Team Obama and the Democrats Believe......

dad2three2001 · Jun 3, 2014

eohrnberger said:
"He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending."
So Bush insistent that F&F meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending, eh?

Err, no.

Long history of Democrats doing exactly that. In 1995

collaborating source material: New York Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie - Village Voice or
New York Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie - Village Voice

In 1997:
President Clinton loosens Home Loan Requirements. Whether this is in response to pressure groups like ACORN is unknown, but probably likely, as ACORN does have a branch specific to federal lobbying efforts.

Franklin Raines and Jamie Garelick from the Clinton Administration are appointed to run Fannie Mae.

These are the 2 biggest crooks who bent every rule and cooked their books so they could collect bigger bonuses.

In 2000:
Andrew Cuomo, in charge of HUD, raises the number to 50%, hikes Fannie and Freddie to buy more mortgages in underserved neighborhoods for the very very low income, and also encourages them to strongly enter the sub-prime loan market.

When HUD released the next set of goals in 2004, it reported that after Cuomo's previous edict, there had been a sudden spurt of GSE subprime investment, "partly in response to higher affordable-housing goals set by HUD in 2000." Fannie had gone from $1.2 billion in subprime-mortgage and securities purchases in 2000 to $9.2 billion in 2001 and $15 billion in 2002. Freddie's numbers were murkier, but clearly also on the rise. In 2003 alone, the two bought $81 billion in subprime securities-which also count against the goals.

There's more. Much more.

So really, it's as I said earlier, many actors, from both parties, and businesses, and regulatory agencies, and everything else, all had a hand in this, and all deserve some blame for this. And in actuality, I'm being rather kind to the Democrats leaving it at that.

You strictly blaming Bush as being 100% accountable for the bubble and crash is not support by the facts. Sorry to burst your ideological bubble.

NO?

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008

June 17, 2004

(CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004

July 8, 2004

HUD DATA SHOWS FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC HAVE TRAILED THE INDUSTRY IN PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN KENTUCKY AND 43 OTHER STATES

New regulations will increase mortgage financing for homebuyers and underserved communities

LOUISVILLE - The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development released data today giving a state-by-state breakdown of the performance of Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This
data covering 1999-2002 shows that combined, the GSEs have lagged behind the primary market in Kentucky and 43 other states in their commitment to provide affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income families.

In Kentucky, the primary mortgage market devoted 45.0 percent of its business to low- and moderate-income loans, compared to 42.6 percent by Fannie Mae and 40.6 percent by Freddie Mac.

HUD Archives: HUD DATA SHOWS FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC HAVE TRAILED THE INDUSTRY IN PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN KENTUCKY AND 43 OTHER STATES

BUSH FORCED F/F TO BUY UP $440 BILLION OF MBS'S 2004-2008

HE CHANGED CLINTON'S RULE THAT HAD REIGNED IN F/F

"(In 2000, CLINTON) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (CAN YOU SAY DUBYA), the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."

http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/files/references/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf

Lower lending standards started in late 2004 which caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble

Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.

THIS WASN'T A GSE PROBLEM, ONLY BUSH GOT F/F INTO TROUBLE BY FORCING THEM TO BUY UP THE MBS'S TO FEED THE BUBBLE FOR HIS HOMES PUSH

Fannie/Freddie Market Share Plummeted During Boom

Fannie/Freddie Market Share Plummeted During Boom | The Big Picture

No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)

1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom

2. The government’s affordability mission didn’t cause the crisis

3. There is a lot of research to back this up and little against it

4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash

Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up

The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 40-1+ which flooded the market with cheap money!

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble

He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down

THOSE ARE FACTS

One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.

dad2three2001 · Jun 3, 2014

Conservative said:
Did you ever take a civics class? I suggest while you are playing with your Dad's Computer that you actually do some research. Doesn't matter who the regulator was, the oversight was under the control of the Democrats. You are the one blaming Bush when Democrats controlled the Congress and now give Obama a pass for the results today with a mixed Congress

So you keep saying, please tell me what mortgage issued in 2007-2008 defaulted in 2008? What were the Democrats doing if not promoting home ownership? Who benefited from all those loans going to people who couldn't afford their loan, Democrats or Republicans? Didn't Democrats regain the Congress in 2006 elections? One of these days that light bulb is going to go off in that head of yours

There is plenty of blame to go around for the housing bubble that burst but you want to focus your partisan bs on Bush ignoring history. There have been thread after thread on this topic and obviously you learned nothing so you are back again hijacking this thread with more partisan propaganda

I am sorry but you are part of the problem not the solution. We are 6 yrs into the Obama Administration and still results today are because of Bush. That is a sickness, seek help. You have no idea what leadership is or the responsibilities of leadership. That speaks volumes about you

DEMS CONTROLLED CONGRESS? WEIRD

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative

Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

FBI saw threat of loan crisis

"It has the potential to be an epidemic,"
A top official warned of widening mortgage fraud in 2004, but the agency focused its resources elsewhere

"We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis,"

They ended up with fewer resources, rather than more.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/25/business/fi-mortgagefraud25

Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 40-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

Agency’s ’04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt

“We have a good deal of comfort about the capital cushions at these firms at the moment.” — Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, March 11, 2008.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Lots of programs have always been in place to encourage home ownership, etc, but the absolutely insane stuff came when the banks basically gave up on lending standards.

The Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004. that was the same year bush implemented his toxic housing polcies

Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.

So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush

http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf

Bush's working group said it "was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007". Now what would 'trigger a dramatic weakening' and prevent Bush's regulators from enforcing them? Why Bush and his policies, that's who.

YES, WE ARE OVER 5 YEARS IN ON OBAMA'S TERM, AND BUSH/GOP DUG A DEEP HOLE, LUCKILY, EVEN WITH THE GOP OBSTRUCTING EVERYTHING, WE ARE CLIMBING OUT REGARDLESS!

MMC · Jun 3, 2014

eohrnberger said:
"He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending."
So Bush insistent that F&F meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending, eh?

Err, no.

Long history of Democrats doing exactly that. In 1995

collaborating source material: New York Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie - Village Voice or
New York Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie - Village Voice

In 1997:
President Clinton loosens Home Loan Requirements. Whether this is in response to pressure groups like ACORN is unknown, but probably likely, as ACORN does have a branch specific to federal lobbying efforts.

Franklin Raines and Jamie Garelick from the Clinton Administration are appointed to run Fannie Mae.

These are the 2 biggest crooks who bent every rule and cooked their books so they could collect bigger bonuses.

In 2000:
Andrew Cuomo, in charge of HUD, raises the number to 50%, hikes Fannie and Freddie to buy more mortgages in underserved neighborhoods for the very very low income, and also encourages them to strongly enter the sub-prime loan market.

When HUD released the next set of goals in 2004, it reported that after Cuomo's previous edict, there had been a sudden spurt of GSE subprime investment, "partly in response to higher affordable-housing goals set by HUD in 2000." Fannie had gone from $1.2 billion in subprime-mortgage and securities purchases in 2000 to $9.2 billion in 2001 and $15 billion in 2002. Freddie's numbers were murkier, but clearly also on the rise. In 2003 alone, the two bought $81 billion in subprime securities-which also count against the goals.

There's more. Much more.

So really, it's as I said earlier, many actors, from both parties, and businesses, and regulatory agencies, and everything else, all had a hand in this, and all deserve some blame for this. And in actuality, I'm being rather kind to the Democrats leaving it at that.

You strictly blaming Bush as being 100% accountable for the bubble and crash is not support by the facts. Sorry to burst your ideological bubble.

Heya Eorhn :2wave: .....did they explain that minus 1% growth yet? :lol:

eohrnberger · Jun 3, 2014

MMC said:
Heya Eorhn :2wave: .....did they explain that minus 1% growth yet? :lol:

Nope. Not really.

I suppose it's the Obama recovery in action, Obamanomics where keeping piling on obligations, costs and expenses onto a struggling economy and business sector is sure to create robust growth, right? :roll:

What progressives / liberals / Democrats understand about business and economics could fit inside a thimble, especially this administration which has adopted the practice of promoting incompetence, and then, when identified (usually by some serious screw up) failing to fire that incompetence.

MMC · Jun 3, 2014

eohrnberger said:
Nope. Not really.

I suppose it's the Obama recovery in action, Obamanomics where keeping piling on obligations, costs and expenses onto a struggling economy and business sector is sure to create robust growth, right? :roll:

What progressives / liberals / Democrats understand about business and economics could fit inside a thimble, especially this administration which has adopted the practice of promoting incompetence, and then, when identified (usually by some serious screw up) failing to fire that incompetence.

Here ya go Eorhn......note how they state due to the severe winter. Yet for some reason.....those economists don't want to consider the drought.....huh? What that affect will be. Also they forgot any other disasters. Like the Tornadoes that Did their damage.

Oh and the Other issue they forgot about.....the flooding in the states that don't have drought and all that damage that was done.

US economy shrank at 1 percent rate in Q1.....

The U.S. economy was battered even more than first suspected by the harsh winter, actually shrinking from January through March. The result marked the first retreat in three years, but economists are confident the downturn was temporary.

Gross domestic product contracted at an annual rate of 1 percent in the first quarter, the Commerce Department said Thursday. That was worse than the government's initial estimate last month that GDP during the period grew by a slight 0.1 percent. The economy last posted a decline in the first three months of 2011 when it dropped 1.3 percent

This year's weakening reflected slower stockpiling by businesses, a cutback in business investment and a wider trade deficit. Economists expect a robust rebound in the April-June quarter as the country shakes off the effects of a severe winter......snip~

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-economy-shrank-1-percent-123523056.html

Conservative · Jun 3, 2014

MMC said:
Here ya go Eorhn......note how they state due to the severe winter. Yet for some reason.....those economists don't want to consider the drought.....huh? What that affect will be. Also they forgot any other disasters. Like the Tornadoes that Did their damage.

Oh and the Other issue they forgot about.....the flooding in the states that don't have drought and all that damage that was done.

US economy shrank at 1 percent rate in Q1.....

The U.S. economy was battered even more than first suspected by the harsh winter, actually shrinking from January through March. The result marked the first retreat in three years, but economists are confident the downturn was temporary.

Gross domestic product contracted at an annual rate of 1 percent in the first quarter, the Commerce Department said Thursday. That was worse than the government's initial estimate last month that GDP during the period grew by a slight 0.1 percent. The economy last posted a decline in the first three months of 2011 when it dropped 1.3 percent

This year's weakening reflected slower stockpiling by businesses, a cutback in business investment and a wider trade deficit. Economists expect a robust rebound in the April-June quarter as the country shakes off the effects of a severe winter......snip~

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-economy-shrank-1-percent-123523056.html

Isn't it amazing how we never had bad winters before especially in the 80's as we were coming out of the Carter double dip recession? What we are seeing here is total lack of positive leadership on the part of Obama and his Administration as they are indeed piling up costs on businesses, working hard on wealth redistribution as well as equal outcome, none of which promote a strong growing private sector economy. Obama had zero leadership skills or private sector experience and that is showing up today 6 years into his Administration. Hope we can survive another two with this incompetent in charge.

MMC · Jun 3, 2014

Conservative said:
Isn't it amazing how we never had bad winters before especially in the 80's as we were coming out of the Carter double dip recession? What we are seeing here is total lack of positive leadership on the part of Obama and his Administration as they are indeed piling up costs on businesses, working hard on wealth redistribution as well as equal outcome, none of which promote a strong growing private sector economy. Obama had zero leadership skills or private sector experience and that is showing up today 6 years into his Administration. Hope we can survive another two with this incompetent in charge.

That's why I say to keep putting anything and everything that shows what Team BO is and the Democrats are saying is BS. Then we have it all down for the record. Including their words and how they didn't pan out.

eohrnberger · Jun 3, 2014

MMC said:
That's why I say to keep putting anything and everything that shows what Team BO is and the Democrats are saying is BS. Then we have it all down for the record. Including their words and how they didn't pan out.

To be fair, a fair amount of what the Republicans say is BS too.

MMC · Jun 3, 2014

eohrnberger said:
To be fair, a fair amount of what the Republicans say is BS too.

This is true.....and especially with Neo Cons.

Conservative · Jun 3, 2014

MMC said:
This is true.....and especially with Neo Cons.

What the hell is a Neo Con? Hear liberals using the term all the time and using a broad brush to put more and more into that classification as if it is a bad thing.

The problem we have today is Congressional leaders are working hard to keep their job instead of doing their job. I believe we are long overdue for Term limits at the Federal Level.

eohrnberger · Jun 3, 2014

Conservative said:
What the hell is a Neo Con? Hear liberals using the term all the time and using a broad brush to put more and more into that classification as if it is a bad thing.

The problem we have today is Congressional leaders are working hard to keep their job instead of doing their job. I believe we are long overdue for Term limits at the Federal Level.

Well, ....

Neoconservatism is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s. Many of its adherents rose to political fame during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Neoconservatives peaked in influence during the presidency of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the invasion of Iraq.[SUP][1][/SUP] Prominent neoconservatives in the Bush administration included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer.
The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism.[SUP][2][/SUP] Neoconservatives frequently advocate the "assertive" promotion of democracy and promotion of "American national interest" in international affairs including by means of military force.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] The movement had its intellectual roots in the Jewish[SUP][5][/SUP] monthly review magazine Commentary.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] C. Bradley Thompson, a professor at Clemson University, claims that most influential neoconservatives refer explicitly to the theoretical ideas in the philosophy of Leo Strauss (1899–1973).[SUP][8][/SUP]

Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I'm with you on term limits for federal elected office. Might not even be a bad idea for non-elected offices as well. You know. Shake up the bureaucracy every now and then might be a good idea.

MMC · Jun 3, 2014

Conservative said:
What the hell is a Neo Con? Hear liberals using the term all the time and using a broad brush to put more and more into that classification as if it is a bad thing.

The problem we have today is Congressional leaders are working hard to keep their job instead of doing their job. I believe we are long overdue for Term limits at the Federal Level.

I equate Neo Conservatives as those that give into the NWO.....Nation Building of other countries and that Citizen of the world BS. They are like Neo Libs/Progs and the only difference is.....who will be in Charge.

If my way.....neither.....ever!

MMC · Jun 3, 2014

eohrnberger said:
Well, ....
Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I'm with you on term limits for federal elected office. Might not even be a bad idea for non-elected offices as well. You know. Shake up the bureaucracy every now and then might be a good idea.

Conservative · Jun 3, 2014

eohrnberger said:
Well, ....
Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I'm with you on term limits for federal elected office. Might not even be a bad idea for non-elected offices as well. You know. Shake up the bureaucracy every now and then might be a good idea.

But I don't see any of those people posting in this forum but I do see a lot of speculation as to who people posting here are associated with. It is a little dangerous labeling people as that is a liberal trait.

MMC · Jun 3, 2014

Conservative said:
But I don't see any of those people posting in this forum but I do see a lot of speculation as to who people posting here are associated with. It is a little dangerous labeling people as that is a liberal trait.

Oh theres a few here.....might even be showing up as Moderates.

MMC · Jun 16, 2014

Pimco's Gross: Fed has succeeded, but U.S. still faces permanent slump.....

When the Federal Reserve meets this week, the Wall Street Journal reports the most challenging question won’t be where to push interest rates in the near term, but where they belong years into the future. The WSJ indicates policy makers have believed the benchmark interest rate — known as the federal-funds rate — should be about 4% in a balanced economy, but officials are now debating whether interest rates need to remain below that threshold long after the economy returns to normal (i.e. once inflation is stable at 2% and unemployment around 5.5%).

Pimco, the world's largest bond manager with close to $2 trillion in assets under management, believes the federal funds rate will remain well below the "neutral" policy rate of 4% once the economy returns to full health. The firm is predicting a "new neutral" rate of 2% (nominal), given the highly leveraged economy. In the video above, Pimco founder and CIO Bill Gross says the difference is "critical" as the neutral policy rate "basically determines the prices of all assets."

He tells us the biggest investment theme for the next five years will be, "how far does the Fed go in terms of their tightening and their journey back up, as opposed to down," as the central bank moves to get out of the business of buying treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities, and begins to raise rates from near zero.

The head of the International Monetary Fund on Monday said the Fed should move rates up only gradually when it finally begins to lift borrowing costs, Reuters reports.....snip~

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...lar-stagnation-is-here-to-stay-145520100.html

Not like some were thinking huh? Yet here they are talking about staying in a permanent slump? What say ye?