....So, when you read:
......you don't consider WHERE THE HELL WAS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL??!!!
We're NOT (exactly) talkin'-about some ROOKIE, here!!!
You make a good point Shaman. There's no denying what that says.
....So, when you read:
......you don't consider WHERE THE HELL WAS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL??!!!
We're NOT (exactly) talkin'-about some ROOKIE, here!!!
Timeline on the mortgage crash
For a long time, banks decided who they would lend money to, by evaluating how likely the people were to pay it back as they had agreed. Some criteria were obvious: People with higher incomes were judged more likely to keep up their payments, than those with lower incomes. People with a record of always being on time with other loan payments, are more likely to keep up their payments, etc. etc. Their purpose, as in any normal business, was to earn money by lending money and charging interest, without losing the money they lent of course. They would protect themselves against failures to pay back, by taking possession of a delinquent house and selling it, thus getting back the money they had lent out.
To motivate risky buyers to keep up the payments for the money they had borrowed, banks wouldn't loan the entire purchase price, but would usually require the buyer to put down a large amount themselves. Thus the buyer would face the specter of losing a lot of money if the bank had to foreclose, and it became important for both the buyer and the lender to see the payments kept up and the loan paid off as promised.
In 1977, Congress passed a law, signed by Pres. Jimmy Carter, requiring banks etc. to lend more money to people who were less likely to pay it back. Under the liberal Carter administration, the idea that housing was a "right", was becoming more important than mundane details such as whether the buyer could pay for it. The title, "Community Reinvestment Act", concealed the riskiness of the lending it required.
In 1986, a bill was introduced in Congress to reform this. Republicans voted for it, Democrats against, it failed.
In 1988, after Democrats took control of both the House and Senate, more laws were passed, making it easier for people to sue landlords and lenders if they felt they had been discriminated against in housing. Many lenders started making even more loans to low-income and other credit risks, based on their race or ancestry, to avoid expensive lawsuits.
In 1993, Congress mandated that government-sponsored companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers.
In 1995, Bill Clinton ordered the Treasury Dept to rewrite its rules for making CRA loans, increasing quotas of blacks and other minorities getting loans. Since many of those groups who had previously failed to qualify, were still high-risk borrowers, F&F began buying more and more such high-risk mortgages from banks. Other rules changes between 1997 and 2001 by HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo allowed F&F to hold a huge number of such mortgages in their portfolios, with a minimum amount of cash on hand to back them up, greatly increasing the risk if mortgages started defaulting .
Freddie and Fannie began buying up huge numbers of these risky loans, essentially guaranteeing to lenders that they could make all the risky loans they wanted, and be able to unload them to those two companies. So banks began pouring billions of dollars of loans into poor communities, often "no documentation" and "no income" loans that required no money down and no verification of income. Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines received huge salary bonuses after employees faked some profit numbers to make it look like Fannie Mae had achieved various target goals. Raines later became a financial adviser to the Barack Obama campaign.
In 2001, George W. Bush's first proposed budget stated that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were becoming so large, and cornering so much of the mortgage market, that any problem with these companies could have huge impacts on the entire U.S. economy; and that their lending practices were pushing them toward just such problems.
In 2003, House Finance Committee chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) insisted that Freddie and Fannie were "not facing any kind of financial crisis", and that people were exaggerating the problems seen by the govt-sponsored companies. One month later, Fannie Mae disclosed a $1.2 billion accounting error. Still, Democrat Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refused to acknowledge any necessity for reform.
In 2005, The Bush budget again expressed grave concerns over the explosive growth of Freddie and Fannie, stating flatly that they could no longer meet their financial responsibilities. Barney Frank (D-MA) ignored the warnings, and accused the Bush administration of creating an "artificial issue". Senate Republicans introduced a strong reform bill designed to reduce the loans to high-risk borrowers. All Republicans voted for it, but Democrats filibustered and voted against bringing the bill to the Senate floor. Republicans were unable to get the 60% needed to get the bill voted on and passed, so it died in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced "We cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes." It was the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, co-sponsored by John McCain.
By 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned or guaranteed nearly half of the entire U.S. mortgage market. President Bush called emphatically for legislation to reform Freddie and Fannie, insisting that "Congress needs to get them reformed, and then I will consider other options." Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) ignored the warnings and called on Bush to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.
As late as September 2007, legislators including Barack Obama maintained that these high-risk loans were sound financial policy.
Finally, in July 2008, Congress heeded Republicans' call for reform, and passed reform legislation for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. But the companies were already crashing. Democrats forgot their previous almost-solid opposition to reforms, and Senator Dodd questioned, "Why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years."
The Republicant Deregulaters LIVE!
It's true that key Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie – a move that the Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report. Current House Banking Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts opposed legislation to reorganize oversight in 2000 (when Clinton was still president), 2003 and 2004, saying of the 2000 legislation that concern about Fannie and Freddie was "overblown." Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities "ill-advised."
Rather than listen to Top Gun's out of context propaganda film... Listen to the Democrats attacking the Republicans actual attempts at regulating Fannie and Freddie:
But ya got to tell it all and in full context... and Republicants ain't all that good at that are they.
Altruism and business do not mix... Actually, altruism doesn't mix with government either and this is a case where both were running amok.When the mortgage giant Fannie Mae recruited Daniel H. Mudd, he told a friend he wanted to work for an altruistic business.
Sustained by Government
Had Fannie been a private entity, its comeuppance might have happened a year ago. But the White House, Wall Street and Capitol Hill were more concerned about the trillions of dollars in other loans that were poisoning financial institutions and banks.
Lawmakers, particularly Democrats, leaned on Fannie and Freddie to buy and hold those troubled debts, hoping that removing them from the system would help the economy recover. The companies, eager to regain market share and buy what they thought were undervalued loans, rushed to comply.
The White House also pitched in. James B. Lockhart, the chief regulator of Fannie and Freddie, adjusted the companies’ lending standards so they could purchase as much as $40 billion in new subprime loans. Some in Congress praised the move.
“I’m not worried about Fannie and Freddie’s health, I’m worried that they won’t do enough to help out the economy,” the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, said at the time. “That’s why I’ve supported them all these years — so that they can help at a time like this.”
Republicans are bad but you don't even try...
To lie and obfuscate the truth...Actually we try very hard.
Republican Congress Talked About Financial Reform, But Did Nothing
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.
19 times bigger than Enron
By Julia A. Seymour
How is it possible that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to place such risk on the taxpayers for so long? Washington politics. According to the July 16 Politico newspaper, Fannie and Freddie have spent $170 million on lobbying since 1998, and $19.3 million in campaign contributions to well-known Democrats and Republicans since 1990.
In 2004, Newsweek’s Gasparino said the companies were “politically corrupt.” That became more of a debate as Washington politicians continued to defend Fannie and Freddie and prevented greater transparency and accountability for the mortgage giants.
To lie and obfuscate the truth...
It was political corruption by both parties and trying to pawn it off on only the Republicans is typical progressive chicanery. Both parties suck on ice but you remain a steadfast apologist for anything any Democrat does, no matter how unethical.
Problem is, you blame the Republicans for "deregulation" but cite no specific examples.... I cite specific Democrats, with specific examples of them blocking Republican led reforms and you ignore it like it never happened!I said this is not a finger pointing issue because both were involved.
I see corruption as corruption and there's no shortage of it in Washington or even politics in general (New Jersey). You turn a blind eye or make excuses when its a Democrat but scream for blood when its a Republican. Cold Cash Jefferson?The difference is you see everything as corruption.
What's the road to hell paved with?I see some individual cases of misdeeds but also simply just mistakes of predicted outcome made by well intended people on both sides on this one.
Problem is, you blame the Republicans for "deregulation" but cite no specific examples.... I cite specific Democrats, with specific examples of them blocking Republican led reforms and you ignore it like it never happened!
It was your Democrat buddies blocking attempts at regulating the market, not Republicans, but all you can do is cry "DEREGULATION!" and blame the Republicans whenever the topic is broached.
I see corruption as corruption and there's no shortage of it in Washington or even politics in general. You turn a blind eye or make excuses when its a Democrat but scream for blood when its a Republican.
What's the road to hell paved with?
No matter what they do, it never turns out as promised, its always an over budget train wreck... But we're not supposed to judge politicians based on results.. Oh no... just their good intentions.
Oh there's no denying the SAY it... but as we know, politicians rarely, if ever, follow through once elected.... Obama has a long list of broken promises that prove that.Dude!!! Deregulation is part of the Republicants standard stump speech! They at every turn speak for deregulation. Are you SERIOUSLY now saying that is not true? Because it's not hard to pull up them saying it.
When you LIE like a dog, you're gonna get kicked!Look you kick the dog you're gonna get bit!
Where have I been hypocritical in this thread?I have very reasonable calm discussions in here with other Conservatives but I'll not sit idly by while you hypocrite your way through a post.
Actually, you're the one using the Rovian tactics, screaming racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe and otherwise engaging in the politics of personal destruction.If you play your old weak and tired Karl Rove move then you get it back in every case I can pull up. It's that simple.
We've been through that... I couldn't LOWER myself to your level.This started way back during the campaign when you boasted even before President Obama was elected (paraphrasing) that you would bash and smear Obama like crazy if elected because you didn't like the way Liberals treated Bush.
So you scream "HYPOCRITE!", "OBSTRUCTIONIST!" and "DEREGULATION!", because that's all you've got. Republicans are hypocrites because they TALK deregulation but don't follow through. There were 57,000 new regulations during 8 years of Bush... That's hardly a record of "DEREGULATION!", but it does qualify Republicans as hypocrites for running on that platform.What I have said and will continue to say is this whole Republicant or Conservative holier than thou routine is tedious and a false premise. That's what I say.
But insult, lie and scream is all you do... You guys are in total control now but you're still angry. You own the White house and Congress, but you still resort to blaming Republicans when Democrats "OBSTRUCT!" bad legislation you want passed.I'm not like you in some fantasy world thinking if I scream enough insults about people there is going to be this big overthrow to just exactly the way I want it.
But I have and that's why I can't support those who sell out on basic principle. I refuse to drink your poison and that's all you have to offer.To me that's counter productive and if you ever worked on a national campaign for either Party you'd know that.
The direction its been going for the last 100 years is towards collapse and an authoritarian government... And you think we're getting there to slowly.Changing government is like steering a big cruise ship. It doesn't turn on a dime like a speed boat. You slowly head it in the direction you want to go.