The numbers say that Obama is the best economic president in modern times.

FaceofBachmann said:

So -- in typical rightwing fashion -- you have it backwards. Defaults by "poor people" didn't cause the bubble to burst; the bubble bursting caused the defaults.

Click to expand...

Here, I CHALLENGE YOU Lib, to counter ANYTHING in these 3 post on the Democrat mandated Sub-prime Bubble.

Not with your silly opinion, or your empty and STUPID talking points but with factual evidence.

I challenge you to go line by line and rebut everything that's in these post. Ready ? Here we go...( you'll coward out of it like every other Libs does )

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-
In 1992, under the leadership of Democrat James Johnson, Fannie and Freddie were given a NEW Affordable Housing Mandate. ( in Title XIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 ) which was enforced through HUD ( Housing Urban Development ) regulations by placing them under a Quota System which started at 30%

The GSE's percentage of sub-prime or "Alt-A" loans prior to 1992, were under 10%.

But on its own this new "Affordable Lending" policy wasn't enough to increase loan opportunity to the millions of "disadvantaged" Americans with poor credit, questionable work history and no collateral, so the Democrats set off to manufacture the massive False Narrative of " discrimination in lending.

In 1992, at the direction of the Clinton adminisitration the Boston Fed published a highly flawed study called " Closing the Gap ", which gave legitimacy to the charges that banks were discrimination based on the color of their lenders skin. It also offered measures for addressing this made up narrative which included loosening income thresholds for receiving a mortgage, and using government policy to influence the standards that had kept Lenders solvent for decades.
http://www.bostonfed.org/commdev/closing-the-gap/

Private analyst and at least one FDIC economist found embarrassing mistakes in the data used by the Boston FED. The Boston FED study didn't take into account relevent information like the applicants prior denials, his net worth, his debt burden and his employment records. It also failed to verify the integrity of the information submitted by the applicants.

In 1994, the 20-page "Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending" was entered into the Federal Register by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending, which was the Agnecy created by Clinton to address suspected "redlining" and discrimination.

"The agencies will not tolerate lending discrimination in any form," the document warned financial institutions.

At the Clinton administrations dircection, 10 Federal agencies set out to enforce the new standards set forth by the Clinton administartion which included easing the credit restrictions for low income and minority lenders or face DOJ investigations for lending discrimination. Lenders were also threatened with denial of access to the Secondary Markets.

"HUD is authorized to direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to undertake various remedial actions, including suspension, probation, reprimand or settlement, against lenders found to have engaged in discriminatory lending practices,"

In 1994, The Riegle Neal Act tied a banks CRA score directly to the abillity to expand accross state lines and merge with other banks........


Cont.

Fenton said:

Here, I CHALLENGE YOU Lib, to counter ANYTHING in these 3 post on the Democrat mandated Sub-prime Bubble.

Not with your silly opinion, or your empty and STUPID talking points but with factual evidence.

I challenge you to go line by line and rebut everything that's in these post. Ready ? Here we go...( you'll coward out of it like every other Libs does )

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-
In 1992, under the leadership of Democrat James Johnson, Fannie and Freddie were given a NEW Affordable Housing Mandate. ( in Title XIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 ) which was enforced through HUD ( Housing Urban Development ) regulations by placing them under a Quota System which started at 30%

The GSE's percentage of sub-prime or "Alt-A" loans prior to 1992, were under 10%.

But on its own this new "Affordable Lending" policy wasn't enough to increase loan opportunity to the millions of "disadvantaged" Americans with poor credit, questionable work history and no collateral, so the Democrats set off to manufacture the massive False Narrative of " discrimination in lending.

In 1992, at the direction of the Clinton adminisitration the Boston Fed published a highly flawed study called " Closing the Gap ", which gave legitimacy to the charges that banks were discrimination based on the color of their lenders skin. It also offered measures for addressing this made up narrative which included loosening income thresholds for receiving a mortgage, and using government policy to influence the standards that had kept Lenders solvent for decades.
http://www.bostonfed.org/commdev/closing-the-gap/

Private analyst and at least one FDIC economist found embarrassing mistakes in the data used by the Boston FED. The Boston FED study didn't take into account relevent information like the applicants prior denials, his net worth, his debt burden and his employment records. It also failed to verify the integrity of the information submitted by the applicants.

In 1994, the 20-page "Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending" was entered into the Federal Register by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending, which was the Agnecy created by Clinton to address suspected "redlining" and discrimination.

"The agencies will not tolerate lending discrimination in any form," the document warned financial institutions.

At the Clinton administrations dircection, 10 Federal agencies set out to enforce the new standards set forth by the Clinton administartion which included easing the credit restrictions for low income and minority lenders or face DOJ investigations for lending discrimination. Lenders were also threatened with denial of access to the Secondary Markets.

"HUD is authorized to direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to undertake various remedial actions, including suspension, probation, reprimand or settlement, against lenders found to have engaged in discriminatory lending practices,"

In 1994, The Riegle Neal Act tied a banks CRA score directly to the abillity to expand accross state lines and merge with other banks........


Cont.

Click to expand...

There's a whole thread on this, my Breitbart fanatic. You've lost.

# 2

FaceofBachmann said:

So -- in typical rightwing fashion -- you have it backwards. Defaults by "poor people" didn't cause the bubble to burst; the bubble bursting caused the defaults.

Click to expand...

Cont....

"Applying different lending standards to applicants who are members of a protected class is permissible," it said. "In addition, providing different treatment to applicants to address past discrimination would be permissible."

The FDIC warned banks that even UNINTENTIONAL Discrimination would be prosecuted. The FDIC advised banks to be PROACTIVE in making "multicultural" loans. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," they warned.

The threat of DOJ prosecution was real and even the American Bankers Association issued a "fair-lending tool kit" to every member. The Mortgage Bankers Association of America signed a "fair-lending" contract with HUD. So did Countrywide.

"The Department of Justice is authorized to use the full range of its enforcement authority."

In 1998 Attorney General Janet Reno bragged in a speech about her 13 succesful lawsuites against lenders and one against NationWide Insurance for discriminatory actions against minority lenders.

In 1998, HUD settled with ACUBank for 2.1 Billion dollars. The claim that lenders weren't forced is of course a lie. If Lenders were sincerely discriminating on the basis of color, and NOT lending to minorities, then WHY did they have to lower standards to fight it ?

The truth is the innate Free Market Lending Standards that had kept the primary and secondary markets stable for decades were deemed " racist " by the Clinton administration.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The Corruption of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.



In 1994, the Chairman of Fannie Mae, James Johnson commited 1 TRILLION Dollars in " Targeted Home Loans".
FANNIE MAE CHAIRMAN JIM JOHNSON SAYS $1 TRILLION COMMITMENT IS ON TARGET AND IS TRANSFORMING FANNIE MAE AND THE AMERICAN MORTGAGE FINANCE INDUSTRY - Free Online Library

Clintons long list of executive orders comprised in his 1995 National Homeownership Strategy set a new HUD affordable lending goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"In 1994, at the President’s request, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began work to develop a National Homeownership Strategy with the goal of lifting the overall homeownership rate to 67.5 percent by the end of the year 2000. While the most tangible goal of the National Homeownership Strategy was to raise the overall homeownership rate, in presenting the strategy HUD pointed explicitly to declines in homeownership rates among low-income, young, and minority households as motivation for these efforts." - U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research

"At the request of President Clinton, HUD is working with dozens of national leaders in government and the housing industry to implement the National Homeownership Strategy, an unprecedented public-private partnership to increase homeownership to a record-high level over the next 6 years." - Urban Policy Brief Number 2, August 1995

HUD's 1996-2000 GSE Goals...
http://www.huduser.org/Publications/PDF/AREUEA_Presentation.pdf

HUD established the GSEs’ housing goals for 1996-99 on December 1, 1995, and these
goals continued in effect for 2000, as follows:

The low- and moderate-income (LM) goal: at least 40 percent of the dwelling units
financed by each GSE had to be for LM families in 1996, and the goal rose to 42 percent
for 1997-2000.

The special affordable (SA) goal: at least 12 percent of the units financed by each GSE
had to be for SA families in 1996, and the goal rose to 14 percent for 1997-2000.

The underserved areas (UA) goal: at least 21 percent of the units financed by each GSE
had to be for families in UAs in 1996, and the goal rose to 24 percent for 1997-2000.

The special affordable multifamily (SAMF) subgoals: for each year 1996-2000, Freddie
Mac had to finance at least $0.99 billion in special affordable multifamily housing, and Fannie Mae had to finance at least $1.29 billion.

From 1993 to 1998 Clinton appointed his Democrat buddies to the Executive and chair positions at the two GSE's including Franklin Raines, who was at the the center of the 2004 SEC investigation into Fannie Maes corrupt accounting scam. It also included Jamie Gorelick who in 2000 at a banking conference beseeched lenders to sell Fannie Mae their CRA loans...

"We want your CRA loans because they help us meet our housing goals. "We will buy them from your portfolios or package them into securities."

Jamie Gorelick characterized CRA firendly loanswith a 3% or less down payment and that were made using "flexible underwriting" methods. So much for CRA not being Sub-prime.

Clintons 1995 CRA changes also required lenders to be scored by Federal regulators on their CRA commitments. Those scores were then published so that Community Activist groups like ACORN could target them for " racist lending pracitices".

In 1995 The Chicago Sun ran this add from ACORN....
"‘You’ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.'

In 2000, the Senate Banking Committee estimated that community groups such as ACORN and La Raza had received $9.5 billion in services and salaries stemming from Clintons 1995 CRA changes.

By 1997, Fannie Mae was offering to buy 97% loan-to-value (LTV) mortgages

In November of 1998, " Freddie Mac helped First Union Capital Markets and Bear Stearns & Co launch the first publicly available securitization of CRA loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. All carried a Freddie Mac guarantee as to timely interest and principal. First Union was not a subprime lender "


Cont....

FaceofBachmann said:

There's a whole thread on this, my Breitbart fanatic. You've lost.

Click to expand...

BWAHAHHA !!!!

That's your line by line counter ?

I told you you would chicken out !

Fenton said:

BWAHAHHA !!!!

That's your line by line counter ?

I told you you would chicken out !

Click to expand...

Hey it's a forum call out. Sorry, friend, Breitbart and economic reality don't mix. We all know your talking points. They're debunked.

There a whole thread on this, and your talking points were systematically ridiculed and rebutted. I can't waste time with repeating the obvious to the economically oblivious.

In 1999 the New York Times ran this article detailing Clintons plans to further push Fannie and Freddie into the Sub-prime markets...


" In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders."


"These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans."


http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/bu...e-lending.html

In 1999, Andrew Cuomo commited the two largest housing finance companies to buy $2.4 TRILLION in mortgages over 10 years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low- and moderate-income families.


President Clinton comment on Cuomo's new GSE iniative : "During the last six and a half years, my Administration has put tremendous emphasis on promoting homeowners and making housing more affordable for all Americans. Our housing programs and institutions have been a success. Today, the homeownership rate is at an all-time high, with more than 66 percent of all American families owning their homes. Today, we take another significant step. Raising the GSEs goals will help us generate increased momentum in addressing the nation's housing needs. I congratulate HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo and the entire HUD team on their efforts in this important area."

In 2000 HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo raised the GSE Quota to 50%

"We believe that there are a lot of loans to black Americans that could be safely purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac if these companies were more flexible."


Also under Cuomo's tenure as HUD Chairman Fannie Mae developed a "flexible" product line, providing up to 100 percent financing and requiring borrowers to make as little as a $500 contribution, and bought $13.7 billion of those loans in 2003.

HUD Archives: Cuomo Announces Action to Provide $2.4 Trillion in Mortgages for Affordable Housing for 28.1 Million Families

As early as 2001 the Bush administration was sounding the alarm on the two Demcrat controlled and defended GSE's. The Bush administration also fired Fannies Clinton appointed auditor, Arthur Anderson and hired Price Waterhouse Cooper.


Arthur Anderson was ENRONs auditor.

For all those Libs and misinformed posters that said Bush and the Republicans did nothing ? Here's a timeline..that starts with a warning from 1992..

October 1992Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, warned about the impending danger nonregulated GSEs posed. He worried that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were changing "from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the stockholding few."Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., countered that "the companies served a public purpose. They were in the business of lowering the price of mortgage loans."


" April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a potential problem, because financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity. "


In May of 2002 another Bush administration call for disclosure into the accounting of the two GSEs.." The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. " (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)


In January 2003 Freddie Mac announces it had to restate its financial goals for the previous 3 years.


In February of the same year , Fannies Regulator, the OFHEO The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining to investors that the implicit Governmet guarantee of Fannie and Freddie could lead to the spread of unexpected problems that reach beyond the Housing Market.


(Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03).

In September, Fannie Mae discloses that they are currently under investigation by the SEC and they acknowlecdged that their regulators review found earnings manipulations.


In October, Fannie Mae discloses a $1.2 billion accounting error.


In February of 2004, The President’s FY05 Budget againhighlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator. " (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)


The Democrats response to the Bush administrations multiple calls for new regulatory action on Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac ?


A Letter that was sent to Bush signed by 72 Democrats ......


" We have been concerned that the Administration's legislative proposal regarding the GSEs would weaken affordable housing perfonnance by the GSEs, by emphasizing only safety and soundness. While the GSEs' affordable housing mission is not in any way incompatible with their safety and soundness, an exclusive focus on safety and soundness is likely to come, in practice, at the expense of affordable housing. We have been led to conclude that the Administration does not appreciate the importance of theWe have been led to conclude that the Administration does not appreciate the importance of the

Cont....

Cont....


GSE's affordable housing mission, as. evidenced by its refusal to work with the House and Senate on this important legislation. It now appears that, because Congress has not been willing to jeopardize the GSE's mission, the Administration has turned to attacking the GSEs publicly."

http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/fil...ic-reality.pdf


Also in 2004, Barney Frank recieved a letter from Fannies regulator, the OFHEO, stating that the two GSEs were seriously under cpaitalized and that Fannie Mae would be declaring a 9 Billion dollar loss.

In 2004, the SEC started their investigation into Fannie Maes improper accounting techniques.


Office of the Chief Accountant Issues Statement on Fannie Mae Accounting


In 2006 they posted their findings and reported that Fannie Mae would be fined 400 Million dollars for Acounting Fraud.


"The conduct of Mr. Raines, CFO Timothy Howard, and other members of the inner circle of senior executives at Fannie Mae was inconsistent with the values of responsibility, accountability, and integrity," the report said. "Those individuals engaged in improper earnings management in order to generate unjustified levels of compensation for themselves and other executives."


That fraud netted Clinton Appointee Franklin Raines over 50 Million in bonus's.


https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litre...06/lr19710.htm


The SEC filings and subsequent investigation found evidence of extensive fraud at Fannie Mae.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052300184.html


Their report indicated that the Senior executives were misreporting Billions in Securities so they could meet their executive bonus targets but in addition they were misrepresenting the value of Fannie Maes collateral and debt. Since they were the primary consumer of Sub-prime loans and securities backed by Sub-prime loans they manipulated the entire Sub-prime Backed Securities market.


There were two legislative attempts to reign in the two bloated and corrupted GSEs. The House bill HR1461in 2004 , and the Senate Bill SB190 in 2005.


I've debated with Liberals before who like to bring up the fact that Bush shot down HR1461, but there was a good reason.


The bill expanded the maximum loan amount allowed by the GSE as Fannie Mae looked to expand into the "Jumbo Market " It set up a affordable housing slush fund, which the GSEs controlled and it contained language that could lead to a third party Regulator being put off for a year.


In 2005 Senate Bill ( SB190 ) Made it through a Republican chaired Commitee with zero Democrat Support. With only 55 seats in the Senate the Republicans needed 5 Democrats to step up to make the Bill Filibuster proof.


During the Bush administration the Democrats were using the "Rule 22 " Fillibuster with regularity. The Senate Rule 22 Fillibuster allows any one Senator to stop a piece of opposition legislation just by threat alone.


Democrats on the Senate Banking commitee were voicing their opposition to the bill. On May 5, 2006, they wrote an open letter to Senate leadership that began, “We are concerned that if effective regulatory legislation for the housing-finance government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”


The Bill never made it to the Senate floor and was pulled so it could be re-submitted. In 2007 the Bill was re-submitted as SB1100 to a Democrat chaired committee. It never made it out of that committee.



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---

Ok, I'll stop here Lib ( FaceofBush )

Now, counter it line by line with factual and objective evidence and data. Or are you just going to chicken out in front of everyone ??

Again ?

Fenton said:

Here, I CHALLENGE YOU Lib, to counter ANYTHING in these 3 post on the Democrat mandated Sub-prime Bubble.

Click to expand...

Oh gawd, it is the spam attack...again.

Um, fenton, every time you go through your CRA spasm, it takes just a simple question:

What was the default rate for these CRA loans as compared to private sub-prime?

let me know.

Gimmesometruth said:

Oh gawd, it is the spam attack...again.

Um, fenton, every time you go through your CRA spasm, it takes just a simple question:

What was the default rate for these CRA loans as compared to private sub-prime?

let me know.

Click to expand...

Oh, the CRA wasn't Subprime argument.

Speaking of Spam.....and lazy warmed over left wing narratives.

The St Louis Fed stated that CRA and Subprime were comparable when it came to the rate of default.

You're also forgetting that the CRA rules were changed in 1995.

And it was those rule changes that led the NBER to their conclusion that CRA DID contribute substantially to the Subprime mortgage crisis.


Anyway, quit trying to take up for our resident Socialist. He's a Big Boy I assume and can do his own homework.

This ridiculous thread is still going?

Okay.

Once again;

In the 67 months since Obama took office;

- an average of only 41,761 more Americans per month (by my calculations) have been employed full time.

- over 1 million (1,076,000) LESS Americans in the all-important 25-54 age range are employed.

- over 18 million more Americans are on food stamps.

- the national debt is up roughly 60%.

So, under Obama, America is FAR deeper in debt, less Americans in the prime money-making sector (25-54) are employed and over 60% more Americans require government assistance just to eat.

Anyone that is proud of those numbers is politically delusional, IMO.


And, btw, I am neither dem nor rep.

Fenton said:

Oh, the CRA wasn't Subprime argument.

Speaking of Spam.....and lazy warmed over left wing narratives.

The St Louis Fed stated that CRA and Subprime were comparable when it came to the rate of default.

You're also forgetting that the CRA rules were changed in 1995.

And it was those rule changes that led the NBER to their conclusion that CRA DID contribute substantially to the Subprime mortgage crisis.


Anyway, quit trying to take up for our resident Socialist. He's a Big Boy I assume and can do his own homework.

Click to expand...

Poor Fenton, can't bring himself to post the numbers.

Fenton said:

Oh, the CRA wasn't Subprime argument.

Speaking of Spam.....and lazy warmed over left wing narratives.

The St Louis Fed stated that CRA and Subprime were comparable when it came to the rate of default.

You're also forgetting that the CRA rules were changed in 1995.

And it was those rule changes that led the NBER to their conclusion that CRA DID contribute substantially to the Subprime mortgage crisis.


Anyway, quit trying to take up for our resident Socialist. He's a Big Boy I assume and can do his own homework.

Click to expand...

Old talking point. You lost. The GOP deregulated mortgage backed securities leading to the whole system becoming toxic. The nonsense about poor people getting loan makes you look more foolish than usual.

DA60 said:

This ridiculous thread is still going?

Okay.

Once again;

In the 67 months since Obama took office;

- an average of only 41,761 more Americans per month (by my calculations) have been employed full time.

- over 1 million (1,076,000) LESS Americans in the all-important 25-54 age range are employed.

- over 18 million more Americans are on food stamps.

- the national debt is up roughly 60%.

So, under Obama, America is FAR deeper in debt, less Americans in the prime money-making sector (25-54) are employed and over 60% more Americans require government assistance just to eat.

Anyone that is proud of those numbers is politically delusional, IMO.


And, btw, I am neither dem nor rep.

Click to expand...

Yes, Bush's ineptitude and the complete and utter failure of conservative economic policies continue to harm our economy and will for a decade to come.

All the more reason we must never ever vote in a Republican president again.

FaceofBachmann said:

Old talking point. You lost. The GOP deregulated mortgage backed securities leading to the whole system becoming toxic. The nonsense about poor people getting loan makes you look more foolish than usual.

Click to expand...

When dod the GOP " deregulate " Mortgage backed securities ?

You DO realize the first block of Subprime securities was guaranteed by Freddie Mac back in 1998 don't you ?

380 Million dollars worth of trash Securities guaranteed by Freddie Mac.

Fenton said:

When dod the GOP " deregulate " Mortgage backed securities ?

You DO realize the first block of Subprime securities was guaranteed by Freddie Mac back in 1998 don't you ?

380 Million dollars worth of trash Securities guaranteed by Freddie Mac.

Click to expand...

God, man, read, then post. You're embarrassing yourself in public.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/economy/17gramm.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

FaceofBachmann said:

God, man, read, then post. You're embarrassing yourself in public.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/economy/17gramm.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Click to expand...

How am I " embarrassing " myself ?

By challenging a Lib who too scared and ill informed to counter my facts on the Subprime mortgage crisis ?

You STILL haven't responded too anything I posted. Even after I challenged you publicly.

Now THATS embarrassing.

And as far as your link is concerned ?

It blames Grahm for Clintons signature on the Graham Leach Bliley Act.

Lol....nice.

Besides, 2 years before that Bill was signed the GSEs were Securitizing hundreds of Millions of dollars in MBSs backed by Subprime loans.

You must be allergic to facts.

Fenton said:

How am I " embarrassing " myself ?

By challenging a Lib who too scared and ill informed to counter my facts on the Subprime mortgage crisis ?

You STILL haven't responded too anything I posted. Even after I challenged you publicly.

Now THATS embarrassing.

And as far as your link is concerned ?

It blames Grahm for Clintons signature on the Graham Leach Bliley Act.

Lol....nice.

Besides, 2 years before that Bill was signed the GSEs were Securitizing hundreds of Millions of dollars in MBSs backed by Subprime loans.

You must be allergic to facts.

Click to expand...

These talking points are so old even the GOP has forgotten them. Debunked. Your side lost.

FaceofBachmann said:

These talking points are so old even the GOP has forgotten them. Debunked. Your side lost.

Click to expand...

Bill Clinton Disagrees with you...

And so does Democrat Artur Anderson....

“I think that the responsibility that the Democrats had may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” – Former President Bill Clinton (D-AR), September 25, 2008

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.” – Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL) , September 30, 2008


What next ? Are you going to start babbling about how Bush lied about WMD ?? Lol !