• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

With all that empirical data I posted, a fraction of what exist to prove the sub-prime collapse was mandated by Democrat policies that "loosened underwriting standards " ( HUDs own words) and forced the GSEs to buy up massive amounts of bad debt, bundle it up with good mortgages and then sell it your still focused on George Bush.

That mixture of quotes in my previous thread were from HUD and the GSEs own documents released during and after the collapse.

I think that Liberals suffer from a type of pathology similar to toxoplasmosis. Its like a turrets affliction that forces them to scream out "its Bush's fault"

It was Bush's administration, he had it with Repub majorities in both houses of congress, and you think it was NOT his irresponsibility?

I've shown Bush wanted 5.5 mil. minorities to be able to buy houses, that's about $550 billion, that's a good start on a big problem.

I've shown how Frist and the repubs killed FnF reform in the senate in 2005.

I've shown how Chris Cox at SEC changed regs to allow the 6 largest banks to triple their leverage, and how they all failed within the next 5 years.

I've shown how Greenspan had the authority to stop this, to regulate both bank and non-bank lending, and he failed to do his job (he's a lifelong repub).

So, unless you think Bush is not responsible after being pres. for 8 years when this all blew up and he had gotten all the legislation that he wanted passed by his congress, it is ON Bush.
 
.Our future and the future of our children is being determined by idiots. Low information voters.

After four years and massive unprecedented inflationary action by the Fed with unprecedented low interest rates its getting worse. The next bubble ?

Bonds. We wont climb out of that unscathed as yields on short term bonds shoot straight up. Sains shot up to over 7%.

You think we can handle an extra trillion a year just in debt service expenditures ?

When economies are decided by ideology rather than knowledge and experience then we get what we see now. And certainly it will get worse.

There is little hope for the future because even those who are poorly informed understand that it is going to get much bleaker and they are desperately trying to pin the blame on the opposing ideology. The same government which gave them below prime interest loans will give free health care now and in 20-30 years (or less) people will be blaming it's collapse on the Republicans, just as they blame them for all social ills and just as they are doing on this thread.

These are low information voters supported by no information voters, otherwise they would have voted for an experienced person to try and correct the steep decline in which the country finds itself today. It's childish, and when a country is run by amateurs the inevitable must take hold.

No one talks about the future of the country anymore in any real way, or the American dream, because they've killed that goose. Now they're in the process of eating it.
 
It was Bush's administration, he had it with Repub majorities in both houses of congress, and you think it was NOT his irresponsibility?

I've shown Bush wanted 5.5 mil. minorities to be able to buy houses, that's about $550 billion, that's a good start on a big problem.

I've shown how Frist and the repubs killed FnF reform in the senate in 2005.

I've shown how Chris Cox at SEC changed regs to allow the 6 largest banks to triple their leverage, and how they all failed within the next 5 years.

I've shown how Greenspan had the authority to stop this, to regulate both bank and non-bank lending, and he failed to do his job (he's a lifelong repub).

So, unless you think Bush is not responsible after being pres. for 8 years when this all blew up and he had gotten all the legislation that he wanted passed by his congress, it is ON Bush.

Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac executives get big housing bonuses - Josh Boak and Joseph Williams - POLITICO.com

Follow the money! Just as you should do with the 'alternative energy companies and the stimulus package.

It's all graft and corruption while they peddle their ideology and create fictitious enemies. They get their power and money knowing they'll be safe from an honest MSM and a knowledgeable electorate.
 
It was Bush's administration, he had it with Repub majorities in both houses of congress, and you think it was NOT his irresponsibility?

The committee wouldn’t let anything out to correct the problem. In February 2004, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) tried to strengthen its GSE oversight. It was fought off by democrats, and dare I say it, ACORN.

I've shown Bush wanted 5.5 mil. minorities to be able to buy houses, that's about $550 billion, that's a good start on a big problem.

He wanted to see more lending to minorities. Did he say he wanted subprime lending in 2002? No.
This mess was made by republicans and democrats. Barney Frank, Clinton, Carter and Bush all had a hand. To lay the entire mess on Bush is ridiculous, especially when they were asking for clarity on the Freddie and Fannie books.
 
Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac executives get big housing bonuses - Josh Boak and Joseph Williams - POLITICO.com

Follow the money! Just as you should do with the 'alternative energy companies and the stimulus package.

It's all graft and corruption while they peddle their ideology and create fictitious enemies. They get their power and money knowing they'll be safe from an honest MSM and a knowledgeable electorate.

The committee wouldn’t let anything out to correct the problem. In February 2004, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) tried to strengthen its GSE oversight. It was fought off by democrats, and dare I say it, ACORN.



He wanted to see more lending to minorities. Did he say he wanted subprime lending in 2002? No.
This mess was made by republicans and democrats. Barney Frank, Clinton, Carter and Bush all had a hand. To lay the entire mess on Bush is ridiculous, especially when they were asking for clarity on the Freddie and Fannie books.

I have said the dems were not helpful. The repubs were driving the bus, and I have shown the stupid things the repubs did, which the right seems to conveniently ignore and try to blame the whole thing on Clinton and CRA, which is wrong.
 
I have said the dems were not helpful. The repubs were driving the bus, and I have shown the stupid things the repubs did, which the right seems to conveniently ignore and try to blame the whole thing on Clinton and CRA, which is wrong.

I would rephrase that too; the democrats built the bus, fueled it, started driving it, the republicans were at the wheel when it crashed. They both had their foot on the gas.
 
The committee wouldn’t let anything out to correct the problem. In February 2004, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) tried to strengthen its GSE oversight. It was fought off by democrats, and dare I say it, ACORN.



He wanted to see more lending to minorities. Did he say he wanted subprime lending in 2002? No.
This mess was made by republicans and democrats. Barney Frank, Clinton, Carter and Bush all had a hand. To lay the entire mess on Bush is ridiculous, especially when they were asking for clarity on the Freddie and Fannie books.

The "commitee" was controlled by Republicans not Acorn. And the COC was used by Bush to stop the States from using their own laws to regulate the predatory mortgages, allowing the Commercial banks free reign. Bush did everything in his power to keep the bubble rolling.
Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
 
The "commitee" was controlled by Republicans not Acorn. And the COC was used by Bush to stop the States from using their own laws to regulate the predatory mortgages, allowing the Commercial banks free reign. Bush did everything in his power to keep the bubble rolling.
Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

ACORN funded congressmen to not move forward on the GSE gaining oversight on Fannie and Freddie.
 
The "commitee" was controlled by Republicans not Acorn. And the COC was used by Bush to stop the States from using their own laws to regulate the predatory mortgages, allowing the Commercial banks free reign. Bush did everything in his power to keep the bubble rolling.
Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

I just finished reading the link you posted. Help me to understand how the OCC use of the NBA allowed for predatory mortgages? I could be missing something but everything I read is in relation to credit cards. The OCC used their power to work with credit cards, not mortgages.

http://www.phil.frb.org/consumer-credit-and-payments/payment-cards-center/publications/discussion-papers/2004/NationalBankAct_032004.pdf
 
"The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (the GSE Act) and HUD’s 1995 National Homeownership Strategy launched a classic race to the bottom based on credit flexibilities. HUD assured broad compliance by drafting virtually the entire mortgage industry. Most significant was the policy to largely eliminate downpayments for targeted borrowers. As the government demanded more and more such lending, particularly those with incomes below 80 percent of median and special target groups, virtually the entire industry responded by moving further and further down the demand curve and out the risk curve. FHA, Fannie, Freddie, banks, subprime lenders, Alt-A lenders, first-time buyers, repeat buyers, and cash-out refinance borrowers all became much more highly leveraged. Moral hazard became rampant as downpayments and initial equity disappeared throughout much of the housing finance system. "

1. That's an opinion.

2. What is the source?

3. It doesn't mention the CRA (which passed in 1977), and doesn't blame it for the mortgage defaults.

By the way, I agree it is bad policy to put people into houses that they can't afford. My point is that the CRA, which attempted to prevent redlining and racial discrimination did not force lenders to lower lending standards.
 
LOL !!! A law firm that "councils" banks on CRA compliance ?

Why not just post a link to MSNBC or some other Lib site that ignorantly blames Bush for a crisis that took the Govt 13 years to complete. OBJECTIVE evidence would be great.

Look up HUD's 1995 Home Ownership Strategy, or hell, here's a statement from HUD in 2010...
HUD in 2010:

… the sharp rise in mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures is fundamentally the result of rapid growth in loans with a high risk of default—due both to the terms of these loans and to loosening underwriting controls and standards. Mortgage industry participants appear to have been drawn to encourage borrowers to take on these riskier loans due to the high profits associated with originating these loans and packaging them for sale to investors. While systematic information on borrowers’ motivations in obtaining these loans is not available, existing evidence suggests that some borrowers did not understand the true costs and risks of these loans while others were willing to take on these risks to tap accumulated home equity or to obtain larger homes.


Loose underwriting standards ?? Who has that kind of regulatory power ? To systematically lower standards for lending institutions ? For GSE's purchases ? Goldman Sachs ? Wells Fargo ?

Nope, as it turns out certain Govt agencies were given regulatory power in the early and mid 90s that had catastrophic effects on our housing market. All of your rhetoric aside, you have to ask yourself, how long are you going to let your love for a bankrupt ideology, for a failing President distort your ability to be objective ?

Again, no mention of the CRA forcing banks to provide loans to unqualified borrowers. In fact, that statement doesn't even say that government regulations were at fault, instead it says: Mortgage industry participants appear to have been drawn to encourage borrowers to take on these riskier loans due to the high profits associated with originating these loans and packaging them for sale to investors. "[P]ackaging them for sale to investors" is referring to the derivatives, which most unbiased analysts say were a major factor in the mortgage crisis.
 
ACORN funded congressmen to not move forward on the GSE gaining oversight on Fannie and Freddie.

And Fannie and Freddie did not have anything to do with predatory lending nor the bubble.....
 
Ok. Since the logic seems to escaping you.

Bank in an area is not lending much money because the area is high risk via their lending standards. CRA comes along in the 90s and informs the bank that they HAVE to lend money in their area of they wish to maintain prime lending rates, expand, aquire another bank or merge with another bank. Further, area community groups would be consulted to see what sort of lending practices occur in the local area.

Bank starts lending in the local area.

Why do you think that is?

Lets take it one step past the bank. Once the loan occurs and a bunch of others, the bank bundles those mortgages out with a rating, which they insure against default and also possibly sell portions of the risk and profit--bundling and CDSs. FnF at some point or another will aquire a portion of the risk, if not outright ownership because they own a significant portion of the home lending market by 2007, just under HALF.

A bank seeing that the government is taking up the risk is going to do what? A bank that is being telegraphed that lending standards are of no consequence so long as their CRA compliance is solid---further that they will recieve rosy reports from inspectors for more funds, aquisitions ratings, etc---all the while their CAMELS rating was dropping. Im not providing you with proof, Im asking that you use your brain and follow the steps of what occurred.

1. The CRA passed in 1977. No major problems seen until the deregulation during the Bush II years.

2. If the banks have the documentation that shows that they had unbiased lending standards and applied them without discriminating on the basis of race, gender etc and did not redline (discriminate against certain neighborhoods) they would be fully in compliance with the CRA.

3. I'm not going to defend all of the regulatory changes and deregulation that happened in the 90s and after, my point is to show that blaming the CRA is factually incorrect.
 
Banks didnt magically find a profit fairy in low income loans, they found a way to socialize the loss and keep the profit. Fix THAT and we will have a healthy mortgage market again.

Now there's a point I can at least partially agree on, and it has nothing to do with the CRA banning discrimination. However, there was something of a "profit fairy;" the derivative.

"Under US law and the laws of most other developed countries, derivatives have special legal exemptions that make them a particularly attractive legal form to extend credit."[29]
^ a b c Michael Simkovic, Secret Liens and the Financial Crisis of 2008, American Bankruptcy Law Journal, Vol. 83, p. 253, 2009 (cited on Wikipedia)


"The strong creditor protections afforded to derivatives counterparties, in combination with their complexity and lack of transparency however, can cause capital markets to underprice credit risk. This can contribute to credit booms, and increase systemic risks.[29] Indeed, the use of derivatives to conceal credit risk from third parties while protecting derivative counterparties contributed to the financial crisis of 2008 in the United States.[29][30]
^ a b c Michael Simkovic, Secret Liens and the Financial Crisis of 2008, American Bankruptcy Law Journal, Vol. 83, p. 253, 2009
^ Michael Simkovic, Bankruptcy Immunities, Transparency, and Capital Structure, Presentation at the World Bank, January 11, 2011
(cited on Wikipedia)
 
Last edited:
I just finished reading the link you posted. Help me to understand how the OCC use of the NBA allowed for predatory mortgages? I could be missing something but everything I read is in relation to credit cards. The OCC used their power to work with credit cards, not mortgages.

http://www.phil.frb.org/consumer-credit-and-payments/payment-cards-center/publications/discussion-papers/2004/NationalBankAct_032004.pdf

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has approved a final rule that frees national banks and their mortgage subsidiaries from complying with state predatory lending laws. The final rule builds on a series of court decisions and OCC interpretations, according to Comptroller John Hawke Jr., and it allows the OCC to pre-empt specific types of state laws that interfere with the lending activities and other powers of national banks.


The American Bankers Association welcomed the OCC's action. But the Conference of State Bank Supervisors said they were "stunned" by the OCC's decision to finalize the rules, considering the concerns expressed by key members of Congress and state officials. "The arrogance and audacity of the comptroller's actions are astonishing," CSBS president Neil Milner said.
State Predatory Lending Laws: OCC Approves Pre-emption Rule

Where do you think the OCC got the balls to be that "arrogant"? The had "Mister Arrogance" himself, GW Bush backing them up that's why. Like Spitzer said, Bush would go to any length to protect the banks and their scam.
 
Last edited:
State Predatory Lending Laws: OCC Approves Pre-emption Rule

Where do you think the OCC got the balls to be that "arrogant"? The had "Mister Arrogance" himself, GW Bush backing them up that's why. Like Spitzer said, Bush would go to any length to protect the banks and their scam.

Jurisdictional pissing match. National banks saying they are subject to national oversight, not state or local. Seeing as its coming from the guy who was seeing hookers at the time, Ill have to see it less as respect for the law and more as a power grab or shakedown to get a settlement down the line.
 
Again, no mention of the CRA forcing banks to provide loans to unqualified borrowers. In fact, that statement doesn't even say that government regulations were at fault, instead it says: Mortgage industry participants appear to have been drawn to encourage borrowers to take on these riskier loans due to the high profits associated with originating these loans and packaging them for sale to investors. "[P]ackaging them for sale to investors" is referring to the derivatives, which most unbiased analysts say were a major factor in the mortgage crisis.

Its really simple if you could follow logic in any sort of process.

Banks needed a mechanism to insure themselves against risk from the types of loans they needed to make to be in compliance with CRA. The government provided that with GSE underwriting, CDS legislation, legalzation of mortgage deriviative formulas that were not sound, approval of the rating system being used at the time, legalization of increased leverage, ever higher GSE targets---all of which occurred across 2 administrations and began in yet a third.

Its not a Dem problem or a Rep problem, its a DC establishment problem. They opened the door by creating mechanisms that allowed it to take place, then refused to regulate it before it crashed. Popular policy doesnt mean GOOD policy.
 
Its really simple if you could follow logic in any sort of process.

Banks needed a mechanism to insure themselves against risk from the types of loans they needed to make to be in compliance with CRA. The government provided that with GSE underwriting, CDS legislation, legalzation of mortgage deriviative formulas that were not sound, approval of the rating system being used at the time, legalization of increased leverage, ever higher GSE targets---all of which occurred across 2 administrations and began in yet a third.

Its not a Dem problem or a Rep problem, its a DC establishment problem. They opened the door by creating mechanisms that allowed it to take place, then refused to regulate it before it crashed. Popular policy doesnt mean GOOD policy.

Actual CRA loans have a better then average sucess rate, it was non-CRA subprimes that made up the bulk of failed mortgages. Blaming the CRA has no basis in fact. Blaming Bush and the Republican Congress for not stopping the scam is a no brainer. They were either clueless or willing partners in the subprime bubble and that is a fact.
HUD Archives: President George W. Bush Speaks to HUD Employees on National Homeownership Month (6/18/02)
 
Actual CRA loans have a better then average sucess rate, it was non-CRA subprimes that made up the bulk of failed mortgages. Blaming the CRA has no basis in fact. Blaming Bush and the Republican Congress for not stopping the scam is a no brainer. They were either clueless or willing partners in the subprime bubble and that is a fact.

Read more closely. All of what I talked about was facilitated to allow a release valve for the risk FOR CRA. In the end it was used for things other than CRA but it was created for the purpose of CRA compliance.
 
Read more closely. All of what I talked about was facilitated to allow a release valve for the risk FOR CRA. In the end it was used for things other than CRA but it was created for the purpose of CRA compliance.

Why is that the reason and not the money they made from selling those bad loans? In your world, bankers don't care about money? Only about fulfilling some toothless Govt. program who's supporters are not even in power? You must think bankers are fools.
 
And Fannie and Freddie did not have
anything to do with predatory lending nor the bubble.....

Wow....

They FINANCED the bubble. Bought the debt, bundled the mortgages, good with bad and sold them off to investment banks as derivitives.

Derivitives filled with rotten loans.
 
Why is that the reason and not the money they made from selling those bad loans? In your world, bankers don't care about money? Only about fulfilling some toothless Govt. program who's supporters are not even in power? You must think bankers are fools.

See this what partisan blinders makes you think. Establishment DC, thought CRA was a good thing and enabling it to do more was also a good thing, so mechanisms that allowed the financial industry to comply with that must be good. And by establishment, I mean Dems and Reps, both sides wanted this monstrosity.

Banks saw they could make a LOT of money from that, they arent off the hook. None of it would have been possible without legislative enablers on both sides of the aisle. Thats why the monumental blame shift is ongoing.
 
Now there's a point I can at least partially agree on, and it has nothing to do
with the CRA banning discrimination. However, there was something of a "profit fairy;" the derivative.

"Under US law and the laws of most other developed countries, derivatives have special legal exemptions that make them a particularly attractive legal form to extend credit."[29]
^ a b c Michael Simkovic, Secret Liens and the Financial Crisis of 2008, American Bankruptcy Law Journal, Vol. 83, p. 253, 2009 (cited on Wikipedia)


"The strong creditor protections afforded to derivatives counterparties, in combination with their complexity and lack of transparency however, can cause capital markets to underprice credit risk. This can contribute to credit booms, and increase systemic risks.[29] Indeed, the use of derivatives to conceal credit risk from third parties while protecting derivative counterparties contributed to the financial crisis of 2008 in the United States.[29][30]
^ a b c Michael Simkovic, Secret Liens and the Financial Crisis of 2008, American Bankruptcy Law Journal, Vol. 83, p. 253, 2009
^ Michael Simkovic, Bankruptcy Immunities, Transparency, and Capital Structure, Presentation at the World Bank, January 11, 2011
(cited on Wikipedia)

Its NOT the fault of the derivitives or the CDSs,which are nothing new.

Its when those derivitives are a bundle of good and junk mortgages and then passed off to investors with no way to assess their true value.

Dont blame the gun, blame the dhooter.
 
Back
Top Bottom