Wow, DOW almost at record[W:411,514] (1 Viewer)

Vern said:

Wow, who would have thought 4 short years after President Obama started, the DOW would be up almost 6000 points. well I think its safe to say "no conservatives". It was only 4 years ago, the screams and chants from the right were

"THE MARKET IS GOING TO ZERO"
"WE WILL HAVE HYPER INFLATION"
"THE DOLLAR WILL COLLAPSE"
"SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM"

here's a supposed financial newspaper explaining it with reason and intellect

"
Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow
"

Michael Boskin Says Barack Obama Is Moving Us Toward a European-Style Social Welfare State and Long-Run Economic Stagnation - WSJ.com

Click to expand...

I thought the Leftists hated Wall Street and wanted to shut them down?

Right now, Wall Street is delivering The Messiah the only tid bit of positive economic news that to be had.

Vern said:

now I have a question (nobody ever answers mine). Why shouldnt he blame republicans? It was Bush's mortgage bubble that destroyed the economy. And all republicans have done is lie about the mortgage bubble. And it was Bush's policy to let Lehman fail. that just threw gasoline on the fire. If you saw the UE graph, UE started shooting up like a rocket mid 2008 precisely because Bush's and republican policies.

So with GDP falling off a cliff at -8.9 % and job losses raging at 700 k a month, republicans then started claiming the deficit was the most important thing and then lying it was only a spending problem. so I blame them for causing it and stopping policies that could help.

And in Jan 2009, the most important thing was stopping the recession. Spending cuts as they claimed we needed would have only made things worse. Look at them now backpeddling and fingering pointing about 85 billion in cuts.

Click to expand...

Bush's mortgage bubble??

Surely you can't be serious?

Vern said:

now I have a question (nobody ever answers mine). Why shouldnt he blame republicans? It was Bush's mortgage bubble that destroyed the economy. And all republicans have done is lie about the mortgage bubble. And it was Bush's policy to let Lehman fail. that just threw gasoline on the fire. If you saw the UE graph, UE started shooting up like a rocket mid 2008 precisely because Bush's and republican policies.

So with GDP falling off a cliff at -8.9 % and job losses raging at 700 k a month, republicans then started claiming the deficit was the most important thing and then lying it was only a spending problem. so I blame them for causing it and stopping policies that could help.

And in Jan 2009, the most important thing was stopping the recession. Spending cuts as they claimed we needed would have only made things worse. Look at them now backpeddling and fingering pointing about 85 billion in cuts.

Click to expand...

Bush's housing bubble? Do you not think it was a bubble created over several decades? What party was in total control of Congress during the President's first two years? The only one that can't keep his story straight is the President and I'm paraphrasing, "I'll veto any attempt to change the terms of sequestration" on November 21, 2011 versus "The sequester will not happen" as stated in the October 22nd debate versus "With the elimination of the Bush tax cuts along with the automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect, we'll achieve major deficit reductions" in his Des Moines Register interview...

Kushinator said:

Again, this is not true. Lending standards are left entirely up to banks. They can be extremely loose (as they were between 2003 and 2006) or extremely tight (as they are now). CRA forced banks to take loan applications from borrowers of the communities they were talking deposits.

Click to expand...

From the National Bureu of Economic Research...

Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?

"Yes, it did. We use exogenous variation in banks’ incentives to conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending activity. Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming."

Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?

In 1994 the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act tied a Banks CRA ratings into whether or not a Bank could acquire new acquisition's.

In 1992 an Affordable Housing Mandate was put on Fannie and Freddie ( in Title XIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 ) which was enforced through HUD ( Housing Urban Development ) regulations by placing them under a Quota System which started at 30% , then 40% and 50% under Clinton and then 55% under Bush. That's out of their total share's of Mortgage Debt Purchased an increasing mandated percentage HAD to be low quality mortgages ( LMI ) and in 2000 the HUD director Andrew Cuomo pledged 2 trillion dollars to of "affordable mortgages".


This is important. From 1993 to 1999 Clinton replaced many of the GSE's key executives including the CEO's and over half of their board of directors. This includes Franklin Raines who was fined for falsey reporting higher earnings so he could consistently meet his bonus targets.

1995: President Clinton and HUD announce the “National Homeownership Strategy” (Homeownership Strategy)

"[Having] forged a nationwide partnership that will draw on the resources and creativity of lenders, builders, real estate professionals, community-based nonprofit organizations, consumer groups, State and local governments and housing finance agencies, and many others in a cooperative, multifaceted campaign to create ownership opportunities and reduce the barriers facing underserved populations and communities."

It's explicit goal....

"Financing more available, affordable, and flexible in order to

[Increase] ownership opportunities among populations and communities with lower than average homeownership rates; reduce downpayment requirements and interest costs by making terms more flexible, providing subsidies to low- and moderate-income families, and creating incentives to save for homeownership; and increase the availability of alternative financing products in housing markets throughout the country."

Franklin Rains...

‘Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,’ said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ‘Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.’ . . .

Edward Pinto

"As flexible lending expands, the volume and risk characteristics of so-called prime loans increases markedly, yet these loans were still called prime. For example, loans with no downpayment acquired by Fannie are called prime merely because Fannie is now willing to acquire them. The same logic applies to loans with impaired credit. HUD acknowledges this in a 2000 rule making."

Evidence:

"Because the GSEs have a funding advantage over other market participants, they have the ability to under price their competitors and increase their market share. This advantage, as has been the case in the prime market, could allow the GSEs to eventually play a significant role in the subprime market. As the GSEs become more comfortable with subprime lending, the line between what today is considered a subprime loan versus a prime loan will likely deteriorate, making expansion by the GSEs look more like an increase in the prime market. Since . . . one could define a prime loan as one that the GSEs will purchase, the difference between the prime and subprime markets will become less clear. This melding of markets could occur even if many of the underlying characteristics of subprime borrowers and the market's (i.e., non-GSE participants) evaluation of the risks posed by these borrowers remain unchanged."

Facts:

The National Homeownership Strategy resulted in the substantial elimination of downpayments.

Evidence:

2007: From only 0.5 percent of home purchase loans in 1990, the proportion of loans with down payments of 3 percent or less steadily increased so that by 2007 they accounted for 40 percent of all home purchase loans."

Government Housing Policy: The Sine Qua Non of the Financial Crisis — The American Magazine

Kushinator said:

Nonsense. GSE's purchased AAA rated securities as mandated by their charter.

Click to expand...

First of all, if they were " AAA ", why is Eric Holder suing Standards and Poor's for fraud ? Holder under J. Reno use to shake down banks, Obama too.

USDOJ: Department of Justice Sues Standard & Poor’s for Fraud in Rating Mortgage-Backed Securities in the Years Leading Up to the Financial Crisis


From a HUD Document prior 2004. Showing HUD's revised goals from 1996 to 200 as it pertains to the GSE's purchases

"3. Details of Housing Goals Established by HUD

All three of the broad housing goals are expressed as minimum goal-qualifying
percentages of all units financed by each GSE in a calendar year, except some (relatively
few) units are excluded altogether from certain goal calculations.

Thus multifamily
properties are weighted much more heavily than single-family properties in determining
goal performance.

The GSEs calculate their performance on each of the goals and they also submit loanlevel data to HUD, which HUD then analyzes to determine “official goal performance.”

Goal performance is calculated annually, with quarterly reports by the GSEs to HUD on
performance for the year to date. Congress established certain penalties for failure to
attain a goal, including submission of a housing plan and civil money penalties. "

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

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

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

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

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

HUD Documenrt Circa 2004

"Over the past ten years, there has been a ‘revolution in affordable lending’ that has extended homeownership opportunities to historically underserved households. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been a substantial part of this ‘revolution in affordable lending’. During the mid-to-late 1990s, they added flexibility to their underwriting guidelines, introduced new low-downpayment products, and worked to expand the use of automated underwriting in evaluating the creditworthiness of loan applicants. HMDA data suggest that the industry and GSE initiatives are increasing the flow of credit to underserved borrowers. Between 1993 and 2003, conventional loans to low income and minority families increased at much faster rates than loans to upper-income and non-minority families."

" From 2004 to 2006, the two purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans, creating a market for more such lending. Subprime loans are targeted toward borrowers with poor credit, and they generally carry higher interest rates than conventional loans."

"In 1995, President Bill Clinton's HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers. The idea was that subprime lending benefited many borrowers who did not qualify for conventional loans. HUD expected that Freddie and Fannie would impose their high lending standards on subprime lenders."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis - Washington Post

Kushinator said:

Come on now! GSE's had to purchase AAA rated securities. Your issue is with the credit rating agencies of the day.

Click to expand...

Again, Holder's suing the S & P for fraud, not that I agree with Holder but it begs the question, why were they considered AAA ? Maybe I can answer that. Because those mortgages, that were crap, were backed by the United States who had, AAA credit.

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2004/05/03/04-9352/huds-proposed-housing-goals-for-the-federal-national-mortgage-association-fannie-mae-and-the-federal

From the HUD archives..

" Through this proposed rule, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing new housing goal levels for the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (collectively, the Government Sponsored Enterprises, or GSEs) for calendar years 2005 through 2008.

The new housing goal levels are proposed in accordance with the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (FHEFSSA) and govern the purchase by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of mortgages financing low- and moderate-income housing, special affordable housing, and housing in central cities, rural areas and other underserved areas.

To increase homeownership opportunities for families targeted by the three housing goals, this rule also would establish new subgoals for the GSEs' acquisitions of home purchase loans that qualify for each of the housing goals. Under the proposed rule, performance under these subgoals would be calculated as percentages of the GSEs' total acquisitions of home purchase mortgages for single-family, owner-occupied properties located in metropolitan areas meeting each of the three housing goals."

The rulemaking also invites comments on whether HUD should have a standard econometrically based method for imputing the distribution of GSE-purchased mortgages that lack income data, and whether HUD should revise its definitions or other rules (including the counting rules) to ensure that only those large scale GSE transactions that are consistent with the statute and its purposes qualify under the goals. "

Doesn't sound like AAA to me Kush.

"Beginning in 1992, Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their purchases of mortgages going to low and moderate income borrowers. For 1996, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target -- 42% of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with income below the median in their area. The target increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005."

"For 1996, HUD required that 12% of all mortgage purchases by Fannie and Freddie be "special affordable" loans, typically to borrowers with income less than 60% of their area's median income. That number was increased to 20% in 2000 and 22% in 2005. The 2008 goal was to be 28%. Between 2000 and 2005, Fannie and Freddie met those goals every year, funding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loans, many of them subprime and adjustable-rate loans, and made to borrowers who bought houses with less than 10% down."

"Fannie and Freddie also purchased hundreds of billions of subprime securities for their own portfolios to make money and to help satisfy HUD affordable housing goals. Fannie and Freddie were important contributors to the demand for subprime securities."

How Government Stoked the Mania - WSJ.com

Fannie’s 2006 10-K report....

"We have made, and continue to make, significant adjustments to our mortgage loan sourcing and purchase strategies in an effort to meet HUD’s increased housing goals and new subgoals. These strategies include entering into some purchase and securitization transactions with lower expected economic returns than our typical transactions. We have also relaxed some of our underwriting criteria to obtain goals-qualifying mortgage loans and increased our investments in higher-risk mortgage loan products that are more likely to serve the borrowers targeted by HUD’s goals and subgoals, which could increase our credit losses."

From a 2000 report from the Fannie and Freddie Foundation...

" Countrywide tends to follow the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted under GSE and FHA guidelines. Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tend to give their best lenders access to the most flexible underwriting criteria, Countrywide benefits from its status as one of the largest originators of mortgage loans and one of the largest participants in the GSE programs. …
When necessary—in cases where applicants have no established credit history, for example—Countrywide uses nontraditional credit, a practice now accepted by the GSEs. "

Kushinator said:

Risky loans were being securitized long before Clinton came into office. The real question becomes, why did Bush appointees to the SEC have a voluntary regulation policy? Which is rhetorical; the economic team during the previous administration had no desire to impose regulations for Wall Street.

Click to expand...

I'm in a bit of a hurry so I'm pulling different data from my drop box account. I'll comment later...

2005 Senate Banking Reform was not supported by Democrats.

Sponsor Chuck Hagel

1/26/2005--Introduced.
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish:

(1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank
Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and

(2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board. Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting:

(1) assessment authority;
(2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets;
(3) minimum and critical capital levels;
(4) risk-based capital test;
(5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises;
(6) enforcement actions and penalties;
(7) golden parachutes; and
(8) reporting.

Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation. Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements.
Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.

Wriiten by the House Republican Conference

. McCain on May 25, 2006, on behalf of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005......

"Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."

This never made it out of committee.....and was NOT supported by the Democrats.

Also Kush, sure there were securitized mortgages prior to 1995, the GSE's invented the MBS and created the first one in the 80's. They used to be a good investment.

When the GSEs bundled low quality mortgages with good one's and pushed them out into the market they created toxic MBS's who's value couldn't be assessed fast enough. Investment Banks that hold on to MBS's too long don't remain Investment Banks. Their money is in "throughput".

Without the securitization of these loans, without the bundling by the GSE's there wouldn't have been a Sub-Prime collapse, there wouldn't have even been a secondary market. It's how the collapse was finanaced

Vern said:

now I have a question (nobody ever answers mine). Why shouldnt he blame republicans? It was Bush's mortgage bubble that destroyed the economy. And all republicans have done is lie about the mortgage bubble. And it was Bush's policy to let Lehman fail. that just threw gasoline on the fire. If you saw the UE graph, UE started shooting up like a rocket mid 2008 precisely because Bush's and republican policies.

So with GDP falling off a cliff at -8.9 % and job losses raging at 700 k a month, republicans then started claiming the deficit was the most important thing and then lying it was only a spending problem. so I blame them for causing it and stopping policies that could help.

And in Jan 2009, the most important thing was stopping the recession. Spending cuts as they claimed we needed would have only made things worse. Look at them now backpeddling and fingering pointing about 85 billion in cuts.

Click to expand...

No it wasn't. You can't convince intelligent people that Bush is responsible for the bubble. Especially after I educated you on the other thread.

You might fall for that nonsense, but your'e not convincing a living soul, unless it's a moron that Bush had anything to do with it. Oh wait, you bring up FHA.

400 MILLION ? Out of 6 trillion ? Plueeeze...Bush tried for 7 years to reign those idiots in...
2001

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)
2002

May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.


September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.


September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)


October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)


November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
2004

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


February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)


April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)


June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
2005

April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)


July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)
2007

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)


August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)


December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)
2008

February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)


March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)


April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)


May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

Vern said:

now I have a question (nobody ever answers mine). Why shouldnt he blame republicans? It was Bush's mortgage bubble that destroyed the economy. And all republicans have done is lie about the mortgage bubble. And it was Bush's policy to let Lehman fail. that just threw gasoline on the fire. If you saw the UE graph, UE started shooting up like a rocket mid 2008 precisely because Bush's and republican policies.

So with GDP falling off a cliff at -8.9 % and job losses raging at 700 k a month, republicans then started claiming the deficit was the most important thing and then lying it was only a spending problem. so I blame them for causing it and stopping policies that could help.

And in Jan 2009, the most important thing was stopping the recession. Spending cuts as they claimed we needed would have only made things worse. Look at them now backpeddling and fingering pointing about 85 billion in cuts.

Click to expand...

LOL....Your'e on a roll...2005 McCain and Hagle attempt to get control...

2005 Senate Banking Reform was not supported by Democrats.

Sponsor Chuck Hagel

1/26/2005--Introduced.
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish:

(1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank
Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and

(2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board. Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting:

(1) assessment authority;
(2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets;
(3) minimum and critical capital levels;
(4) risk-based capital test;
(5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises;
(6) enforcement actions and penalties;
(7) golden parachutes; and
(8) reporting.

Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation. Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements.
Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board.

Wriiten by the House Republican Conference

Was not enacted.

. McCain on May 25, 2006, on behalf of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005......

"Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."

It never made it out of committee. Chris Dodd, then the ranking member of the Banking Committee and now its chair, was in the middle of receiving preferential loan treatment from Countrywide Mortgage, one of the companies gaming the system in the credit crisis. Meanwhile, Barack Obama took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the lobbyists McCain mentions in this speech, making him the #2 recipient of Fannie/Freddie money:

apdst said:

I thought the Leftists hated Wall Street and wanted to shut them down?

Click to expand...

Stop posting empty factless rhetoric as fact. Liars told you that or you made it up based on a mish mosh of lies and spin.

apdst said:

Bush's mortgage bubble??

Surely you can't be serious?

Click to expand...

His policies. He was president you know. You are basing your opinion on the lies that liars told you and the bush policies they didnt tell you about. I've documented his policies that led to the mortgage bubble that started in late 2004. And fenton, add "never made it out of committee" to the same pile as "Bush tried to stop the bubble" and "dems controlled congress". It passed commitee. Bush killed it again.

AlabamaPaul said:

What party was in total control of Congress during the President's first two years? ...

Click to expand...

republicans. and republicans increased their control in 2003. The bush mortgage bubble started late 2004 after Bush campaigned on the strength of his housing market. And republicans gained even more based on their housing market in 2005.

Vern said:

Stop posting empty factless rhetoric as fact. Liars told you that or you made it up
based on a mish mosh of lies and spin.



His policies. He was president you know. You are basing your opinion on the lies that liars told you and the bush policies they didnt tell you about. I've documented his policies that led to the mortgage bubble that started in late 2004. And fenton, add "never made it out of committee" to the same pile as "Bush tried to stop the bubble" and "dems controlled congress". It passed commitee. Bush killed it again.



republicans. and republicans increased their control in 2003. The bush mortgage bubble started late 2004 after Bush campaigned on the strength of his housing market. And republicans gained even more based on their housing market in 2005.

Click to expand...

It's a simple approach to life that makes you the life of the party isnt it Vern.

Youv'e offered up nothing to prove your allegations.

The 2005 Bill made it out of committee Vern ? The bill that Hagel and McCain proposed ?

Now your just lying.

We've gotten off track a bit, I blame you vern but I don't want to distract away from the OP's assertion that our DOW being inflated with printed dollars is " making America richer " ...LMAO !

That statement sums up the thought process, knowledge and integrity of your average Liberal.

Bankrupt is the word I like to use. Bankrupt and " susceptable ".

I would have not imagined this in a million years 4 years ago.

That massive Govt pumping into the Securities market is the pathway to a "richer" America.

Hell Mayor Bloomberg said not to worry. We have, apparently an endless supply of money.

If thats the case Mayor clown ass, why do I pay taxes ?

Iwish BO would have told us this in October.

That he was going to pump massive amounts of printed currency into Wall Street and make everybody elses money worth less.

But no one would have voted for him.....




Oh wait. Vern would have.

Vern said:

Stop posting empty factless rhetoric as fact. Liars told you that or you made it up based on a mish mosh of lies and spin.



His policies. He was president you know. You are basing your opinion on the lies that liars told you and the bush policies they didnt tell you about. I've documented his policies that led to the mortgage bubble that started in late 2004. And fenton, add "never made it out of committee" to the same pile as "Bush tried to stop the bubble" and "dems controlled congress". It passed commitee. Bush killed it again.



republicans. and republicans increased their control in 2003. The bush mortgage bubble started late 2004 after Bush campaigned on the strength of his housing market. And republicans gained even more based on their housing market in 2005.

Click to expand...

You mean the Community Reinvestment Act that was passed under Jimmy Carter, by a Democrat congress? Those policies?

apdst said:

You mean the Community Reinvestment Act that was passed under Jimmy Carter, by a
Democrat congress? Those policies?

Click to expand...

Clinton gave it a huge shot in the ARM in 1995, changed it from a "process" oriented law to a target oriented law.

Vern will just tell you it's all a evil GOP conspiracy to make Dems look bad. That it never happened.

Obama use to shake down banks in Chicago, Holder worked for Reno when she was threatening banks to force them into compliance.

Look at ACORNs involvment into the HUD mandates and how much tax payer money wound up in their coffers.

It's one big extortion racket run by the Democrats on the false premise that banks, lenders AND the GSEs were being discriminatory towards blacks.

Lending discriminatory ? Uhm...Yea. It's how lending works.

Fenton said:

Youv'e offered up nothing to prove your allegations.

Click to expand...

mmmm, if I said it made it out of committee, why didnt you bother to check? Is it because you dont want to know? Hey, remember when you thought "bush tried to stop the bubble" and "the democratic congress stopped him"? I do. Did you even bother to check that republicans controlled congress? probably not.

But you have an 'emotional' need to believe the lies and spin about the Bush Mortgage Bubble. You demand I prove what I post. You just repeat what you post.

Fenton said:

Youv'e offered up nothing to prove your allegations.

The 2005 Bill made it out of committee Vern ? The bill that Hagel and McCain proposed ?

Now your just lying.

Click to expand...

S190 passed committee. Senate Leader Frist refused to allow the senate to vote on it. The link says "reported by committee". Thats how they say it passed.

Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (2005; 109th Congress S. 190) - GovTrack.us

So it passed committee. Frist refused to allow a vote on it. Dont you find it strange that the editorials you read failed to mention that or even lied about it? Remember how certain you were that S190 would have prevented the bubble but it never passed committee so you blamed democrats. Whats your new 'version'?

Anyhoo, in case you still deluding yourself that "reported" doesnt mean "passed", republicans begged Frist to allow the senate to vote on it (remember it passed commitee)

Freddie Mac Tried to Kill Republican Regulatory Bill in 2005 | Fox News

"In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote."

If you actually read the link and it says democrats opposed it, just know they opposed the amendments the committee tacked on it. The House version of the bill, HR 1461 passed the republican house 391 to 90. And remember what Bush said about HR 1461, he opposed it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers. "

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

Bush opposing it is not hard to believe when you look at the policies he enacted in 2004. (yes policies, not legislation)

DA60 said:

The day Obama took over the unemployment rate was 7.3%.

Today it is 7.9%.

Therefore, the official unemployment rate is higher today then when Obama took office.


If you have a problem with the numbers - take it up with BLS.

Because I do not care in the slightest about your rose-colored glass theories or spin doctoring or imaginary line drawing.

Click to expand...

there. right there. You used the December UE rate even after I told you President Obama was inaugurated in Jan. And why do I even have to tell you he was inaugurated in Jan?

and then you specify the "day". Read it slowly, you said "The day Obama took over the unemployment rate was 7.3%." You specificy the "day" but bemoan my attempt to show the "day" he was inaugurated, UE was easily more than 7.8 %.

again, cons cling to narratives instead of the facts. The facts dont support their beliefs so they create their own reality..

Vern said:

there. right there. You used the December UE rate even after I told you President Obama was inaugurated in Jan. And why do I even have to tell you he was inaugurated in Jan?

and then you specify the "day". Read it slowly, you said "The day Obama took over the unemployment rate was 7.3%." You specificy the "day" but bemoan my attempt to show the "day" he was inaugurated, UE was easily more than 7.8 %.

again, cons cling to narratives instead of the facts. The facts dont support their beliefs so they create their own reality..

Click to expand...

What part of 'I do not care' did you not understand?


Have a nice day.

Btw - again, I am neither a con nor a lib.

Vern said:

there. right there. You used the December UE rate even after I told you President Obama was inaugurated in Jan. And why do I even have to tell you he was inaugurated in Jan?

and then you specify the "day". Read it slowly, you said "The day Obama took over the unemployment rate was 7.3%." You specificy the "day" but bemoan my attempt to show the "day" he was inaugurated, UE was easily more than 7.8 %.

again, cons cling to narratives instead of the facts. The facts dont support their beliefs so they create their own reality..

Click to expand...

Okay I am bored - so I will ask you one simple question.

The latest, official, government provided, unemployment rate on the day Obama was inaugurated was 7.3%?

True or false?

DA60 said:

Okay I am bored - so I will ask you one simple question.

The latest, official, government provided, unemployment rate on the day Obama was inaugurated was 7.3%?

True or false?

Click to expand...

true.

Now let me ask you a question. What do you think it was "the day President Obama was inagurated"?

Bonus question

What do you think it was when anything he did started?

Vern said:

true.

Now let me ask you a question. What do you think it was "the day President Obama was inagurated"?

Bonus question

What do you think it was when anything he did started?

Click to expand...

I have no idea. Higher then 7.3 I would guess.


Let me make this clear to you.

I do not care much about opinions or speculation - whether it is pro or con on almost ANY subject debated on this site.

I care about linked, unbiased, factual statistics.


If you have a link to unbiased, factual statistics that proves (not speculates - proves) what the unemployment rate was January 20. 2009 - I will look at it.

Otherwise - I DO NOT CARE.

Vern said:

mmmm, if I said it made it out of committee, why didnt you bother to check? Is it because you dont want to know? Hey, remember when you thought "bush tried to stop the bubble" and "the democratic congress stopped him"? I do. Did you even bother to check that republicans controlled congress? probably not.

But you have an 'emotional' need to believe the lies and spin about the Bush Mortgage Bubble. You demand I prove what I post. You just repeat what you post.



S190 passed committee. Senate Leader Frist refused to allow the senate to vote on it. The link says "reported by committee". Thats how they say it passed.

Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (2005; 109th Congress S. 190) - GovTrack.us

So it passed committee. Frist refused to allow a vote on it. Dont you find it strange that the editorials you read failed to mention that or even lied about it? Remember how certain you were that S190 would have prevented the bubble but it never passed committee so you blamed democrats. Whats your new 'version'?

Anyhoo, in case you still deluding yourself that "reported" doesnt mean "passed", republicans begged Frist to allow the senate to vote on it (remember it passed commitee)

Freddie Mac Tried to Kill Republican Regulatory Bill in 2005 | Fox News

"In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote."

If you actually read the link and it says democrats opposed it, just know they opposed the amendments the committee tacked on it. The House version of the bill, HR 1461 passed the republican house 391 to 90. And remember what Bush said about HR 1461, he opposed it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers. "

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

Bush opposing it is not hard to believe when you look at the policies he enacted in 2004. (yes policies, not legislation)

Click to expand...

Simple, yes a simple approach to life and ideology as you cherry pick your way through these post and offer up misleading information and lies JUST to blame a MASSIVE CRISIS MANDATED by the DEMOCRATS on Bush,

First, you said "Bush killed it ", WHICH WAS A HUGE LIE...second, Why didn't Frisk allow a vote on it ? Because it LACKED the votes needed to pass in the Senate. ZERO DEMOCRATS stepped forward to add the needed 60 votes to pass the bill. It had the 55 Republicans on board but zero DEMOCRATS.

One things clear with you Liberals, I can be assured you'll do everything possible to refrain from the truth. Blame Bush ? You realize just about everyone but you, knows your Bush blame is a desperate attempt at trying to save your dying exposed ideology and is a lie.

CNN on Franklin Raine's Theft


From the 2004 Republican Inquest into Fannie and Feddie's Corruption


Your argument is pathetic, it's superficial and it's based on a fallacy, that GW Bush had anything to do with the collapse of the Sub-Prime Market. You guys did that, you own it 100 %. Laws that were put into place in the 90's that mandated lower lending standards, that mandated that the GSE's buy up crap loans and inject toxic securities into the market onto unsuspecting investors, a President who stacked the GSE's with his own corrupt Liberal Cronies and your weak assertion that " it's Bush's Fault "

ACORN and Barney Frank had an HUGE issue with Bush's proposed regulations in 2004.

In 2004 Barney Frank was a Senior Democrat on The Financial Services Committee. When the OFFICE of the COMPTROLLER of the CURRENCY ( OCC ) tried to strengthen its oversight of the GSE's Democrat's and ACORN fought back..

In February 2004, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) tried to strengthen its GSE oversight. The Democrat party and its allies, such as ACORN, moved in. In a March press conference, Barney Frank (D-MA) stated, “We cannot accept and leave alone this sweeping decision by a federal regulator to substantially diminish the role state-elected and appointed officials have in protecting their economies and their consumers.”

On April 7, Senator John Edwards (D-NC) introduced legislation to quietly nullify the OCC regulations. On April 30, 32 House Democrats and three Republicans co-sponsored a bill to do the same. In a May 3 letter to Congress, ACORN strongly supported the effort to nullify the regulations, arguing, “the OCC has shut down the laboratories of democracy and its actions place citizens around the nation at risk of becoming victims of predatory lending or other unfair practices.”

C'mon Vern, what other nonsense do you feel you need to offer up to blame Bush...

Here's Barney Frank going after the Agency that was was responsible for GSE oversight because the Bush administration wanted to increase their power..

" In November 2004, Barney Frank (D-MA), senior Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, stated continued OFHEO funding was “inappropriate” due to the controversial nature of the OFHEO report. In a November 2004, he bluntly called for a detailed public investigation of OFHEO, stating “It is clear that a leadership change at OFHEO is overdue.” In June, Mr. Frank had supported the Bush request for additional OFHEO funding…in November, after the September “Special Examination” report, he reversed that support and called for a leadership change."

Barney Frank (D-MA) stated, “I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.”

Here's Democrat Congressmen ( D ) Artur Davis after the collapse..

“Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.

FYI....Barney Frank had a relationship.....eewww...with Herb Moses. Who was "Herb Moses " Vern ??? What was his executive position in the GSEs ?

If you went to Fannie Mae's Website in 2004 and tried to go to the "FAQ's" page after their corruption was becoming apparent you got this message....

“Fannie Mae’s reported financial results follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles to the letter…. There should be no question about our accounting.”

GTG.......be back in a few to continue to expose your hypocrisy and lies....

Fenton said:

Again, Holder's suing the S & P for fraud, not that I agree with Holder but it begs the question, why were they considered AAA ? Maybe I can answer that. Because those mortgages, that were crap, were backed by the United States who had, AAA credit.

Doesn't sound like AAA to me Kush.

Click to expand...

Your issue is with ratings agencies. Blaming the potential purchaser of bundled mortgage bonds for the mis-rating of said securities does not make any sense. Secondly, your source does not make the claim that GSE's were purchasing low rated securities.

Low and moderate income households do not automatically constitute high risk. Credit worthiness is based upon individual assessment of prior history; automatically lumping low/moderate income households as high risk makes zero sense.

Kushinator said:

Your issue is with ratings agencies. Blaming the potential purchaser of bundled mortgage bonds for the mis-rating of said securities does not make any sense. Secondly, your source does not make the claim that GSE's were purchasing low rated securities.

Low and moderate income households do not automatically constitute high risk. Credit worthiness is based upon individual assessment of prior history; automatically lumping low/moderate income households as high risk makes zero sense.

Click to expand...

I gave multiple sources. It shouldn't come down to a personal definition of what a sub-prime or low quality is in the eyes of a GSE that was using corrupt accounting practices to misreport earnings.

I was one told what exactly constitutes a good loan. Three things.

Can he Pay ( Individuals Current and Past Income, Down Payment, Etc )

Will he Pay ( Individuals credit History )

If He Doesn't Pay, Can I make Him ( Collateral )

If the borrower can give you enough information that matches or exceeds the above standards then make the loan.

Your assertion that underwriter standards were only relaxed in the mid 2000's is incorrect. There is a literal library of data out there that shows these standards were mandated by laws enacted during the Clinton administration.

I've been reading and collecting information for over 2 years on the Sub -Prime Collapse. I've only posted a fraction of what's available. The assertion by some that this started under the Bush administration is a desperate attempt at diversion.

The truth is Bush wen't to war against the GSE's because early on in his Presidency he and his economist realized the GSE's mandated policies under HUD were going to lead to a market failure and possibly a economic collapse.

Do you also celebrate gasoline prices rising to new highs as well? Not all rising prices are signals of good economic news, inflation is an evil, and very regressive, tax imposed most heavily upon the lowest earners within an economy.

Fenton said:

Simple, yes a simple approach to life and ideology as you cherry pick your way through these post and offer up misleading information and lies JUST to blame a MASSIVE CRISIS MANDATED by the DEMOCRATS on Bush,

Click to expand...

Democrats mandated nothing. (I’m assuming you finally figured out democrats did not control congress) And I’m not cherry picking. I’m picking out the factual inaccuracies of your posts. And you post so many its hard to choose. I’ve documented the Bush statements and policies that encouraged, funded and protected the mortgage bubble that started late 2004. Bush told you and the facts told it started late 2004. You cant deny what I've posted so you pretend not to see them.

Fenton said:

First, you said "Bush killed it ", WHICH WAS A HUGE LIE...second, Why didn't Frisk allow a vote on it ? Because it LACKED the votes needed to pass in the Senate. ZERO DEMOCRATS stepped forward to add the needed 60 votes to pass the bill. It had the 55 Republicans on board but zero DEMOCRATS.

Click to expand...

Geez fenton, senate votes don’t require 60 votes. They need a simple majority (cue the filibuster delusion). If you read the link I provided you would see republicans weren’t going to vote for it. If you cant even get a majority of votes from your own party, how is that the democrat’s fault? If regulation was necessary (as you believe) then you don’t add amendments that hurt support from the minority paryt for the legislation

Fenton said:

In 2004 Barney Frank was a Senior Democrat on The Financial Services Committee. When the OFFICE of the COMPTROLLER of the CURRENCY ( OCC ) tried to strengthen its oversight of the GSE's Democrat's and ACORN fought back..

Click to expand...

And your assertion that the OCC had anything to do with the GSEs is laughable and just proves you have no idea what you are talking about. Oh and it proves whatever ‘editorial’ you are reading is lying to you. The OCC regulates national banks. And speaking of OCC regulations, that was Bush’s most toxic housing policy. He preempted all state laws against predatory lending. Yes Bush preempted all state laws against predatory lending. Read what the OCC said not what some lying editorial said.

“By early 2004, these concerns prompted Georgia and more than 30 other states to pass laws designed to eliminate abusive or predatory lending practices by the financial services firms, including those with federal charters, operating within their boundaries.
Acting on a request from a national bank, the OCC in 2003 concluded that federal law preempts the provisions of the Georgia Fair Lending Act (GFLA) that would otherwise affect national banks’ real estate lending.

……..
In addition, clarification of the applicability of state laws to national banks should remove disincentives to subprime lending and increase the supply of credit to subprime borrowers.”

http://www.occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/economics-working-papers/2008-2000/wp2004-4.pdf