Bush's Post 2004 " Housing Bubble " ?

Most of us are fully aware of the Democrats substantial role in the Financial crisis.

From Clinton's 10 Federal Agency strong " Fair lending Task Force " that forced Banks to lower their lending standards or face DOJ prosecution to Clintons co-opting of the GSEs into Subprime to the Democrats lying in front of Congressional Comnmitees about the financial health of the GSEs during 2003 Congressional investigations into Fannie and Freddies corruption.

Through lies, propaganda and spreading misinformation the Democrats have gone to great lengths to blame the 2008 Subprime crisis on Bush and the Banks

The official talking point on the left is that the Subprime Bubble started in 2004. That the entire Subprime crisis was built on the loans made post 2004 and whithin Bush's 1 % Homeowner ship increase.

But here's a graph of Homeowner ship rates going all the way back to 1975.

US homeownership rate falls to a 17-year low of 65.3% in Q3 as 'homeownership bubble' continues to deflate - AEI | Carpe Diem Blog » AEIdeas

Sorry but I'm just seeing a post 2004 bubble. Are they using another graph ? And what about that 5 % increase in Homeownership rates under Clinton ? Refering to the graph, how is that 5% increase under Clinton NOT a bubble while the 2004 - 2008 decline qualifies as the Bubble that bankrupted both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ?

Maybe theyreq reading it upside down.

The Bush administration didn't do us any favors, either. Because first they passed legislation making private student loans non-dischargeable - ever - and then they pushed those loans on kids at 7%. Because there simply wasn't enough student aid available. So now, rather than taking mortgages to purchase homes, they are mortgaged to that stupid piece of paper. Forever. And that is definitely going to have a long term impact on our housing market. Stupid is as stupid does; it seems we just can't get enough of stupid in this country. And corruption is everywhere, in all levels of government.

Fenton said:

Most of us are fully aware of the Democrats substantial role in the Financial crisis.

From Clinton's 10 Federal Agency strong " Fair lending Task Force " that forced Banks to lower their lending standards or face DOJ prosecution to Clintons co-opting of the GSEs into Subprime to the Democrats lying in front of Congressional Comnmitees about the financial health of the GSEs during 2003 Congressional investigations into Fannie and Freddies corruption.

Through lies, propaganda and spreading misinformation the Democrats have gone to great lengths to blame the 2008 Subprime crisis on Bush and the Banks

The official talking point on the left is that the Subprime Bubble started in 2004. That the entire Subprime crisis was built on the loans made post 2004 and whithin Bush's 1 % Homeowner ship increase.

But here's a graph of Homeowner ship rates going all the way back to 1975.

US homeownership rate falls to a 17-year low of 65.3% in Q3 as 'homeownership bubble' continues to deflate - AEI | Carpe Diem Blog » AEIdeas

Sorry but I'm just seeing a post 2004 bubble. Are they using another graph ? And what about that 5 % increase in Homeownership rates under Clinton ? Refering to the graph, how is that 5% increase under Clinton NOT a bubble while the 2004 - 2008 decline qualifies as the Bubble that bankrupted both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ?

Maybe theyreq reading it upside down.

View attachment 67190666

Click to expand...

Everyone knows that Clinton caused the bubble that burst on GWB's watch.

Nobody blamed Bush.

It was McCain's ill fated prophecy that "the fundamentals of the economy are sound" which cost him the election.

And Romney's continuous lying about his record on Romneycare and assault weapons bans lost him the next election.

McCain and Romney made fools of themselves.

There was no lying by the DNC needed.

Your straw man does not work.

Riveroaks said:

Everyone knows that Clinton caused the bubble that burst on GWB's watch.

Nobody blamed Bush.

It was McCain's ill fated prophecy that "the fundamentals of the economy are sound" which cost him the election.

And Romney's continuous lying about his record on Romneycare and assault weapons bans lost him the next election.

McCain and Romney made fools of themselves.

There was no lying by the DNC needed.

Your straw man does not work.

Click to expand...

Oh I'm well aware of what caused the Subprime crisis.

But we have poster ( s ) here that claim otherwise, that claim lending standards were lowered post 2004. This thread isn't about the GOP losing in 08 or 2012

It's to address and expose the blame Bush STRAWMAN. The narrative that he was responsible for the 2008 Subprime crisis.

betuadollar said:

The Bush administration didn't do us any favors, either. Because first they passed legislation making private student loans non-dischargeable - ever - and then they pushed those loans on kids at 7%. Because there simply wasn't enough student aid available. So now, rather than taking mortgages to purchase homes, they are mortgaged to that stupid piece of paper. Forever. And that is definitely going to have a long term impact on our housing market. Stupid is as stupid does; it seems we just can't get enough of stupid in this country. And corruption is everywhere, in all levels of government.

Click to expand...

Not really relevant and in no way comparable to what the Democrat party did to the American economy, markets all over the world and millions of home owners undee the banner of " economic justice, fairness and equality "

Fenton said:

Not really relevant and in no way comparable to what the Democrat party did to the American economy, markets all over the world and millions of home owners undee the banner of " economic justice, fairness and equality "

Click to expand...

It's not really relevant to who? It's relevant to everyone that owns a home and has children in college, isn't it? These children should be purchasing homes; instead they're indebted - mortgaged - to a piece of paper. Bush enslaved them, for life, to the private bankers of the educational system. That's despicable.

To put this another way: Everyone in America took a double hit: One from Clinton and one from Bush; they're both corrupt and despicable people.

All I can do is LOL. Fenton you've been proven wrong on blaming just the Dems for the 2008 crash and bubble about a dozen times, See Phil Gramm.. But still you refuse to learn.

Some people never do learn.

Phil Gramm(Republican Senator- Texas):

As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee from 1995 through 2000, Gramm was Washington's most prominent and outspoken champion of financial deregulation. He played a leading role in writing and pushing through Congress the 1999 repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial banks from Wall Street. He also inserted a key provision into the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act that exempted over-the-counter derivatives like credit-default swaps from regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Credit-default swaps took down AIG, which has cost the U.S. $150 billion thus far.

SenorXm/Sirius said:

All I can do is LOL. Fenton you've been proven wrong on blaming just the Dems for the 2008 crash and bubble about a dozen times, See Phil Gramm.. But still you refuse to learn.

Some people never do learn.

Phil Gramm(Republican Senator- Texas):

As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee from 1995 through 2000, Gramm was Washington's most prominent and outspoken champion of financial deregulation. He played a leading role in writing and pushing through Congress the 1999 repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial banks from Wall Street. He also inserted a key provision into the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act that exempted over-the-counter derivatives like credit-default swaps from regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Credit-default swaps took down AIG, which has cost the U.S. $150 billion thus far.

Click to expand...

Proven wrong by who ? Definately NOT you.

Youre still parroting the Glass Steagal talking points and blaming it on the Banks

2 years before Glass Steagal Freddie Mac securitized 384 Million dollars in Subprime loans.

1 year before Glass Steagal Janet Reno bragged about the effectivness of Clintons CRA changes as she publicly named 13 already settled and successful DOJ shakedowns against lenders for " discrimination ". She vowed to do more

4 years before Glass Steagal ACORN was taking out adds in major newspapers telling people who had no downpayment, a foreclosure and low income that they could still buy a home ( with ACORNs assistance )

4 years before Glass Steagal Clinton gave the GSEs a 42 % Subprime purchase quota.

7 years before Glass Steagal Clinton created the 10 agency strong " fair lending task force "

6 years before Glass Steagal Fannie Mae CEO and Democrat James Johnson commited the GSEs to 1 Trillion dollars in Subprime purchases.

The same Year Glass Steagall was passed Andrew Cuomo committed the GSEs to 2.4 Trillion dollars in Subprime purchases.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Fenton said:

Proven wrong by who ? Definately NOT you.

Youre still parroting the Glass Steagal talking points and blaming it on the Banks

2 years before Glass Steagal Freddie Mac securitized 384 Million dollars in Subprime loans.

1 year before Glass Steagal Janet Reno bragged about the effectivness of Clintons CRA changes as she publicly named 13 already settled and successful DOJ shakedowns against lenders for " discrimination ". She vowed to do more

4 years before Glass Steagal ACORN was taking out adds in major newspapers telling people who had no downpayment, a foreclosure and low income that they could still buy a home ( with ACORNs assistance )

4 years before Glass Steagal Clinton gave the GSEs a 42 % Subprime purchase quota.

7 years before Glass Steagal Clinton created the 10 agency strong " fair lending task force "

6 years before Glass Steagal Fannie Mae CEO and Democrat James Johnson commited the GSEs to 1 Trillion dollars in Subprime purchases.

The same Year Glass Steagall was passed Andrew Cuomo committed the GSEs to 2.4 Trillion dollars in Subprime purchases.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

LOL. Funny, about 5-6 months ago YOU blamed the crash all on the Dems and Clinton because as you said ' Clinton signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.. Of course after I pointed out that the Phil Gramm had his hand in both Acts, and the
Gramm-L-B Act was a Republican bill, now you say neither had any affect on the crash.

Enough. There's no way, or no one that can change your mind. You say the same wrong things over and over. You just want to live in your partisan, everything that's bad is the Dems fault world. Enjoy it.

Fenton said:

Most of us are fully aware of the Democrats substantial role in the Financial crisis.

From Clinton's 10 Federal Agency strong " Fair lending Task Force " that forced Banks to lower their lending standards or face DOJ prosecution to Clintons co-opting of the GSEs into Subprime to the Democrats lying in front of Congressional Comnmitees about the financial health of the GSEs during 2003 Congressional investigations into Fannie and Freddies corruption.

Through lies, propaganda and spreading misinformation the Democrats have gone to great lengths to blame the 2008 Subprime crisis on Bush and the Banks

The official talking point on the left is that the Subprime Bubble started in 2004. That the entire Subprime crisis was built on the loans made post 2004 and whithin Bush's 1 % Homeowner ship increase.

But here's a graph of Homeowner ship rates going all the way back to 1975.

US homeownership rate falls to a 17-year low of 65.3% in Q3 as 'homeownership bubble' continues to deflate - AEI | Carpe Diem Blog » AEIdeas

Sorry but I'm just seeing a post 2004 bubble. Are they using another graph ? And what about that 5 % increase in Homeownership rates under Clinton ? Refering to the graph, how is that 5% increase under Clinton NOT a bubble while the 2004 - 2008 decline qualifies as the Bubble that bankrupted both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ?

Maybe theyreq reading it upside down.

View attachment 67190666

Click to expand...

After the dot.com bubble burst the money slushing around the financial markets found a home in housing. That is very simple. That brings us back to Clinton and Greenspan whose larges had put too much money in the system.

Fenton said:

Sorry but I'm just seeing a post 2004 bubble. Are they using another graph ? And what about that 5 % increase in Homeownership rates under Clinton ? Refering to the graph, how is that 5% increase under Clinton NOT a bubble while the 2004 - 2008 decline qualifies as the Bubble that bankrupted both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Click to expand...

You are asking reasonable questions, but we cannot ignore the totality of all that lead up to the crash.

The harsh truth of the matter is we have plenty of blame to spread around. In some ways you can call it a sad comedy of errors going back decades in the making.

When it comes to the deregulation part of the fiasco we can place blame on Bill Clinton and the Republican 106th Congress, for giving us both the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. That gave us both a repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and removing some credit default swaps form regulation, respectfully. Even though Clinton signed all this nonsense, we do not get to discount that Phil Gramm and plenty of Republicans in Congress championed the idea of deregulation in a myriad of ways. This paved the way for idiots like Chris Cox (sleeping at the wheel over at the SEC,) and various credit agencies to ignore what was happening. It also paved the way for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase the amount of horrible decision making. Thanks to people like Franklin Raines.

But, you can place some blame Community Reinvestment Act type thinking. Which over the years from a series of changes placed greater pressure on banks to make questionable loans, report on loans to depressed communities, and in some respects designed the whole idea of lending practices to less than ideal consumers. The whole idea of a subprime mortgage in the first place was to account for those who could not obtain a mortgage in traditional terms, at great government influence. Various expansions to CRA (like the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992,) including other sources of changes (like the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999) made this a driving force in how the government looked at banks making loans. Forced bad loans? No. Influenced them to? Absolutely. We know that is factual based on the activity of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac throughout the portion of that graph from 1996 to 2005 in concert with the raw number of home loans growth from your graph. The trend changes starting in 1995 had plenty of help.

We do not get to ignore the role played by the Fed and Alan Greenspan. Who ultimately decided that low interest rates for an extended amount of time in combination with a political stance of being against financial sector regulation was wise. And it proved to be such a mistake that he later admitted it was wrong to "presume that financial firms would regulate themselves." Then to make matters worse Hank Paulson came along and made mistakes in handling Lehman and the original version of the bailout.

And lastly we would be remiss if we failed to mention those financial firms themselves. Namely dip****s like Angelo Mozilo (Countrywide co-founder and CEO,) Ken Lewis (CEO of Bank of America, who bought Countrywide after putting bank money into the organization,) Sandy Weill (Citigroup, and a huge supporter of Phil Gramm,) Richard Fuld (over at Lehman,) Lloyd Blankfein (Goldman Sachs CEO, who literally pushed them away from the client into an organization that bet against their clients,) and Joe Cassano (over at AIG, specifically their financial-products unit) who literally ran long term large financial and/or insurance organizations right into the ground.

Go read 'All the Devils Are Here' by Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera, it will explain a great deal all the shenanigans from Congress to Wall Street going back decades. But the point of all this is we run into huge problems blaming any one party, or one step in this fiasco driven by greed and corruption.

SenorXm/Sirius said:

LOL. Funny, about 5-6 months ago YOU blamed the crash all on the Dems and Clinton because as you said ' Clinton signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.. Of course after I pointed out that the Phil Gramm had his hand in both Acts, and the
Gramm-L-B Act was a Republican bill, now you say neither had any affect on the crash.

Enough. There's no way, or no one that can change your mind. You say the same wrong things over and over. You just want to live in your partisan, everything that's bad is the Dems fault world. Enjoy it.

Click to expand...

Actually, I was responding to a poster who blamed the 2008 Subprime Crisis on Bush
" de-regulation ".

Context is important.

I just reminded him that if you're going to blame the Crisis on " de-regulation " then you need to fault the President thats actually responsible for deregulating the Financial industry.

Bill Clinton.

I also reminded him as I frequently do that the 2008 Subprime Crisis is rooted in REGULATION, not " de-regulation."

From Bill Clinton forcing Banks to lower their leending standards to his corrupting and co-opting the GSEs into the Subprime market.

Fenton said:

From Bill Clinton forcing Banks to lower their leending standards

Click to expand...

You do realize that NONE of the Mortgage banks(like Countrywide, 1 of the biggest liars, fraud and forgers in the bubble/crash), credit unions, etc. were beholding to the CRA. Many banks weren't either.

Of course just pointing at Clinton and the Dems is all you know, it is all you can do. The facts that the bubble and crash were BOTH parties fault, and the banks because of their greed, fraud and forgery were also complacent means nothing to you. The banks lobbied for DECADES to get Phil Gramm and the rest in Congress and whoever was in the WH to lift some regulations so the banks could have a free hand.

I'm done with you on this topic. It's obvious you don't want to know the whole story, you just want to live in your partisan world.

Good Day.

Fenton said:

Actually, I was responding to a poster who blamed the 2008 Subprime Crisis on Bush
" de-regulation ".

Context is important.

I just reminded him that if you're going to blame the Crisis on " de-regulation " then you need to fault the President thats actually responsible for deregulating the Financial industry.

Bill Clinton.

I also reminded him as I frequently do that the 2008 Subprime Crisis is rooted in REGULATION, not " de-regulation."

From Bill Clinton forcing Banks to lower their leending standards to his corrupting and co-opting the GSEs into the Subprime market.

Click to expand...

Actually, no. You need to hold responsible everyone that came up with deregulation, in all of its parts. Namely the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, brought to Clinton by a Republican ran 106th Congress. That means we blame Bill Clinton *and* Congress at the same time, which was both House and Senate majority Republican.

Financial industry deregulation did not start with Clinton appealing to Congress to pass said legislation, that effort was primarily headed by Phil Graham (R-Texas,) and Jim Leach (R-Iowa.) The House vote on both key acts was bipartisan, but the Senate vote was almost right down party lines for both acts.

And it should be noted that during that debate, John Dingell (D-Michigan) said that if Financial Services Modernization Act passed the banks would not only become "too big to fail" but also "tax payers are going to be called upon to cure the failures we are creating tonight." And in both cases, he was dead on right.

Fenton said:

Most of us are fully aware of the Democrats substantial role in the Financial crisis......
Through lies, propaganda and spreading misinformation the Democrats have gone to great lengths to blame the 2008 Subprime crisis on Bush and the Banks
The official talking point on the left is that the Subprime Bubble started in 2004.

Click to expand...

Fenton said:

But we have poster ( s ) here that claim otherwise, that claim lending standards were lowered post 2004.

Click to expand...

Scene: Old west saloon. Vern playing poker in the back. Prostitute bursts in
Prostitute: Vern! Sheriff Fenton is calling you out.
Vern: ( slowly puts cards down. picks up shot glass ) if its a showdown he wants... (drinks shot).
Cue Spaghetti western music
Fenton, I don’t have to go to “great lengths” to post Bush’s Working Group on Financial Markets telling you it started late 2004. You however do have to go to “great lengths” to ignore it.

Vern said:

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that 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.”
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/Documents/q4progress update.pdf

Click to expand...

Cue Spaghetti western music

OrphanSlug said:

You are asking reasonable questions, but we cannot ignore the totality of all that lead up to the crash.

The harsh truth of the matter is we have plenty of blame to spread around. In some ways you can call it a sad comedy of errors going back decades in the making.

When it comes to the deregulation part of the fiasco we can place blame on Bill Clinton and the Republican 106th Congress, for giving us both the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. That gave us both a repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and removing some credit default swaps form regulation, respectfully. Even though Clinton signed all this nonsense, we do not get to discount that Phil Gramm and plenty of Republicans in Congress championed the idea of deregulation in a myriad of ways. This paved the way for idiots like Chris Cox (sleeping at the wheel over at the SEC,) and various credit agencies to ignore what was happening. It also paved the way for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase the amount of horrible decision making. Thanks to people like Franklin Raines.

But, you can place some blame Community Reinvestment Act type thinking. Which over the years from a series of changes placed greater pressure on banks to make questionable loans, report on loans to depressed communities, and in some respects designed the whole idea of lending practices to less than ideal consumers. The whole idea of a subprime mortgage in the first place was to account for those who could not obtain a mortgage in traditional terms, at great government influence. Various expansions to CRA (like the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992,) including other sources of changes (like the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999) made this a driving force in how the government looked at banks making loans. Forced bad loans? No. Influenced them to? Absolutely. We know that is factual based on the activity of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac throughout the portion of that graph from 1996 to 2005 in concert with the raw number of home loans growth from your graph. The trend changes starting in 1995 had plenty of help..

Click to expand...

Banks were not slowly pressured over years to lower their lending standards.

In the early 90s after directing the Boston Fed to complete a study on " discriminatory lending practices " used by Banks to discriminate against minority borrowers, Clinton put together the 10 Federal Agency strong " Fair Lending Task Force".

It's job was to root out and prosecute " racist " Banks through threats of DOJ prosecution and the denial of access to the Secondary markets among other things.

Compliance with the new Federal Regulations meant that Banks had to abandon their decades old standards used to vet lenders and to create " flexible underwriting techniques " or suffer the consequences.

In 1998 Janet Reno gave a speech where she applauded the success of Clintons new regulations noting that the DOJ had already successfully prosecuted 13 Banks for " discrimination " and she vowed to target more.
Banks were also being sued by HUD, and Community activist groups like ACORN.

The roots of the Crisis were thorougy wrapped up in Clinton's CRA changes.

Here's the problem. If Banks were actually discriminating against people based on the color of their skin why would the Clinton administration force Banks to lower their lending standards to combat this supposed racism ?

Racial discrimination meant that two lenders with the same income, cedit score and dowpayment were being treated differently based on Skin color. Lending standards wouldn't have to be lowered to address that issue.

The reality is the Democrats declared the decades old lending standards that had kept the Banks and the mortgage industry stable for decades innately racist. So, they changed them.

But let's call this what it was. A unprecedented Government perpetuated and condoned shakedown of our Nations Financial system with red herrings like Glass Steagall to distract everyone from the truth.

Note the graph I posted in the first post. There was no " housing bubble " after 2004. On the contrary. People point to the end , to the decline of Clinton bubble and blame the Banks.

Banks weren't the one's who were distibuiting "AAA" MBSs filled with assets in default by the hundreds of billions of dollars. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were

Banks weren't the ones who were being investigated for corrupt accounting techniques and hiding hundreds of billions of dollars in worthless debt, the GSEs were.

Take the GSEs out of the equation and Clintons Regulations and there wouldn't have been a 2008 Crisis

And CountryWides #1 customer was Fannie Mae. A bussines relationship that started in the late 90s when Countrywide created a loan product specifically for Fannie Mae called the Fast and EZ loan

Fenton said:

The roots of the Crisis were thorougy wrapped up in Clinton's CRA changes..

Click to expand...

Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

fenton, once again has to go to "great lengths" to ignore the facts

Cue Spaghetti western music

Vern said:

Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

fenton, once again has to go to "great lengths" to ignore the facts

Cue Spaghetti western music

Click to expand...

:lamo

Yes VERN, we've already established that Clinton's CRA changes were instrumental in creating the Sub-prime Housing bubble. Don't believe me ? Well then maybe you'll believe Janet Reno..

03-20-98: REMARKS OF THE HONORABLE JANET RENO TO THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION

" The new Community Reinvestment Act regulations enable lenders to develop customized strategic plans for meeting their obligations under the Act, and many have been developed in partnership with your local organizations. In this way you are not only helping to rebuild your communities, but you are showing bankers how to be responsible corporate citizens. In short, you can't do it just with capital, you can't do it just with people who care; we can do it together.

We want to see equal credit being offered by banks because it is the right thing to do, because the law requires it, because it is good business, because people accept it.

You've noted that since the inception of our fair lending initiative in 1992 the Department has filed and settled 13 major fair lending lawsuits. We are going to continue these efforts under the Acting Assistant Attorney General Bill Lann Lee in every way that we possibly can. We will continue to focus on discrimination in underwriting, the process of evaluating the qualifications of credit applicants. This was the issue in our suits against Shawmut in Boston, Northern Trust Company in Chicago, and First National Bank of Donna Anna in New Mexico. "


Don't believe Janet Reno ?? When the how about Clinton's own Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin ?

Clinton Library's Doc Dump Reveals CRA Role In Subprime Mess - Investors.com

During the 1990s, former Clinton aides bragged that more aggressive enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act pressured banks to issue riskier mortgages, lending more proof the anti-redlining law fueled the crisis.

"Public disclosure of CRA ratings, together with the changes made by the regulators under your leadership, have significantly contributed to ... financial institutions ... meeting the needs of low- and moderate-income communities and minorities," Rubin gushed. "Since 1993, the number of home mortgage loans to African Americans increased by 58%, to Hispanics by 62% and to low- and moderate-income borrowers by 38%, well above the overall market increase.

"Since 1992, nonprofit community organizations estimate that the private sector has pledged over $1 trillion in loans and investment under CRA."

Other documents reveal how the community-activist group ACORN and other organizations met with Rubin and other top Clinton aides on "improving credit availability for minorities."

Clinton's changes to the CRA let ACORN use the act's ratings to "target merging firms with less-than-stellar records and to get the banks to agree to greater community investment as a condition of regulatory approval for the merger," White House aide Ellen Seidman wrote in 1997 to Clinton chief economist Gene Sperling.

"Community groups have come to recognize how terribly powerful CRA has been as a tool for making credit available in previously underserved communities," Seidman added.
Seidman later boasted that Clinton's 1995 CRA revisions created not only the subprime mortgage market but also the subprime securities market."



WHY you have to be retaught this again and again is beyond me VERN. I'm just going to assume your'e a slow learner. Oh, and speaking of being a slow learner, how about that post 2004 " Housing Bubble "?

Funny thing is when I refer to the Homeowner-ship chart below, I don't see a post 2004 Housing Bubble. On the contrary. You know what I think, I think youv'e been reading it upside-down this WHOLE time....How embarrassing. :lamo :lamo

Fenton said:

Not really relevant and in no way comparable to what the Democrat party did to the American economy, markets all over the world and millions of home owners undee the banner of " economic justice, fairness and equality "

Click to expand...

Then why did Bush make this speech in 2002 if it wan't to kick off the housing bubble?

The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so. The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America. Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics own homes. That ownership gap signals that something might be wrong in the land of plenty. And we need to do something about it.
We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems. So I've set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 -- million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) Five-and-a-half million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a realistic goal. But it's going to mean we're going to have to work hard to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the federal government, but the private sector, as well.

And so I want to, one, encourage you to do everything you can to work in a realistic, smart way to get this done. I repeat, we're here for a reason. And part of the reason is to make this dream extend everywhere.

I'm going to do my part by setting the goal, by reminding people of the goal, by heralding the goal, and by calling people into action, both the federal level, state level, local level, and in the private sector. (Applause.)
And so, therefore, I've called -- yesterday, I called upon the private sector to help us and help the home buyers. We need more capital in the private markets for first-time, low-income buyers. And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and, as I understand, it's about $440 billion over a period of time. They've used their influence to create that much capital available for the type of home buyer we're talking about here. It's in their charter; it now needs to be implemented. Freddie Mac is interested in helping. I appreciate both of those agencies providing the underpinnings of good capital.

Click to expand...

HUD Archives: President George W. Bush Speaks to HUD Employees on National Homeownership Month (6/18/02)

And why did Bush use Federal power to thwart the States' attorney's from regulating the Commercial banks predatory mortgages with their own laws?
Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

joG said:

After the dot.com bubble burst the money slushing around the financial markets found a home in housing. That is very simple. That brings us back to Clinton and Greenspan whose larges had put too much money in the system.

Click to expand...

Not by accident it didn't. Clinton's plan was to use the GSEs as a buffer to hold and sell all of the toxic debt that came from his administration lowering lending standards. You see, no Bank could keep Sub-prime loans in their portfolios for long and remain solvent.

If Banks go down due to being loaded up with toxic mortgages then there would be no one to make CRA loans. So Clinton gave Fannie and Freddie new" affordable lending " goals and in 1995 raised their Sub-prime quota to 42 %. He also appointed his criminal buddies ( Franklin Raines ) to run them

In 2000 Andrew Cuomo committed the GSEs to 2.4 Trillion dollars in Sub-prime purchases.

Prior to 1992 the GSEs never held more than 10% of low quality mortgages. It's why GSE MBSs were such a safe investment.

With the GSE's buying up all of the SUb-Prime loans from lenders, Banks could continue to make these loans and stay within the confines of Clinton's new CRA regulations. Co-opting Fannie and Freddie into the Sub-prime market was a exceptionally destructive decision made by the Clinton administration.

The GSE's bought worthless mortgages, bundled them and then sold them off as " AAA " securities to Capital Markets all over the world. Their " AAA " rating was blamed on the ratings agencies by Obama's DOJ, but the Democrats in the 90's demanded that GSE securities maintain the same rating as US Treasuries.

This meant that these Securities, backed by assets in default were guaranteed by the Federal Government. By the Tax payer.

People go after the Banks but the GSE's were heads above more corrupt than any US Private Financial institutions. Investment banks and ANY publicly traded company has to submit quarterly reports to the SEC.

Fannie and Freddie were exempt from doing this until 2006, when after Fannie paid a 400 Million dollar fine the GSEs consented to SEC disclosure laws. Problem is the GSEs were still corrupt and basically hid hundreds of Billions of dollars in toxic debt from well....everyone.

https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-267.htm

iguanaman said:

Then why did Bush make this speech in 2002 if it wan't to kick off the housing bubble?



HUD Archives: President George W. Bush Speaks to HUD Employees on National Homeownership Month (6/18/02)

And why did Bush use Federal power to thwart the States' attorney's from regulating the Commercial banks predatory mortgages with their own laws?
Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Click to expand...

2002 huh ??? I've already dealt with this but hey, why not repeat myself.

Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

2004

February: 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.”

The Democrats Response to Bush's calls for a Third party Regulator were..........

A letter signed by 73 House Democrats sent to the White house...

Barney Frank, Then and Now, CD Edition - AEI | Carpe Diem Blog » AEIdeas

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC 20050
Dear Mr. President:
June 28, 2004

" We urge you to reconsider your Administration's criticisms of the housing-related government sponsored enterprises (the "GSEs'') and instead work with Congress to strengthen the mission and oversight of the GSEs.

We write as members of the House of Representatives who continually press the GSEs to do more in affordable housing. Until recently, we have been disappointed that the Administration has not been more supportive of our efforts to press the GSEs to do more.

We have been concerned that the Administration's legislative proposal regarding the GSEs would weaken affordable housing performance by the GSEs, by emphasizing only safety and soundness.".........

AND a bunch of lies in front of GOP Congressional committees investigating the corrupt Fannie and Freddie....some things never change.

Fenton said:

2002 huh ??? I've already dealt with this but hey, why not repeat myself.

Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

2004

February: 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.”

The Democrats Response to Bush's calls for a Third party Regulator were..........

A letter signed by 73 House Democrats sent to the White house...

Barney Frank, Then and Now, CD Edition - AEI | Carpe Diem Blog » AEIdeas

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC 20050
Dear Mr. President:
June 28, 2004

" We urge you to reconsider your Administration's criticisms of the housing-related government sponsored enterprises (the "GSEs'') and instead work with Congress to strengthen the mission and oversight of the GSEs.

We write as members of the House of Representatives who continually press the GSEs to do more in affordable housing. Until recently, we have been disappointed that the Administration has not been more supportive of our efforts to press the GSEs to do more.

We have been concerned that the Administration's legislative proposal regarding the GSEs would weaken affordable housing performance by the GSEs, by emphasizing only safety and soundness.".........

AND a bunch of lies in front of GOP Congressional committees investigating the corrupt Fannie and Freddie....some things never change.

Click to expand...

Not one answer to my questions. What was Bush's "Minority Housing Initiative " about if it was not meant to kick off the housing bubble? Why did he brag about the $440 billion that Fannie Mae pledged for subprime loans to minority homeowners in that speech? And why did Bush use Federal power to help the Commercial banks avoid State lending laws? These questions are key to understanding the source of the bad loans. Wouldn't you agree that it is far more unlikely and unusual for a Republican President to run a program to get poor minorities into homes than a Democrat? Isn't that what you accused Clinton of? Don't you think there is something "fishy" about Bush's "minority Housing Initiative"? I think it stinks to high heaven and is obvious that Bush was shilling for the bankers who were making a killing on "origination fees" on those subprime stinkers. The more loans they sold off the more they could write. Many more loans were sold to private investors too but that half trillion from Fannie was a gift.

iguanaman said:

Not one answer to my questions. What was Bush's "Minority Housing Initiative " about if it was not meant to kick off the housing bubble? Why did he brag about the $440 billion that Fannie Mae pledged for subprime loans to minority homeowners in that speech? And why did Bush use Federal power to help the Commercial banks avoid State lending laws? These questions are key to understanding the source of the bad loans. Wouldn't you agree that it is far more unlikely and unusual for a Republican President to run a program to get poor minorities into homes than a Democrat? Isn't that what you accused Clinton of? Don't you think there is something "fishy" about Bush's "minority Housing Initiative"? I think it stinks to high heaven and is obvious that Bush was shilling for the bankers who were making a killing on "origination fees" on those subprime stinkers. The more loans they sold off the more they could write. Many more loans were sold to private investors too but that half trillion from Fannie was a gift.

Click to expand...

Yes, I DID answer your question, and what " Bubble " ? The Housing Bubble happened during the Clinton administration, unless you define a 1% increase in Home-ownership rates with a drop off after 2004 as a housing bubble.

Fenton said:

Yes, I DID answer your question, and what " Bubble " ? The Housing Bubble happened during the Clinton administration, unless you define a 1% increase in Home-ownership rates with a drop off after 2004 as a housing bubble.

View attachment 67190710

Click to expand...

LOL Now you deny that there was a bubble? Here it is...



And here...




See it now? It is clearly a huge BUBBLE starting in 2004 and going to 2006. You do realize that these subprime loans were what GW. was selling to Fannie Mae in that speech in 2002. He was a good salesman as these graphs attest. See...I complemented GW. I always give credit where credit is due.

Fenton said:

Yes VERN, we've already established that Clinton's CRA changes were instrumental in creating the Sub-prime Housing bubble. Don't believe me ? Well then maybe you'll believe Janet Reno..

Click to expand...

my goodness Fenton, I've just posted the facts that show Clinton's CRA changes had nothing to do with the Bush Mortgage Bubble. Bush and the Fed told you the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004. the fed called out your lying conservative editorial by specifically saying it had nothing to do with Clinton. Oh fenton, the conservative media knows if they say "data doc proves anybody but bush responsible magic presto" you believe it. And fenton, its another one of those "funny" editorials that tell you " Cuomo raised the GSE low income goals" but fails to mention Bush raised them higher. mmmmm, lets see what happened to Fannie Mae's portfolio when bush raised them. from their 2012 annual report



Ouch, even Fannie Mae's data clearly shows the quality of loans dropping off a cliff in 2005. Fenton, how do you explain Bush, the Fed and Fannie mae's data clearly telling you the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004? oh yea you dont.

Cue Spaghetti western music