Did Liberals Cause the Housing Crisis?

[chess9]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: Duwelon
What do you think about the Democrats blocking efforts to stop or at worst, lessen this crisis?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p1Wc2NFa3w

Are you saying Republicans had nothing to do with that in the, what, 12 years they had control of Congress? Give me a break. Both parties are at fault for the F and F debacle. McCain's Campaign Chairman was getting $15,000 a month from Fannie Mae until August of this year.

-Robert

Yes both parties carry blame, but it is fairly obvious which parties were blocking reform.

What the hell does that mean? What were the Republicans doing for 12 years other than trying to pork barrel their way to Armageddon? Reform was being blocked by bought and paid for Republicans and Dems. Just read the news. It's all over the news who was getting money from F and F.

-Robert

I have read the news and reform was largely blocked by democrats. And yes republicans did fail to get reform passed, but at least they were not blocking reform.

They had control of Congress. They COULD and DID pass what they damned pleased. You utterly and completely are disregarding the payments to Republican lobbyists by F and F. Nice try, but only a partisan hack would ignore his party's faults.

-Robert

Yes they could have but were unable to. They did fail at these reforms, but when you have razor thin majority it does not take much to block to legislation

Oh, so you know when the Republicans presented a bill in the House or Senate on this issue? LOL. They NEVER even tried!!!! They were on the gravy wagon like everyone else. Most of your Congressmen are sucking at some tit because that's the only way they can afford to get re-elected.

You are desperately grasping at straws, but nice try.

-Robert

Well mccains bills was shot down by the democratic senate...
Not sure of what happened Bush's proposal, but it probably meet a similar fate.

Oh? Which bills were those? Find the bills and the votes. LOL.

I will say you do show signs of having a brain, unlike most of your brethren.

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: chess9
Oh, so you know when the Republicans presented a bill in the House or Senate on this issue? LOL. They NEVER even tried!!!! They were on the gravy wagon like everyone else. Most of your Congressmen are sucking at some tit because that's the only way they can afford to get re-elected.

You are desperately grasping at straws, but nice try.

-Robert

Well mccains bills was shot down by the democratic senate...
Not sure of what happened Bush's proposal, but it probably meet a similar fate.

Forget it, he's either on some dangerously misprescribed meds or a troll.

I forgot to take my anti-psychotic meds, so I'm likely to jump right through this computer and grab your scrawny butt. 😉 Step away from that computer.... LOL!

Yes, I'm a Troll House Cookie. Get over it....

-Robert

 

[Corn]

eh, nevermind.

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh, please. In 2003, and subsequent years, the bush admin leaned on fannie and freddie to make more "affordable" loans thru demands by their regulatory agency, HUD. The whole "ownership society" was a cornerstone of bush's re-election campaign in 2004. And repubs merely attempted to create plausible deniability with their antics in 2003 and 2005. They were in the majority at the time, and routinely stomped Dems flat over anything they actually cared about. Nobody cared about fannie and freddie except when it came to public outcry about corrupt execs lining their own pockets, certainly not about policy wrt loans.

the bush admin effectively prevented regulators from regulating, even invoked an obscure 1863 statute to hobble state regulators, and repub efforts at deregulation had been extremely effective over the preceding decades- there was little left for regulators to do even if they tried. Investment bankers found new and highly creative ways to leverage mortgages into financial instruments they could claim as assets, achieving dizzying heights of leverage in the process, not to mention what was going on in the OTC derivatives market and hedge funds everywhere. As profits started to peter out, the answer was, obviously, greater leverage thru more exotic investment constructs, until it became the financial equivalent of picking up pennies in front of a steamroller- one misstep, and you're a goner...

That misstep occurred when debtors couldn't pay as their teaser loans rolled over into outright extortion... kinda like nothing down no payments 'til next year furniture loans, except they're for 10X the debtor's income...

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Duwelon
What do you think about the Democrats blocking efforts to stop or at worst, lessen this crisis?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p1Wc2NFa3w

Wow. Obviously there may be some broader context to this but it's quite damning.
It's pretty obvious who Fannie and Freddie paid off.

Barney Frank sure liked Fannie

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JS80
There's no one thing/person/action to blame. It's a combination of all the shit that happened that caused this.

I completely agree. This thread was created because I have been attacked several times for arguing against this talking point that the CRA was entirely to blame. Apparently, Rush has really been spinning it out to his faithful lately.

I turned on AM radio yesterday for about 3 minutes and Hannity was going nuts blaming this very thing on the Democrats. So yes, conservative radio is spinning it from top to bottom.

Tuned in today for about 5 minutes and heard barack HUSSEIN obama and tuned out. I don't mind listening to an objective opinion but WTF do the likes of internet trolls get radio shows?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Duwelon
What do you think about the Democrats blocking efforts to stop or at worst, lessen this crisis?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p1Wc2NFa3w

Wow. Obviously there may be some broader context to this but it's quite damning.
It's pretty obvious who Fannie and Freddie paid off.

Barney Frank sure liked Fannie

Barney Frank and Chris Dudd make Barrack Hussein Obama sound like a scholar, if you close your eyes and just listen it sounds like a cartoon.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Corn
eh, nevermind.

lol, you had a good question.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Squisher
As I understand it, 30% of all mortgage borrowers are behind in their payments. 20% of those behind are CRA loans, so we are talking about 6% of the total playing field being bad CRA's.

Vic, I realize no one ever was compelled to loan anyone money they didn't want to, but the CRA did contribute a little to the problem because it encouraged poor people to over extend themselves. Not that poor people should be immune to the bad decisions that the rest of society seems to have succumbed to, but they are they are ones least likely to be able to recover from it.

Where are you getting your numbers? TransUnion reported last month that the 2nd quarter mortgage delinquency rate was at 3.53%. Text That's bad enough, 30% would be the end of the world.

Most everyone in this thread seems to suffer from a lack of reading comprehension. I suggest reading the OP again. Banks didn't need to be forced by the CRA to do subprime because they were falling over themselves to do those loans all on their own. The overwhelming majority of these subprime mortgages, and by far the worst of the worst of them, were done by independent mortgage companies that were not subject to CRA in any way.

And do anyone of you know what Hagel's (not McCain's) Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 actually would have done? I seriously doubt it. The 'reform' was to take regulatory oversight of Fannie, Freddie, etc away from HUD and create a whole new regulatory agency, which would have been called the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency. It also intended to remove their GSE status. The videos you guys are linked are about concerned about govt's exposure to Fannie/Freddie in the event of a housing collapse and how to removed their government guarantee. Not about how to prevent their collapse. IOW, it was to DE-regulate Fannie and Freddie, not increase their regulation. Jeez... you guys know that one could easily google the actual text of the bill, right? It is highly unlikely that it would have lessened this crisis, as Fannie/Freddie are more a victim of the housing bubble that the cause of it. And GSE or not, the govt still would have been compelled to bail them out, as they already bailing out other financial institutions were there was no prior promise to do so.

Butterbean is a moronic hack. Seriously, you'd have to be stupid to believe the crap he spews, much less actually post it. One reason why people in the mortgage biz like myself don't like ACORN is because it has long stood against exactly the kind of non-CRA subprime mortgages that are exactly of issue here. IIRC, they even coined the term 'predatory lending.' They have long fought against the high-cost, stated-income ARM that Fannie/Freddie would never touch and is at the root of all this. The only way someone could not know this is if they don't know anything about the mortgage industry, and are just now getting their talking points from politically-biased sources.

And finally, if CRA is at fault, then someone show me the data on exactly where all these mortgage defaults are taking place. Who wants to bet that most of them are in new housing developments and condos out in the burbs, predominately non-owner occupied, and not in CRA neighborhoods?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: Duwelon
What do you think about the Democrats blocking efforts to stop or at worst, lessen this crisis?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p1Wc2NFa3w

Are you saying Republicans had nothing to do with that in the, what, 12 years they had control of Congress? Give me a break. Both parties are at fault for the F and F debacle. McCain's Campaign Chairman was getting $15,000 a month from Fannie Mae until August of this year.

-Robert

Yes both parties carry blame, but it is fairly obvious which parties were blocking reform.

What the hell does that mean? What were the Republicans doing for 12 years other than trying to pork barrel their way to Armageddon? Reform was being blocked by bought and paid for Republicans and Dems. Just read the news. It's all over the news who was getting money from F and F.

-Robert

I have read the news and reform was largely blocked by democrats. And yes republicans did fail to get reform passed, but at least they were not blocking reform.

They had control of Congress. They COULD and DID pass what they damned pleased. You utterly and completely are disregarding the payments to Republican lobbyists by F and F. Nice try, but only a partisan hack would ignore his party's faults.

-Robert

Yes they could have but were unable to. They did fail at these reforms, but when you have razor thin majority it does not take much to block to legislation

Oh, so you know when the Republicans presented a bill in the House or Senate on this issue? LOL. They NEVER even tried!!!! They were on the gravy wagon like everyone else. Most of your Congressmen are sucking at some tit because that's the only way they can afford to get re-elected.

You are desperately grasping at straws, but nice try.

-Robert

Senate bill s.190 (The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005) was the senate version of what passed the house. Never made it out of committee for what ever reason.

 

[ch33kym0use]

I can vote. I will vote. Remember to vote y'all. We need solutions and real action.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: charrison
Senate bill s.190 (The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005) was the senate version of what passed the house. Never made it out of committee for what ever reason.

Because Wall Street hated it. There was a lot of concern that it would have raised interest rates for prime borrowers.
And I repeat, it would not have averted our current crisis. Nor have I seen anyone provide any evidence that it would have beyond rhetoric.

 

[ThunderDawg]

If you want to know the real reason for this international financial crisis, look to the causes of long-term interest rates and therefore home mortgages to drop about 2% in 2001. Alan Greenspan is the one you should pursue, for creating the ideal circumstances for home prices to rise dramatically, and the rest is just "Irrational Exuberance". When there is money to be made, fraud creeps out of the woodwork. But, as a parting gesture, Greenspan wanted to make George Dumbya Bush appear to have a better economy than existed in natural market times.

BUT

Even though conventional mortgages dropped about 2%, most lenders denied a majority of conventional mortgages, and opted instead to ONLY give out ARMs, with superlow initial (read: short term) rates, and UnGodly rates after 1, 2 or 3 years. Long Term Ownership was thoroughly discouraged. And then people started using their homes as an ATM. They bought cars that are now three years old. I know so many people who are totally fuqued.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison
Senate bill s.190 (The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005) was the senate version of what passed the house. Never made it out of committee for what ever reason.

Because Wall Street hated it. There was a lot of concern that it would have raised interest rates for prime borrowers.
And I repeat, it would not have averted our current crisis. Nor have I seen anyone provide any evidence that it would have beyond rhetoric.

Good bad or indifferent, the republicans at least knew there was a problem. Something you seem unable or unwilling to accept.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison
Senate bill s.190 (The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005) was the senate version of what passed the house. Never made it out of committee for what ever reason.

Because Wall Street hated it. There was a lot of concern that it would have raised interest rates for prime borrowers.
And I repeat, it would not have averted our current crisis. Nor have I seen anyone provide any evidence that it would have beyond rhetoric.

Good bad or indifferent, the republicans at least knew there was a problem. Something you seem unable or unwilling to accept.

Are you serious? I was posting here and elsewhere about the dangers of a housing bubble long before 2005.

 

[dmcowen674]

It is all the WMD that was found in the Iraq fault and brought back here

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison
Senate bill s.190 (The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005) was the senate version of what passed the house. Never made it out of committee for what ever reason.

Because Wall Street hated it. There was a lot of concern that it would have raised interest rates for prime borrowers.
And I repeat, it would not have averted our current crisis. Nor have I seen anyone provide any evidence that it would have beyond rhetoric.

Good bad or indifferent, the republicans at least knew there was a problem. Something you seem unable or unwilling to accept.

Are you serious? I was posting here and elsewhere about the dangers of a housing bubble long before 2005.

I did not say you. But you seem very willing to hang this entire problem on the party that at the very least acknowledged that there was a problem as apposed to the party that had their buried in the sand.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Here's a great article from 2004



Concerning Frannie and Freddie:

"In exchange for their status as "government-sponsored enterprises" -- and the credit market advantages which come from the perception that the government will not allow them to fail -- Fannie and Freddie are subject to so-called "affordable housing goals." These mortgage purchase quotas, set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), require that no less than 50% of the mortgages purchased by Fannie and Freddie be for low and moderate-income households, that 20% be specifically for those of low income, and that 31% come from "geographically targeted underserved areas." These figures represent substantial increases adopted in the waning days of the Clinton administration."



Same author in 2000 (2000!)



The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities
Howard Husock

"The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities?and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being....


It will take a Republican president to change or abolish CRA, so firmly wedded to it is the Clinton administration and so powerfully does it serve Democratic Party interests. When Senator Gramm attacked the CRA for its role in funding advocacy groups and for the burden it imposes on banks, the Clinton administration fought back furiously, willing to let the crucial Financial Services Modernization Act, to which Gramm had attached his CRA changes, die, unless Gramm dropped demands that, for instance, CRA reviews become less frequent. In the end, Gramm, despite his key position as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs (even the committee's name reflects a CRA consciousness) and his willingness to hold repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act hostage to CRA reform, could only manage to require community groups to make public their agreements with banks, disclosing the size of their loan commitments and fees.'

http://www.city-journal.org/ht...e_trillion_dollar.html


Keep in mind one reason "bailout" failed was because it a huge chuck of money was going to groups like ACORN and La Raza for their broken mortgage schemes


Rescuing ACORN

Democrats want to use profits from the bailout as a slush fund for liberal activist groups, even those involved in vote fraud to help elect Barack Obama....

ACORN has a political arm that endorsed Barack Obama for president in February and has stepped up its registration efforts to help elect a future benefactor. The Obama campaign admits to failing to report $800,000 in campaign payments toACORN. They were disguised as payments to a front group called "Citizen Services Inc." for "advance work."

Consumer Rights League official Jim Terry says: "ACORN has a long and sordid history of employing convoluted Enron-style accounting to illegally use taxpayer funds for their own political gain. Now it looks likeACORN is using the same type of convoluted accounting scheme for Obama's political gain."

A major part of ACORN's sordid history is vote fraud. ACORN has been implicated in voter fraud and bogus registration schemes in Missouri, Ohio and at least 12 other states. Last July, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in Washington state history, involving nearly 2,000 bogus voter forms. In Ohio in 2004,ACORN submitted forms for the likes of Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and someone named Jive Turkey.

ACORN uses taxpayer money to elect people like Barack Obama who will work to get them more taxpayer money. Democrats are willing to rip off taxpayers in a national crisis to make it happen.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/I...spx?id=307321604674409

you need a better source than IBD editorials for anything. they make the dailykos look moderate for a progressive site. i have seen them lie countless times. in another forums they were used as a source that the UN millenium doctrine specifically laid out taxation of the open seas, minerals, gave up US sovereignty in this and that fashion, etc, etc, etc - i posted a copy of that millenium doctrine and asked the poster to please source those claims. silence.

secondly, those quotas in 2004 may indeed have been part of the sub-prime lending problem but you conveniently omit that the sub-prime explosion started in the early 2000 or 2001 . im sure that was a minor oversight on your part eh.

 

[idiotekniQues]

i have been reading about mortgage backed securities and know that they were around prior to 1999's massive deregulation act so they weren't created then . however, i have seen mentioned a whole plethora of mortgage backed securities derivatives - and i know 1999 deregulated a boatload of security investment vehicles/derivatives.

the sub-prime market started blowing up a year or two later.

it would be nice to hear more about these financial smoke and mirror packages dreamed up by bonus hungry wall-street firms emboldened by the decimation of regulation. shit, just the credit default swap market grew to double the ENTIRE US STOCK MARKET in just the 7 years after Gramm's bill. that is over 42 trillion of unregulated credit default swaps. swaps that have changed hands so many times they dont even know who along the trail really needs to own up to them. its a clusterfuck.

nah, this had nothing to do with it. and maybe it didnt have everything to do with it.


it was dem dam po' negro commoooonity activists dat took down dem pillahs of wall streets.

but seriously, what was the real catalyst to the rise of sub-prime loans in 2001. it wasnt CRA being re-tooled in 1995 that is for sure.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison
Senate bill s.190 (The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005) was the senate version of what passed the house. Never made it out of committee for what ever reason.

Because Wall Street hated it. There was a lot of concern that it would have raised interest rates for prime borrowers.
And I repeat, it would not have averted our current crisis. Nor have I seen anyone provide any evidence that it would have beyond rhetoric.

Good bad or indifferent, the republicans at least knew there was a problem. Something you seem unable or unwilling to accept.

Are you serious? I was posting here and elsewhere about the dangers of a housing bubble long before 2005.

I did not say you. But you seem very willing to hang this entire problem on the party that at the very least acknowledged that there was a problem as apposed to the party that had their buried in the sand.

I love this particular tactic you're using here. I've disputed a talking point that Republicans are using in order to pin the entire blame on the Democrats, and so that means I must be trying to pin the entire blame on the Republicans, even though I've already posted in this thread that I think EVERYONE is to blame.

:roll:

Anyway, this story of yours that the Republicans were the doom-and-gloom-on-the-economy regulators ringing the alarm bell while the Democrats had their heads in the sand is just... comical. Dude... really.
I guess that's what cherry-picking your sources will do to you, charrison. Turn off the Rush and Hannity, try paying attention to the real world around you. The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act was just one single attempt at mortgage reform among countless attempts by both parties.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Vic

I love this particular tactic you're using here. I've disputed a talking point that Republicans are using in order to pin the entire blame on the Democrats, and so that means I must be trying to pin the entire blame on the Republicans, even though I've already posted in this thread that I think EVERYONE is to blame.

:roll:

Well you dont appear to be laying on anyone but republicans. And yes I agree everyone gets a liltle blame.

Anyway, this story of yours that the Republicans were the doom-and-gloom-on-the-economy regulators ringing the alarm bell while the Democrats had their heads in the sand is just... comical. Dude... really.

Well it appears in this particulare instance that is very much the case.

I guess that's what cherry-picking your sources will do to you, charrison. Turn off the Rush and Hannity, try paying attention to the real world around you. The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act was just one single attempt at mortgage reform among countless attempts by both parties.

I am all ears, what reform changes did the democrats off to fix these problems?

And yes i do agree there is blame for both sides and no single regulation is at fault for what got us here.

And no I dont listen to rush or hannity.

 

[piasabird]

I think you will find a lot of the problem are not caused by people buying their first house, but by idiots getting into mortgages for huge multi-million dollar estates that they could not pay for hoping to turn them around for a few million. You have to realize that the prime lending rate was down to about 10 cents. Then the dollar started losing value caused by a lot of different things, one of which was the interest rate being below the inflation rate for an extened period of time.

Anyway believe whatever you want because it is easy to blame the Idiot that is in office. You really believe Bush was smart enough to cause all that or even know what was going on?

You could say the idiots in California caused all this by selling houses to Mexicans that could not afford to pay for them. California is a liberal state so this is all Pelosi's fault.

Just believe whatever you want.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

I love this particular tactic you're using here. I've disputed a talking point that Republicans are using in order to pin the entire blame on the Democrats, and so that means I must be trying to pin the entire blame on the Republicans, even though I've already posted in this thread that I think EVERYONE is to blame.

:roll:

Well you dont appear to be laying on anyone but republicans. And yes I agree everyone gets a liltle blame.

Anyway, this story of yours that the Republicans were the doom-and-gloom-on-the-economy regulators ringing the alarm bell while the Democrats had their heads in the sand is just... comical. Dude... really.

Well it appears in this particulare instance that is very much the case.

I guess that's what cherry-picking your sources will do to you, charrison. Turn off the Rush and Hannity, try paying attention to the real world around you. The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act was just one single attempt at mortgage reform among countless attempts by both parties.

I am all ears, what reform changes did the democrats off to fix these problems?

And yes i do agree there is blame for both sides and no single regulation is at fault for what got us here.

And no I dont listen to rush or hannity.

Now you're just trolling. The only blame I am putting on the Republicans here is for their disinformation propaganda machine. Get back to me when you actually want to address my OP.

 

[bamacre]

I have not seen any single post by Vic that even resembled putting all the blame on Republicans.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: chess9

Anyway, no one MAKES lenders make a loan. The problem was that lenders were not willing to make loans to qualified blacks who lived in certain zip codes. The practice is called redlining. It's a blunt instrument of economic racism, IMHO.

-Robert

afaik, banks CRA didn't apply to were making those loans anyway. CRA, if it was ever necessary, hasn't been necessary for a long while.

Exactly right, but you won't hear that from the exactly wrong.

Very few loans were made under CRA as a percentage of all loans.

🙂

-Robert

Well according to the op, we are talking 25-50% were under cra. I think that is more than very few. CRA was a player.

no, those were loaned made by banks that the cra guidlines applied to. Most of these banks exceeded those totals from my understanding.

People need to stop trying to put blame on any particular party for this, this happened because there was too much investment capital flowing into america, much of which ended up buying debt securities and fueled the boom.