader


The Community Reinvestment Act was enacted in 1977, but it was not enforced stringently until regulations dramatically expanded its reach in the 1990s. It then became one of the factors that contributed to the financial crisis.

Banks and mortgage companies have long been under pressure from Congressmen and regulators to give loans to people with bad credit, in order to provide “affordable housing” and promote “diversity.” That played a key role in triggering the mortgage crisis, judging from a 2008 story in The New York Times. For example, “a high-ranking Democrat telephoned executives and screamed at them to purchase more loans from low-income borrowers.” The executives of government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “eventually yielded to those pressures, effectively wagering that if things got too bad, the government would bail them out.” But they realized the risk: “In 2004, Freddie Mac warned regulators that affordable housing goals could force the company to buy riskier loans.” Ultimately, though, Freddie Mac’s CEO, Richard F. Syron, told colleagues that “we couldn’t afford to say no to anyone.”

Lenders also face the risk of being sued for discrimination if they fail to lend money to people with bad credit, which can have a racially-disparate impact. The Justice Department is now extorting multimillion dollar settlements from banks, by accusing them of racial discrimination because they use traditional, non-racist lending criteria that minority borrowers are, on average, less likely to satisfy, such as having a high credit score, or being able to afford a substantial downpayment. Its Civil Rights Division chief, Tom Perez, “has compared bankers to Klansmen.” The “only difference, he says, is bankers discriminate ‘with a smile’ and ‘fine print,’” calling their lending criteria “every bit as destructive as the cross burned in a neighborhood.” Investor’s Business Daily chronicles this attack on small banks in “DOJ Begins Bank Witch Hunt." (These lawsuits are brought under other laws regulating banks, not the CRA, which is but one of many tools the federal government used to promote risky lending).

Moron ... nothing you're pointing at implicates the 110th Congress. That was your claim. What the fuck is wrong with you?

You can't defend your idiocy; so you move onto deflect with some other idiocy??

You just stated in your last post that the economy began collapsing due to toxic loans years earlier. I just showed how those toxic loans were made.

IF you want me to go further into the economic collapse I have a timeline showing how Democrats believed Fannie and Freddie were sound, requiring no oversight despite repeated Republican attempts. You do remember what happened to Fannie and Freddie by the end of 2008, don't you?

September 1999.

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

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


March 2000

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

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


June 2000

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

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

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

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


February 2003

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


June 2003

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


July 2003

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


September 2003

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

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis. . . . The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."


October 2003

Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.


November 2003

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


February 2004

Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator," says a White House release.

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


October 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



April 2007

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


2007-2008

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

Great, even more deflection.

Again ... here's what you said ...

If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008.
​

Why are you spending more time & effort proving yourself wrong than proving yourself right??



Was that comment of yours that idiotic that you're abandoning it entirely???

Now that I know how uneducated you are. I just showed you how Democrats were obstructionists in PREVENTING government oversight of Fannie May and Freddie Mac. Do you not know hat purpose Fannie and Freddie have? Can you tell me what CRA is? Yet you know so much about the economy, it's quite evident in your responses

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You just stated in your last post that the economy began collapsing due to toxic loans years earlier.

Yeah, with Bush's 2004 election push to get 5 MILLION minority homeowners. Bush will ALWAYS own the housing crash.

Record of Achievement - Expanding Home Ownership

Expanding Home Ownership
"This Administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country."

- President George W. Bush, December 16, 2003

The Accomplishments

Increasing Homeownership

• The US homeownership rate reached a record 69.2 percent in the second quarter of 2004. The number of homeowners in the United States reached 73.4 million, the most ever. And for the first time, the majority of minority Americans own their own homes.
• The President set a goal to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million families by the end of the decade. Through his homeownership challenge, the President called on the private sector to help in this effort. More than two dozen companies and organizations have made commitments to increase minority homeownership - including pledges to provide more than $1.1 trillion in mortgage purchases for minority homebuyers this decade.
• President Bush signed the $200 million-per-year American Dream Downpayment Act which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.
• The Administration proposed the Zero-Downpayment Initiative to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages for first-time homebuyers without a downpayment. Projections indicate this could generate over 150,000 new homeowners in the first year alone.
• President Bush proposed a new Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit to increase the supply of affordable homes.
• The President has proposed to more than double funding for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), where government and non-profit organizations work closely together to increase homeownership opportunities.
• The President proposed $2.7 billion in USDA home loan guarantees to support rural homeownership and $1.1 billion in direct loans for low-income borrowers unable to secure a mortgage through a conventional lender.

I'm sure you can explain away why democrats felt they did not need any oversight into Fannie and Freddie. Let me know when you can figure that out.

 

[edthecynic]

You just stated in your last post that the economy began collapsing due to toxic loans years earlier.

Yeah, with Bush's 2004 election push to get 5 MILLION minority homeowners. Bush will ALWAYS own the housing crash.

Record of Achievement - Expanding Home Ownership

Expanding Home Ownership
"This Administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country."

- President George W. Bush, December 16, 2003

The Accomplishments

Increasing Homeownership

• The US homeownership rate reached a record 69.2 percent in the second quarter of 2004. The number of homeowners in the United States reached 73.4 million, the most ever. And for the first time, the majority of minority Americans own their own homes.
• The President set a goal to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million families by the end of the decade. Through his homeownership challenge, the President called on the private sector to help in this effort. More than two dozen companies and organizations have made commitments to increase minority homeownership - including pledges to provide more than $1.1 trillion in mortgage purchases for minority homebuyers this decade.
• President Bush signed the $200 million-per-year American Dream Downpayment Act which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.
• The Administration proposed the Zero-Downpayment Initiative to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages for first-time homebuyers without a downpayment. Projections indicate this could generate over 150,000 new homeowners in the first year alone.
• President Bush proposed a new Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit to increase the supply of affordable homes.
• The President has proposed to more than double funding for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), where government and non-profit organizations work closely together to increase homeownership opportunities.
• The President proposed $2.7 billion in USDA home loan guarantees to support rural homeownership and $1.1 billion in direct loans for low-income borrowers unable to secure a mortgage through a conventional lender.

I'm sure you can explain away why democrats felt they did not need any oversight into Fannie and Freddie. Let me know when you can figure that out.

As you WELL know, the powerless Democratic MINORITY Party could not obstruct anything. The GOP controlled House killed EVERY reform bill in committee where they had the majority except for one bill which the GOP Senate MAJORITY leader refused to bring to the floor for a vote.

 

[Faun]

How can you rightards possibly be this retarded?? The economy began collapsing towards the end of 2007 due to toxic loans written years earlier. You have to be a special kind of stupid to think it was policies of the 110th Congress which caused the collapse.

The loans were forced upon by banks under CRA, new regulations that were signed by President Clinton. institutions were not allowed to use tools like credit history that could potentially disqualify minority groups for fear of discrimination.

Community Reinvestment Act prodded banks to take bad, costly risks in lending

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT December 28, 2012 By: Hans Bader


The Community Reinvestment Act was enacted in 1977, but it was not enforced stringently until regulations dramatically expanded its reach in the 1990s. It then became one of the factors that contributed to the financial crisis.

Banks and mortgage companies have long been under pressure from Congressmen and regulators to give loans to people with bad credit, in order to provide “affordable housing” and promote “diversity.” That played a key role in triggering the mortgage crisis, judging from a 2008 story in The New York Times. For example, “a high-ranking Democrat telephoned executives and screamed at them to purchase more loans from low-income borrowers.” The executives of government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “eventually yielded to those pressures, effectively wagering that if things got too bad, the government would bail them out.” But they realized the risk: “In 2004, Freddie Mac warned regulators that affordable housing goals could force the company to buy riskier loans.” Ultimately, though, Freddie Mac’s CEO, Richard F. Syron, told colleagues that “we couldn’t afford to say no to anyone.”

Lenders also face the risk of being sued for discrimination if they fail to lend money to people with bad credit, which can have a racially-disparate impact. The Justice Department is now extorting multimillion dollar settlements from banks, by accusing them of racial discrimination because they use traditional, non-racist lending criteria that minority borrowers are, on average, less likely to satisfy, such as having a high credit score, or being able to afford a substantial downpayment. Its Civil Rights Division chief, Tom Perez, “has compared bankers to Klansmen.” The “only difference, he says, is bankers discriminate ‘with a smile’ and ‘fine print,’” calling their lending criteria “every bit as destructive as the cross burned in a neighborhood.” Investor’s Business Daily chronicles this attack on small banks in “DOJ Begins Bank Witch Hunt." (These lawsuits are brought under other laws regulating banks, not the CRA, which is but one of many tools the federal government used to promote risky lending).

Moron ... nothing you're pointing at implicates the 110th Congress. That was your claim. What the fuck is wrong with you?

You can't defend your idiocy; so you move onto deflect with some other idiocy??

You just stated in your last post that the economy began collapsing due to toxic loans years earlier. I just showed how those toxic loans were made.

IF you want me to go further into the economic collapse I have a timeline showing how Democrats believed Fannie and Freddie were sound, requiring no oversight despite repeated Republican attempts. You do remember what happened to Fannie and Freddie by the end of 2008, don't you?

September 1999.

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

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


March 2000

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

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


June 2000

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

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

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

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


February 2003

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


June 2003

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


July 2003

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


September 2003

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

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis. . . . The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."


October 2003

Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.


November 2003

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


February 2004

Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator," says a White House release.

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


October 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



April 2007

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


2007-2008

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

Great, even more deflection.

Again ... here's what you said ...

If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008.
​

Why are you spending more time & effort proving yourself wrong than proving yourself right??



Was that comment of yours that idiotic that you're abandoning it entirely???

Now that I know how uneducated you are. I just showed you how Democrats were obstructionists in PREVENTING government oversight of Fannie May and Freddie Mac. Do you not know hat purpose Fannie and Freddie have? Can you tell me what CRA is? Yet you know so much about the economy, it's quite evident in your responses

Again ... this is what you said .....

If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008.​

Nothing you've posted indicates the Democrat-led Congress in 2008 had anything at all to do with it.

Are you as insane as you appear?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You just stated in your last post that the economy began collapsing due to toxic loans years earlier.

Yeah, with Bush's 2004 election push to get 5 MILLION minority homeowners. Bush will ALWAYS own the housing crash.

Record of Achievement - Expanding Home Ownership

Expanding Home Ownership
"This Administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country."

- President George W. Bush, December 16, 2003

The Accomplishments

Increasing Homeownership

• The US homeownership rate reached a record 69.2 percent in the second quarter of 2004. The number of homeowners in the United States reached 73.4 million, the most ever. And for the first time, the majority of minority Americans own their own homes.
• The President set a goal to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million families by the end of the decade. Through his homeownership challenge, the President called on the private sector to help in this effort. More than two dozen companies and organizations have made commitments to increase minority homeownership - including pledges to provide more than $1.1 trillion in mortgage purchases for minority homebuyers this decade.
• President Bush signed the $200 million-per-year American Dream Downpayment Act which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.
• The Administration proposed the Zero-Downpayment Initiative to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages for first-time homebuyers without a downpayment. Projections indicate this could generate over 150,000 new homeowners in the first year alone.
• President Bush proposed a new Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit to increase the supply of affordable homes.
• The President has proposed to more than double funding for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), where government and non-profit organizations work closely together to increase homeownership opportunities.
• The President proposed $2.7 billion in USDA home loan guarantees to support rural homeownership and $1.1 billion in direct loans for low-income borrowers unable to secure a mortgage through a conventional lender.

I'm sure you can explain away why democrats felt they did not need any oversight into Fannie and Freddie. Let me know when you can figure that out.

As you WELL know, the powerless Democratic MINORITY Party could not obstruct anything. The GOP controlled House killed EVERY reform bill in committee where they had the majority except for one bill which the GOP Senate MAJORITY leader refused to bring to the floor for a vote.

Perhaps you should read the responses democrats sad about Fannie and Freddie in the Congressional debate, it's public knowledge based on what was said. Such as ...


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

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


What do you suppose Rep Frank meant when he said concerns about the two were "overblown"?



Here is the republican concern again and the democrat response

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


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

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



Does it sound like to you Democrats found Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac anything but sound, right up to the crash? Where do you any of see their economic concern through their statements?

 

[Faun]

You just stated in your last post that the economy began collapsing due to toxic loans years earlier.

Yeah, with Bush's 2004 election push to get 5 MILLION minority homeowners. Bush will ALWAYS own the housing crash.

Record of Achievement - Expanding Home Ownership

Expanding Home Ownership
"This Administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country."

- President George W. Bush, December 16, 2003

The Accomplishments

Increasing Homeownership

• The US homeownership rate reached a record 69.2 percent in the second quarter of 2004. The number of homeowners in the United States reached 73.4 million, the most ever. And for the first time, the majority of minority Americans own their own homes.
• The President set a goal to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million families by the end of the decade. Through his homeownership challenge, the President called on the private sector to help in this effort. More than two dozen companies and organizations have made commitments to increase minority homeownership - including pledges to provide more than $1.1 trillion in mortgage purchases for minority homebuyers this decade.
• President Bush signed the $200 million-per-year American Dream Downpayment Act which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.
• The Administration proposed the Zero-Downpayment Initiative to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages for first-time homebuyers without a downpayment. Projections indicate this could generate over 150,000 new homeowners in the first year alone.
• President Bush proposed a new Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit to increase the supply of affordable homes.
• The President has proposed to more than double funding for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), where government and non-profit organizations work closely together to increase homeownership opportunities.
• The President proposed $2.7 billion in USDA home loan guarantees to support rural homeownership and $1.1 billion in direct loans for low-income borrowers unable to secure a mortgage through a conventional lender.

I'm sure you can explain away why democrats felt they did not need any oversight into Fannie and Freddie. Let me know when you can figure that out.

As you WELL know, the powerless Democratic MINORITY Party could not obstruct anything. The GOP controlled House killed EVERY reform bill in committee where they had the majority except for one bill which the GOP Senate MAJORITY leader refused to bring to the floor for a vote.

Perhaps you should read the responses democrats sad about Fannie and Freddie in the Congressional debate, it's public knowledge based on what was said. Such as ...


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

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


What do you suppose Rep Frank meant when he said concerns about the two were "overblown"?



Here is the republican concern again and the democrat response

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


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

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



Does it sound like to you Democrats found Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac anything but sound, right up to the crash? Where do you any of see their economic concern through their statements?

Why are you talking about Barney Frank and Maxine Waters from the mid-2000's when you said it was the fault of Pelosi and Reed (sic) in 2008...

If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008.​

Do you realize how retarded you look?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The loans were forced upon by banks under CRA, new regulations that were signed by President Clinton. institutions were not allowed to use tools like credit history that could potentially disqualify minority groups for fear of discrimination.

Moron ... nothing you're pointing at implicates the 110th Congress. That was your claim. What the fuck is wrong with you?

You can't defend your idiocy; so you move onto deflect with some other idiocy??

You just stated in your last post that the economy began collapsing due to toxic loans years earlier. I just showed how those toxic loans were made.

IF you want me to go further into the economic collapse I have a timeline showing how Democrats believed Fannie and Freddie were sound, requiring no oversight despite repeated Republican attempts. You do remember what happened to Fannie and Freddie by the end of 2008, don't you?

September 1999.

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

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


March 2000

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

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


June 2000

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

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

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

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


February 2003

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


June 2003

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


July 2003

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


September 2003

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

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis. . . . The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."


October 2003

Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.


November 2003

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


February 2004

Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator," says a White House release.

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


October 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



April 2007

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


2007-2008

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

Great, even more deflection.

Again ... here's what you said ...

If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008.
​

Why are you spending more time & effort proving yourself wrong than proving yourself right??



Was that comment of yours that idiotic that you're abandoning it entirely???

Now that I know how uneducated you are. I just showed you how Democrats were obstructionists in PREVENTING government oversight of Fannie May and Freddie Mac. Do you not know hat purpose Fannie and Freddie have? Can you tell me what CRA is? Yet you know so much about the economy, it's quite evident in your responses

Again ... this is what you said .....

If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008.​

Nothing you've posted indicates the Democrat-led Congress in 2008 had anything at all to do with it.

Are you as insane as you appear?

Again, the timeline I provided showed democrats were against and opposed government regulated oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error, that further enohasized a need for government oversight. There wasn't anything to show Democrats in Congress had any concern for the economy.

Can you provide otherwise?


I mean If you already can't tell me what role Fannie and Freddie had on the economy,

if you can't tell me what CRA is.

I'm not going to waste my time talking to someone who can't follow a conversation enough to engage in an intelligent dialogue. You just dont know how to provide anything beyond just a few simple sentences. Read a book, browse the web maybe you might be able to retain something more on the subject.

 

[edthecynic]

Perhaps you should read the responses democrats sad about Fannie and Freddie in the Congressional debate

It doesn't matter what they SAID, as the MINORITY Party they were POWERLESS. The GOP controlled ALL the committees and the GOP killed the reform bills in committee. All the GOP had to do was vote along Party lines in committee and every reform bill would have come to the floor. But they didn't. Bush owns the housing crash, lock stock and barrel.

 

[Faun]

Moron ... nothing you're pointing at implicates the 110th Congress. That was your claim. What the fuck is wrong with you?

You can't defend your idiocy; so you move onto deflect with some other idiocy??

You just stated in your last post that the economy began collapsing due to toxic loans years earlier. I just showed how those toxic loans were made.

IF you want me to go further into the economic collapse I have a timeline showing how Democrats believed Fannie and Freddie were sound, requiring no oversight despite repeated Republican attempts. You do remember what happened to Fannie and Freddie by the end of 2008, don't you?

September 1999.

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

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


March 2000

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

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


June 2000

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

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

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

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


February 2003

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


June 2003

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


July 2003

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


September 2003

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

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts): "These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis. . . . The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."


October 2003

Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.


November 2003

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


February 2004

Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator," says a White House release.

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


October 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



April 2007

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


2007-2008

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

Great, even more deflection.

Again ... here's what you said ...

If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008.
​

Why are you spending more time & effort proving yourself wrong than proving yourself right??



Was that comment of yours that idiotic that you're abandoning it entirely???

Now that I know how uneducated you are. I just showed you how Democrats were obstructionists in PREVENTING government oversight of Fannie May and Freddie Mac. Do you not know hat purpose Fannie and Freddie have? Can you tell me what CRA is? Yet you know so much about the economy, it's quite evident in your responses

Again ... this is what you said .....

If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008.​

Nothing you've posted indicates the Democrat-led Congress in 2008 had anything at all to do with it.

Are you as insane as you appear?

Again, the timeline I provided showed democrats were against and opposed government regulated oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error, that further enohasized a need for government oversight. There wasn't anything to show Democrats in Congress had any concern for the economy.

Can you provide otherwise?


I mean If you already can't tell me what role Fannie and Freddie had on the economy,

if you can't tell me what CRA is.

I'm not going to waste my time talking to someone who can't follow a conversation enough to engage in an intelligent dialogue. You just dont know how to provide anything beyond just a few simple sentences. Read a book, browse the web maybe you might be able to retain something more on the subject.

Why would I believe anything you say when you said it was the fault of Pelosi and Reid in 2008; but you've spent every post since then proving yourself wrong about that?

You obviously have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Again ... back this up or prove you're the imbecile I say you are ...

If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008.​

 

[MarcATL]

Every President has a starting month and a last month, but those months are just two months out of 96 month Presidency. Those two months only slightly impact the average.

Which is why you dishonestly chose the average. It do not tell you the the condition of the economy at the start and end of the term like the beginning and end of the term. Now if you wanted to be honest you might have used the average of the first 6 months and the last 6 months, but honesty is not a characteristic of the Right.

The average is used because it is the best way to asses the entire Presidency lasting 96 months.

No, it's not. As another poster pointed out, a president taking the unemployment rate from 4% to 11% at the same rate another president takes it from 11% to 4%, looks like they've performed exactly the same according to your idiocy. And it's precisely because averaging out the unemployment rate hides what a president inherits compared to what they leave for their successor which is why you do it. To hide the reality that Bush inherited a good economy but dumped one of the worst economies on Obama.

Explain to us how simply looking at January 2001 and December 2008 is an accurate way to asses what happened over a 96 month period? How would you like it if your perfo

5% unemployment

Lower than Reagan ever saw

Reagan would have seen a lower unemployment rate than 5% if he also had a labor force participation rate of only 62.4%. But in any event, that's only ONE MONTH. To properly assess any President, you have to look at EVERY MONTH they were in office and average the results. One month of 5% unemployment does not make up for an average of 7.88% unemployment over 82 months!

Its like a poker game.......It only matters what you started out at and what you left the table with. How much you were up or down at any point is irrelevant

Try explaining to your wife....I may have lost $1000, but my average during the game was pretty good

Perfect analogy!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

The monthly unemployment rate for November 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 83rd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 months to the average of 7.85% in November 2015 at 83 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 7.85%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 7.85%

651.4/83 = 7.8481 = 7.85%

There are 13 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate went up in November to 62.5%, from the 62.4% it was at in October.

You still have not provided a source for your numbers

You also haven't explained how you consider and "average" unemployment that starts at 5% and ends at 10% is the same thing as an average that starts at 10% and ends at 5%?

All the numbers that I have used come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. You can get it all here Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject. They have every monthly unemployment rate from January 1948 to the present. They also have every monthly labor force participation rate from January 1948 to the present. I've posted this many times.

As for your other question, there are 96 months in a two term Presidency. Having a starting month of 5% or 10% and an ending month of 5% or 10% can't ever be said to be the same thing because in either case, there is 94 months of missing data. YOU CAN'T EVALUATE A PRESIDENT SIMPLY BY HIS FIRST MONTH IN OFFICE AND HIS LAST MONTH IN OFFICE, JUST LIKE YOU CAN'T EVALUATE A STUDENT BY THE GRADES OF HIS FIRST MONTH IN CLASS AND THE LAST MONTH IN CLASS. Your leaving out over 90% of what happened when you do that.

Unemployment rates often will go up and down multiple times during a Presidency. Rarely is there a perfect consistent trend of up or down and even if there was, the average is still the most accurate way of assessing what conditions are like, simply because for example, just looking at January 2001 and December 2008 leaves out far to much data.

Would you evaluate whether you were happy during the years 2001 to 2008, simply by looking out how you felt in January 2001 and December 2008 without looking at any of the other 94 months?

Should we evaluate what happened in World War II by simply looking at September 1939 and August 1945? Would simply looking at those two months come anywhere close to describing what happened in World War II?

Could one determine if the 1920s were a good decade or not by simply looking at January 1920 and December 1929?

You are still ducking the obvious

Nobody is saying take the first and last months...If someone starts at 10% (think Obama) and unemployment steadily drops to 5%, do you claim it is the same thing as starting at 5% (think Bush) and steadily rising to 10%?

How can that worthless statistic be a valid indicator of economic performance?

Republican slight of hand.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

The monthly unemployment rate for November 2015 was 5.0%. This is Obama's 83rd month of office. This drops the average unemployment rate for the time he has been in office from the average 7.88% in October 2015 at 82 months to the average of 7.85% in November 2015 at 83 months.

Here is the new standings for the Presidents with Obama's revised numbers:

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 7.85%

Average Unemployment Rates for US Presidents since after World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 7.85%

651.4/83 = 7.8481 = 7.85%

There are 13 months left in Obama's Presidency.

The labor force participation rate went up in November to 62.5%, from the 62.4% it was at in October.

After 82 months in office, Reagan averaged 7.86%

Once Obama raises above Saint Reagan, you will never see or hear of this "statistic" again.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

If you want to look at Congress, that would mean Pelosi / Reed are responsible for the economic mess we saw in 2008. Pick your poison, the economy is either controlled through the policies of the executive branch or with approval of the legislative.

How can you rightards possibly be this retarded?? The economy began collapsing towards the end of 2007 due to toxic loans written years earlier. You have to be a special kind of stupid to think it was policies of the 110th Congress which caused the collapse.

The loans were forced upon by banks under CRA, new regulations that were signed by President Clinton. institutions were not allowed to use tools like credit history that could potentially disqualify minority groups for fear of discrimination.

Community Reinvestment Act prodded banks to take bad, costly risks in lending

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT December 28, 2012 By: Hans Bader


The Community Reinvestment Act was enacted in 1977, but it was not enforced stringently until regulations dramatically expanded its reach in the 1990s. It then became one of the factors that contributed to the financial crisis.

Banks and mortgage companies have long been under pressure from Congressmen and regulators to give loans to people with bad credit, in order to provide “affordable housing” and promote “diversity.” That played a key role in triggering the mortgage crisis, judging from a 2008 story in The New York Times. For example, “a high-ranking Democrat telephoned executives and screamed at them to purchase more loans from low-income borrowers.” The executives of government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “eventually yielded to those pressures, effectively wagering that if things got too bad, the government would bail them out.” But they realized the risk: “In 2004, Freddie Mac warned regulators that affordable housing goals could force the company to buy riskier loans.” Ultimately, though, Freddie Mac’s CEO, Richard F. Syron, told colleagues that “we couldn’t afford to say no to anyone.”

Lenders also face the risk of being sued for discrimination if they fail to lend money to people with bad credit, which can have a racially-disparate impact. The Justice Department is now extorting multimillion dollar settlements from banks, by accusing them of racial discrimination because they use traditional, non-racist lending criteria that minority borrowers are, on average, less likely to satisfy, such as having a high credit score, or being able to afford a substantial downpayment. Its Civil Rights Division chief, Tom Perez, “has compared bankers to Klansmen.” The “only difference, he says, is bankers discriminate ‘with a smile’ and ‘fine print,’” calling their lending criteria “every bit as destructive as the cross burned in a neighborhood.” Investor’s Business Daily chronicles this attack on small banks in “DOJ Begins Bank Witch Hunt." (These lawsuits are brought under other laws regulating banks, not the CRA, which is but one of many tools the federal government used to promote risky lending).

Moron ... nothing you're pointing at implicates the 110th Congress. That was your claim. What the fuck is wrong with you?

You can't defend your idiocy; so you move onto deflect with some other idiocy??

It's the Republican way!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

You just stated in your last post that the economy began collapsing due to toxic loans years earlier.

Yeah, with Bush's 2004 election push to get 5 MILLION minority homeowners. Bush will ALWAYS own the housing crash.

Record of Achievement - Expanding Home Ownership

Expanding Home Ownership
"This Administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country."

- President George W. Bush, December 16, 2003

The Accomplishments

Increasing Homeownership

• The US homeownership rate reached a record 69.2 percent in the second quarter of 2004. The number of homeowners in the United States reached 73.4 million, the most ever. And for the first time, the majority of minority Americans own their own homes.
• The President set a goal to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million families by the end of the decade. Through his homeownership challenge, the President called on the private sector to help in this effort. More than two dozen companies and organizations have made commitments to increase minority homeownership - including pledges to provide more than $1.1 trillion in mortgage purchases for minority homebuyers this decade.
• President Bush signed the $200 million-per-year American Dream Downpayment Act which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.
• The Administration proposed the Zero-Downpayment Initiative to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages for first-time homebuyers without a downpayment. Projections indicate this could generate over 150,000 new homeowners in the first year alone.
• President Bush proposed a new Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit to increase the supply of affordable homes.
• The President has proposed to more than double funding for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), where government and non-profit organizations work closely together to increase homeownership opportunities.
• The President proposed $2.7 billion in USDA home loan guarantees to support rural homeownership and $1.1 billion in direct loans for low-income borrowers unable to secure a mortgage through a conventional lender.

Yep he owns it.

See what I did there?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Perhaps you should read the responses democrats sad about Fannie and Freddie in the Congressional debate

It doesn't matter what they SAID, as the MINORITY Party they were POWERLESS. The GOP controlled ALL the committees and the GOP killed the reform bills in committee. All the GOP had to do was vote along Party lines in committee and every reform bill would have come to the floor. But they didn't. Bush owns the housing crash, lock stock and barrel.

Perhaps you should read the responses democrats sad about Fannie and Freddie in the Congressional debate

It doesn't matter what they SAID, as the MINORITY Party they were POWERLESS. The GOP controlled ALL the committees and the GOP killed the reform bills in committee. All the GOP had to do was vote along Party lines in committee and every reform bill would have come to the floor. But they didn't. Bush owns the housing crash, lock stock and barrel.

July 2003

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


Oh those poor minority Democrats looked pretty powerless I'm sure. Oh but President Bush owns the housing crisis, just as President Obama owns his inability to get any jobs bill signed and put into action ... lock, stock, and barrel.

You really do know a lot about the legislative process I can see.