Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Thanks Tree13Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 10th, 2013, 02:37 PM   #21
Six
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
The phony Boston Federal Reserve study alleging red-lining was a part of this mess. They 'cooked the books' to attain the desired outcome. Hey! What could go wrong giving mortgages to poor people?

mandated a rising percentage of loans from low income buyers that was 50 % in 2000, and 56% in 2007. GW pushed the last figure, even higher than Clinton and the fool Andrew Cuomo had. To be fair now.
In defense of George Bush, his "affordable housing initiative" was isolated to FHA loans and a program that offered low to no down-payment options to qualified buyers. FHA is run through Ginnie Mae, and the program was financed by fees attached to the lenders contracts.

It was patterned after a WW2 program that helped GI's buy homes.

Throughout his Presidency he and the Republicans pushed for numerous reforms and a third party regulator to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under Control.

In 1999, Andrew Cuomo passed new rules for HUD that removed enough transparency from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to allow them to continue committing fraud throughout Bush's term.

Cuomo stated in his "rules" that overbearing reporting requirements could slow down their " affordable housing initiative"

Cuomo also allowed the use of " Yield Spread-Premiums", which allowed broker to increase interest rates on loans and then earn bonus's on the difference or the size of the spread between their quoted interest rate and a base interest rate.

You have to remember, the Democrats fought off all attempts at govt regulation, and Fannie was allowed to hide massive amounts of debt, while they misreported profits they never made.

No one had any idea how much debt they possessed until 2011, when the SEC charged 6 of their executives with Securities Fraud.
SEC Charges Former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Executives with Securities Fraud; Release No. 2011-267; December 16, 2011

Even now, they have yet to report a line by line accounting of their debt, as the FED buys up massive amounts of their worthless securities.
Six is offline  
Old November 10th, 2013, 03:16 PM   #22
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 35,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
The phony Boston Federal Reserve study alleging red-lining was a part of this mess. They 'cooked the books' to attain the desired outcome. Hey! What could go wrong giving mortgages to poor people?

mandated a rising percentage of loans from low income buyers that was 50 % in 2000, and 56% in 2007. GW pushed the last figure, even higher than Clinton and the fool Andrew Cuomo had. To be fair now.
Bush pushed for people to buy homes, to become owners, but his warnings was that we make loans that met their income levels.

But what the CRA and the lawsuit Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. forced banks to make high risk loans, loaning people more money than the debt/income ratio could make reasonable.

This was what bush warned against. Don't loan them 120,000 when all they could afford was a 90K mortgage.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old November 10th, 2013, 03:39 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 7,334
Fact, Bush wanted to put 5.5 million low income and minority families into homes of their own.

Fact, Bush and FRANKLIN RAINS set up no less that 25 special low and no down payment programs.

Fact, under Clinton only 7% of Fannie or Freddie loans were made with zero down payment.

Fact, under Bush 41% of F&F loans were made with zero down payment.

Fact, 95% of the loans that defaulted were written between 2003 and 2008.

Tell me again how it's ALL the Democrat's fault ?????
BubbaJones is offline  
Old November 10th, 2013, 03:47 PM   #24
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 35,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
Fact, Bush wanted to put 5.5 million low income and minority families into homes of their own.

Quote:
BUT BUSH WANTED SOUND LOANS NOT STUPID LOANS
Fact, Bush and FRANKLIN RAINS set up no less that 25 special low and no down payment programs.

Quote:
what % of loans failed ~15% that could be why Bush wanted banks to make lower risk loans, and warned as such\
Fact, under Clinton only 7% of Fannie or Freddie loans were made with zero down payment.

Quote:
once again the loans that were made from 1994-2007 were done under the Loan structure Clinton signed
Fact, under Bush 41% of F&F loans were made with zero down payment.

Quote:
once again This is why Bush wanted Congress to change the law,
Fact, 95% of the loans that defaulted were written between 2003 and 2008.

Quote:
once again that is why bush wanted to have the regulations changed.
Tell me again how it's ALL the Democrat's fault ?????
Because democrats would not change the law to prevent the crisis.


Here is where the democrats caused the crisis in their own words., not GOP Speaking for them, not right wing wackos accusations, DEMOCRATS IN THEIR VERY OWN WORDS.. CAUGHT ON VIDEO, and GOP Warning them of the problem.


Democrats in their own words Covering up Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac scandal - YouTube
Thanks from MustangSally
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old November 10th, 2013, 03:58 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Archie Goodwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
Bush pushed for people to buy homes, to become owners, but his warnings was that we make loans that met their income levels.

But what the CRA and the lawsuit Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. forced banks to make high risk loans, loaning people more money than the debt/income ratio could make reasonable.

This was what bush warned against. Don't loan them 120,000 when all they could afford was a 90K mortgage.
The problem was ARMs that folks had, which caused payments to go through the roof due to some shenanigans by Big banks passing off sub primes as primes MBEs, wrapped up in derivatives the had more hidden risk than an ice cooler filled with rattlesnakes. And backing it all up were credit default swaps and not the good old Glass Steagall required liquidity Greenspan and others said was antiquated and unnecessary which Clinton bought into and signed late in his second term.

So with banks no longer backing risk with cash, they lent like everyone had perfect credit, for homes, country projects, governments like Greece you name it.

And what separates Clinton from Bush is Clinton was ignorant of the risks and shenanigans to follow. Bush Admin saw, ignored, and actively quieted regulatory folks sounding the alarm, and just rode the gravy train right off a cliff.

No saying if Clinton would have done better. But we know for a fact how willfully Bus fucked it all up.
Archie Goodwin is offline  
Old November 10th, 2013, 03:59 PM   #26
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 35,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archie Goodwin View Post
The problem was ARMs that folks had, which caused payments to go through the roof due to some shenanigans by Big banks passing off sub primes as primes MBEs, wrapped up in derivatives the had more hidden risk than an ice cooler filled with rattlesnakes. And backing it all up were credit default swaps and not the good old Glass Steagall required liquidity Greenspan and others said was antiquated and unnecessary which Clinton bought into and signed late in his second term.

So with banks no longer backing risk with cash, they lent like everyone had perfect credit, for homes, country projects, governments like Greece you name it.

And what separates Clinton from Bush is Clinton was ignorant of the risks and shenanigans to follow. Bush Admin saw, ignored, and actively quieted regulatory folks sounding the alarm, and just rode the gravy train right off a cliff.

No saying if Clinton would have done better. But we know for a fact how willfully Bus fucked it all up.
Jimmy carter caused the Mortgage crisis? because his banking regulations in 1978 making ARMS more accessable due to increasing interest rates on mortgages.. Why would people get ARMS when mortgage rates were at historic lows..

ARMS are suppose to be used when rates are high in hopes future rates would decline.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old November 10th, 2013, 04:06 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Archie Goodwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
Jimmy carter caused the Mortgage crisis? because his banking regulations in 1978 making ARMS more accessable due to increasing interest rates on mortgages.. Why would people get ARMS when mortgage rates were at historic lows..

ARMS are suppose to be used when rates are high in hopes future rates would decline.
No. Banks did. Bush played the fiddle as the economy burned to the ground.

But reach for any scapegoats you need in support of your delusion and blame shift.
Archie Goodwin is offline  
Old November 10th, 2013, 04:14 PM   #28
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 35,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archie Goodwin View Post
No. Banks did. Bush played the fiddle as the economy burned to the ground.

But reach for any scapegoats you need in support of your delusion and blame shift.
The banks did it? If the banks wanted to make subprime loans why did the banks fight to prevent subprime loans in Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank.

so the banks were FORCED to make these loans via FEDERAL LAW, a law GOP AND THE BANKS wanted changed.

OOPS once again, I really would not want marketing person that does not know current law that effects the market.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old November 10th, 2013, 04:19 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Archie Goodwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
The banks did it? If the banks wanted to make subprime loans why did the banks fight to prevent subprime loans in Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank.

so the banks were FORCED to make these loans via FEDERAL LAW, a law GOP AND THE BANKS wanted changed.

OOPS once again, I really would not want marketing person that does not know current law that effects the market.
Yes. And saying the government forced them is really fucking retarded.
Archie Goodwin is offline  
Old November 10th, 2013, 04:24 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 7,334
Fact, Bush wanted to put 5.5 million low income and minority families into homes of their own.

BUT BUSH WANTED SOUND LOANS NOT STUPID LOANS

And asking congress to GIVE PEOPLE MONEY FOR DOWN PAYMENTS makes for sound loans ??? Google ADDI !!!

Fact, Bush and FRANKLIN RAINS set up no less that 25 special low and no down payment programs.

what % of loans failed ~15% that could be why Bush wanted banks to make lower risk loans, and warned as such\

So WTF did he and Raines set up NEW PROGRAMS specifically aimed at getting banks to make loans to low income families ??

Fact, under Clinton only 7% of Fannie or Freddie loans were made with zero down payment.

once again the loans that were made from 1994-2007 were done under the Loan structure Clinton signed

Then explain why the ZERO DOWN LOANS SKY ROCKETED under Bush and Rains NEW PROGRAMS ????

Fact, under Bush 41% of F&F loans were made with zero down payment.

once again This is why Bush wanted Congress to change the law,


AND REPUBLICANS WERE IN CHARGE OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS. WHY DIDN'T THEY FIX IT ???? Are you still saying ONE LITTLE GAY MAN had MORE POWER than EVERY REPUBLICAN IN CONGRESS COMBINED ??????


Fact, 95% of the loans that defaulted were written between 2003 and 2008.


once again that is why bush wanted to have the regulations changed.

Because democrats would not change the law to prevent the crisis.

NEITHER DID THE REPUBLICANS !!!!!! They were convinced that home ownership, especially MINORITY ownership would create whole new groups of REPUBLICANS. MOSTLY in groups that traditionally have not voted Republican.

No way to deny it, BUSH SHARES THE BLAME !!!! LOTS OF IT !!! For crashing the housing market.

Like I said before, if I shoot you, then try to operate on you to remove the bullet, am I the villain or the hero ?????
BubbaJones is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
bubble, created, democrats, subprime



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What We Learned From the Housing Bubble Podium Pentothal Current Events 36 August 25th, 2012 10:16 AM
The Obama Bubble is about to Burst garysher Politicians 113 April 23rd, 2008 03:43 PM
Housing Bubble Update 8/6/06 unlawflcombatnt Housing Market 2 September 21st, 2006 02:15 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.