Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton[W:336]

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

Basel isn't part of what I'm talking about.

How about RESPA? Reg Z? Reg E? TILA/RESPA? Reg CC? Reg G? QM/ATR? UDAAP? What's your experience with them?

Elizabeth Warren is hurting small banks. I see you live in MA. I can give you the names of 20 community banks in your area, depending on where you are. You can go into any of them and ask to speak with the Compliance Officer, Risk Management, Senior Lender, any executive, etc. and ask them what they feel about the CFPB and Dodd-Frank regs they are implementing.

Click to expand...

Well then if you are specifically talking about RESPA, Reg Z and E, TILA etc......you've NEVER answered the question how that hurts small banks but I'll patiently wait.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

TurtleDude said:

large banking operations often welcome complex regulation because large institutions are more likely to have the resources to cope with these challenges better than smaller entities.

Click to expand...

Yeah, bigger baks can cope better. So what? Fact is, big banks have pushed hard for deregulations for the last 30 years or so. Why do you think?

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

The smaller banks did well? Really?

In the mid-1980s there were almost 18,000 community banks. Now there are less than 7000 and that number gets smaller every day. There have only been a handful of new community banks opened in the last 6 years or so.

The regulatory climate also looks nothing today like it did 25 year ago, or even 10 years ago. Small banks are closing at an alarming rate and have been for the last few years.

With all due respect, you should do some research on the banking industry.

Click to expand...

And that is when de-regulation started. Under Reagan.

Now how many banks went under from the depression reforms to the early 80s? We're talking 50 years here. Tell me, how many???

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

You didn't say anything about bank foreclosures. I wasn't talking about bank foreclosures exclusively. If you're talking about the S&L issues in the 1980s, that isn't what is driving the CFPB and Dodd-Frank.

Click to expand...

Typo. Closures. Your own article cites the smallest number of banks being open in the last 30 years. Why is that? Why did the total number of banks drop through the basement beginning in the 80's with deregulation? You work in the industry, so pretend I'm an idiot and explain it to me simply. And if you don't feel you have to pretend, all the better.

I think i speak for everyone when I say that I always welcome insight from someone with first-hand knowledge on a subject, even when I disagree with him. I'm always happy when Turtledude brings something informative (and concisely) about law into a thread, and I think I can count the number of things we agree on on the fingers of one hand. So that's all I'm asking for here. As it stands, your manner of bringing specifics to this discussion is vague and obscure (such as your frequent use of acronym-dumping), almost bordering on being evasive.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Cardinal said:

A drop that began with deregulation in the 80's, as it would happen. It's kind of hard to swallow the idea that regulation will hurt independent banks when their free fall happened at the same exact time as deregulation.

Click to expand...

Except that deregulation has been a long process not restricted to the 80's. In the crash that ushered in the Great Depression, all banks closed for I believe four days. Some 4,000 or so of them never reopened. Glass-Steagall passed roughly at the end of the Great Depression imposed some necessary regulatory protections for both banks and consumers alike. Otherwise banking laws were pretty well governed by state, not federal laws.

Then in the 1970's, in the Marquette Decision, SCOTUS ruled that banks could export interest rates into other states which ushered in the 'big bank' area as banks scrambled to set up branches in various states. This began the deregulation of state interest/usury laws. And Carter's CRA turned the focus on finding ways for low income people to buy their own homes.

In 1980, the Depository Monetary Control Act did away with state caps on interest rates for mortgages et al, and that began the slow spiral into higher risk loans. With federal backing taking on much of the risk, banks could make more money making riskier loans at higher interest rates.

The Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act of 1982 allowed lenders to get away from fixed-rate amortization loans and go to adjustable rates, balloon payments, interest-only loans. With the option to underpay substantially for several years, borrowers were encouraged to take on debt they really couldn't easily afford.

The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 pretty well trashed all state barriers to interstate banking and the 'too big to fail' mega bank was able to start crowding out the little guys.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealed most of Glass-Steagall that removed all previous barriers to banks, insurance companies, and investment companies collaborating to put together complicated packages for loans and bundling of loans sold as investments which culminated in the next massive crash of 2008.

And from President Carter's administration through the present day, there has been a push, coupled with relaxed banking regulation, to make very unwise loans to the 'poor'--this wasn't much of a problem until the Clinton administration that began to aggressively pursue this and nothing was done to slow it down in the Bush Congress despite some 17 different warnings from his administration that trouble was developing. And when the defaults began occurring en masse, THAT is what caused the whole thing to crash as it did in 2008.

The History of Bank Deregulation | eHow

Now we have Elizabeth Warren who wants to 'streamline' banking regulations but does not oppose any of the policies that actually created the problems with loans in default. And we have Hillary Clinton who understands the banking system not at all, so far as I can tell, and probably doesn't even know how to write a check herself.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

AlbqOwl said:

And from President Carter's administration through the present day, there has been a push, coupled with relaxed banking regulation, to make very unwise loans to the 'poor'--this wasn't much of a problem until the Clinton administration that began to aggressively pursue this and nothing was done to slow it down in the Bush Congress despite some 17 different warnings from his administration that trouble was developing. And when the defaults began occurring en masse, THAT is what caused the whole thing to crash as it did in 2008.

Click to expand...

If I'm not mistake, this problem is addressed specifically in Warren's push for mortgage reform.

Now we have Elizabeth Warren who wants to 'streamline' banking regulations but does not oppose any of the policies that actually created the problems with loans in default.

Click to expand...

You'll have to explain this to me. Be gentle.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Amadeus said:

If I'm not mistake, this problem is addressed specifically in Warren's push for mortgage reform.

You'll have to explain this to me. Be gentle.

Click to expand...

Others have already hit on the finer points. But it seems to me that Warren wants the federal government to take over all the financial industry--she calls it streamlining regulation--and exercise an iron fist on how banking and financial institutions shall be run. But to the best of my knowledge, she has not suggested reinstituting the sensible and necessary regulations that allow and encourage banks to refuse high risk loans or implementing practices that discourage risky behavior.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Middleground said:

Yeah, bigger baks can cope better. So what? Fact is, big banks have pushed hard for deregulations for the last 30 years or so. Why do you think?

Click to expand...

why don't you tell me. some banks did, some were big fas of regulation.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

dad2three2001 said:

Stupid-itus , the radical Reich and their propagandists, We call them the GOPers

Click to expand...

the stupid are those who demand other take care of them

Thanks for Godwinning this thread
that was really moronic

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

AlbqOwl said:

Others have already hit on the finer points. But it seems to me that Warren wants the federal government to take over all the financial industry--she calls it streamlining regulation--and exercise an iron fist on how banking and financial institutions shall be run. But to the best of my knowledge, she has not suggested reinstituting the sensible and necessary regulations that allow and encourage banks to refuse high risk loans or implementing practices that encourage risky behavior.

Click to expand...

She is doing exactly that.

Warren Backs Firmer Mortgage Rules to Bar Return to Lax Lending - Bloomberg

The U.S. Congress should consider strengthening mortgage-servicing standards to ensure banks don’t return to higher-risk lending in a future housing boom, Senator Elizabeth Warren said in a speech today.

The qualified mortgage rule, which requires lenders to verify a borrower’s ability to repay by confirming income and assets, needs to be bolstered because the version taking effect Jan. 10 has insufficient penalties for noncompliance, Warren said at a Mortgage Bankers Association conference in Washington.

“The potential liability associated with writing non-QM loans is relatively small, and in good times, lenders can compensate for those possible losses with higher rates or fees,” said Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat who was elected last year. “We need to consider strengthening or supplementing the QM rule so that it provides an adequate check on overly risky lending even during housing booms.”

Click to expand...

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Amadeus said:

She is doing exactly that.

Warren Backs Firmer Mortgage Rules to Bar Return to Lax Lending - Bloomberg

Click to expand...

The devil is always in the details on something like that isn't it?

And, from your link, here is the devil in Warren's stated position on that, right out of what some would call liberal la-la land:


I am not finding anywhere that she is suggesting that people should save their money and wait until they can afford a home before they buy one. I can applaud better verification on ability to pay, if I could just shake the idea that she interprets 'ability to pay' meaning determining whether they qualify for federal guarantees. Seems to me that her idea for regulation reform is to make sure the 'risky loans' are fully backed by the federal government.

If I am shown to be wrong about that, I'll fess up that I was wrong. But I have seen nothing in Warren's general point of view or philosophy that gives me much confidence that she means anything else.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

AlbqOwl said:

Others have already hit on the finer points. But it seems to me that Warren wants the federal government to take over all the financial industry--she calls it streamlining regulation--and exercise an iron fist on how banking and financial institutions shall be run. But to the best of my knowledge, she has not suggested reinstituting the sensible and necessary regulations that allow and encourage banks to refuse high risk loans or implementing practices that discourage risky behavior.

Click to expand...

"necessary regulations that allow and encourage banks to refuse high risk loans or implementing practices that discourage risky behavior."

LOL

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes


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


Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture


Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

AlbqOwl said:

Except that deregulation has been a long process not restricted to the 80's. In the crash that ushered in the Great Depression, all banks closed for I believe four days. Some 4,000 or so of them never reopened. Glass-Steagall passed roughly at the end of the Great Depression imposed some necessary regulatory protections for both banks and consumers alike. Otherwise banking laws were pretty well governed by state, not federal laws.

Then in the 1970's, in the Marquette Decision, SCOTUS ruled that banks could export interest rates into other states which ushered in the 'big bank' area as banks scrambled to set up branches in various states. This began the deregulation of state interest/usury laws. And Carter's CRA turned the focus on finding ways for low income people to buy their own homes.

In 1980, the Depository Monetary Control Act did away with state caps on interest rates for mortgages et al, and that began the slow spiral into higher risk loans. With federal backing taking on much of the risk, banks could make more money making riskier loans at higher interest rates.

The Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act of 1982 allowed lenders to get away from fixed-rate amortization loans and go to adjustable rates, balloon payments, interest-only loans. With the option to underpay substantially for several years, borrowers were encouraged to take on debt they really couldn't easily afford.

The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 pretty well trashed all state barriers to interstate banking and the 'too big to fail' mega bank was able to start crowding out the little guys.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealed most of Glass-Steagall that removed all previous barriers to banks, insurance companies, and investment companies collaborating to put together complicated packages for loans and bundling of loans sold as investments which culminated in the next massive crash of 2008.

And from President Carter's administration through the present day, there has been a push, coupled with relaxed banking regulation, to make very unwise loans to the 'poor'--this wasn't much of a problem until the Clinton administration that began to aggressively pursue this and nothing was done to slow it down in the Bush Congress despite some 17 different warnings from his administration that trouble was developing. And when the defaults began occurring en masse, THAT is what caused the whole thing to crash as it did in 2008.

The History of Bank Deregulation | eHow

Now we have Elizabeth Warren who wants to 'streamline' banking regulations but does not oppose any of the policies that actually created the problems with loans in default. And we have Hillary Clinton who understands the banking system not at all, so far as I can tell, and probably doesn't even know how to write a check herself.

Click to expand...

+

You'll hang onto the MYTH that the subprime crisis was ANYTHING other than Bush ignoring regulator warnings that started in 2004 (like Reagan did with the S&L crisis that had begun in 1984)? Weird


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


Strong opposition by the Bush administration forced a top Republican congressman to delay a vote on a bill that would create a new regulator for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Oxley pulls Fannie, Freddie bill under heat from Bush - MarketWatch



STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority 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

Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers".


Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform



Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


June 17, 2004

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

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


ANYTHING OTHER THAN PEOPLE SEEING BUSH IGNORING REGULATOR WARNINGS AND PUSHED HIS REGULATORS TO IGNORE THE WARNINGS IS JUST DISHONEST

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

AlbqOwl said:

I am not finding anywhere that she is suggesting that people should save their money and wait until they can afford a home before they buy one.

Click to expand...

Ideally, a bank or lender should advise borrows of the risks of the loan they're taking, not prey upon their ignorance and suck them into an inescapable situation. It's not Warren's job to tell people how to spend or save their money.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

shrubnose said:

Right, but she is kind of a new face.

Clinton has been there forever.

Click to expand...

And may be there a while longer.

Click to expand...

And what is Hillary's skillset?
And be forewarned, depending on what you answer, the next question would be what are her accomplishments?

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

No, it actually wasn't. My post had nothing to do with Bush, who you mentioned in your post.

Do you have anything to add about Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton?

Click to expand...

Sorry , your premise on SEVERAL posts here say regulations/regulators aren't needed. Clearly you are wrong. I pointed out Bankster free to wheek and deal aided and abetted by weak regulatory oversight in the US under Bush, allowed this to happen. If you decide to continue to bury your head to FACTS, I can't help you

BTW, Policy has consequences, thus BUUUSSSSHHHHHH was brought up. Despite right wingers amnesia of 2001-20098

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

dad2three2001 said:

+

You'll hang onto the MYTH that the subprime crisis was ANYTHING other than Bush ignoring regulator warnings that started in 2004 (like Reagan did with the S&L crisis that had begun in 1984)? Weird


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


Strong opposition by the Bush administration forced a top Republican congressman to delay a vote on a bill that would create a new regulator for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Oxley pulls Fannie, Freddie bill under heat from Bush - MarketWatch



STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority 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

Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers".


Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform



Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


June 17, 2004

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

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


ANYTHING OTHER THAN PEOPLE SEEING BUSH IGNORING REGULATOR WARNINGS AND PUSHED HIS REGULATORS TO IGNORE THE WARNINGS IS JUST DISHONEST

Click to expand...

Nice historical rewrite. Here's another version:

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Amadeus said:

Ideally, a bank or lender should advise borrows of the risks of the loan they're taking, not prey upon their ignorance and suck them into an inescapable situation. It's not Warren's job to tell people how to spend or save their money.

Click to expand...

Well she seems to think it is her job to control the financial institutions of America. And I think you are missing the point that she seems to think the government can underwrite the irresponsible quite nicely and seems to have no interest in writing regulation to accommodate the responsible instead of the irresponsible.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

AlbqOwl said:

Well she seems to think it is her job to control the financial institutions of America. And I think you are missing the point that she seems to think the government can underwrite the irresponsible quite nicely and seems to have no interest in writing regulation to accommodate the responsible instead of the irresponsible.

Click to expand...

You're not thinking pragmatically. The problem exists, whether people were irresponsible, foolish, or retarded. Do you want another economic collapse caused by the exact same problem, or do you want sensible regulations that fix it?

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

AlbqOwl said:

Nice historical rewrite. Here's another version:

. . . .Here at IBD, we've done more than a dozen pieces — most recently, in yesterday's paper — detailing how rewrites of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 under President Clinton, along with major regulatory changes pushed by the White House in the late 1990s, created the boom in subprime lending, the surge in exotic and highly risky mortgage-backed securities, and the housing boom whose government-fed excesses led to inevitable collapse.Despite this clear record, we're now besieged by enterprising journalists blaming Republican "deregulation" or the president's failure to recognize the seriousness of the problem or act. But these claims fall apart, as a partial history of the last decade shows.
Bush's first budget, written in 2001 — seven years ago — called runaway subprime lending by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets."
In 2003, Bush's Treasury secretary, John Snow, proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry sincethe savings and loan crisis a decade ago." Did Democrats in Congress welcome it? Hardly.
"I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," declared Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., in a response typical of those who viewed Fannie and Freddie as a party patronage machine that the GOP was trying to dismantle. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," added Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del. . . .

. . . .In 2005, Fed chief Alan Greenspan sounded the most serious warning of all: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk" by doing nothing, he said. When a bill later that year emerged from the Senate Banking Committee, it looked like something might finally be done.
Unfortunately, as economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, "the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter."
Had they done so, it's likely the mortgage meltdown wouldn't have occurred, or would have been of far less intensity. President Bush and the Republican Congress might be blamed for many things, but this isn't one of them. It was a Democratic debacle, from start to finish.
RealClearMarkets - Don't Blame Bush for Subprime Mess​

Click to expand...

WEIRD, YOUR LINK SAYS

'Bush's top economist, Gregory Mankiw, warned: "The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole." He too proposed reforms, and they too went nowhere.'

WHY DID BUSH DO THIS THEN

'June 17, 2004

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

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


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

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 9BUSH) , the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."

http://business.gwu.edu/creua/research-papers/files/fannie-freddie.pdf


SO THE DEMS ARE TO BLAME BECAUSE THE GOP COULDN'T BRING UP A VOTE IN 2005 ON A WATERED DOWN GSE REFORM BILL THAT PASSED WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN THE GOP MAJORITY HOUSE? WEIRD

Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.


OOPS

OH RIGHT THAT WAS THE DEMS FAULT *shaking head*

Freddie Mac's Secret Plan To Kill Reform - CBS News

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


Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform.

The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.”

“What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

Oxley was Chairman of the House Financial Services committee and sponsor of the only reform bill to pass any chamber of the republican controlled congress


TIMELINE:

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


Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf



OOPS

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

AlbqOwl said:

Nice historical rewrite. Here's another version:

. . . .Here at IBD, we've done more than a dozen pieces — most recently, in yesterday's paper — detailing how rewrites of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 under President Clinton, along with major regulatory changes pushed by the White House in the late 1990s, created the boom in subprime lending, the surge in exotic and highly risky mortgage-backed securities, and the housing boom whose government-fed excesses led to inevitable collapse.Despite this clear record, we're now besieged by enterprising journalists blaming Republican "deregulation" or the president's failure to recognize the seriousness of the problem or act. But these claims fall apart, as a partial history of the last decade shows.
Bush's first budget, written in 2001 — seven years ago — called runaway subprime lending by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets."
In 2003, Bush's Treasury secretary, John Snow, proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry sincethe savings and loan crisis a decade ago." Did Democrats in Congress welcome it? Hardly.
"I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," declared Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., in a response typical of those who viewed Fannie and Freddie as a party patronage machine that the GOP was trying to dismantle. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," added Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del. . . .

. . . .In 2005, Fed chief Alan Greenspan sounded the most serious warning of all: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk" by doing nothing, he said. When a bill later that year emerged from the Senate Banking Committee, it looked like something might finally be done.
Unfortunately, as economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, "the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter."
Had they done so, it's likely the mortgage meltdown wouldn't have occurred, or would have been of far less intensity. President Bush and the Republican Congress might be blamed for many things, but this isn't one of them. It was a Democratic debacle, from start to finish.
RealClearMarkets - Don't Blame Bush for Subprime Mess​

Click to expand...

Weird Bush couldn't get passed in the GOP Congress 2001-2007 GSE reform he 'wanted' right?

2003-2005

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority 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

Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers"


READ THAT LAST SENTENCE AGAIN...

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

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

Bush Increasing Homeownership

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

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

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


Thanks again to the Bush administrations allowing the greedy & unethical brokers to operate at their will.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Amadeus said:

You're not thinking pragmatically. The problem exists, whether people were irresponsible, foolish, or retarded. Do you want another economic collapse caused by the exact same problem, or do you want sensible regulations that fix it?

Click to expand...

We elect those that don't 'believe in' regulations or regulators then are shocked when the Banksters hose US?

Reagan ignored warnings on the S&L crisis that began in 1984 that would have stopped 90%+ oh his crisis

Bush ignored FBI warnings that started in 2004 and ALLOWED the Banksters to run a ponzi scheme on US



Regulations without those in the executive branch to enforce them, is basically useless, IMO

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street

BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street : NPR

“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

AlbqOwl said:

Nice historical rewrite. Here's another version:

. . . .Here at IBD, we've done more than a dozen pieces — most recently, in yesterday's paper — detailing how rewrites of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 under President Clinton, along with major regulatory changes pushed by the White House in the late 1990s, created the boom in subprime lending, the surge in exotic and highly risky mortgage-backed securities, and the housing boom whose government-fed excesses led to inevitable collapse.Despite this clear record, we're now besieged by enterprising journalists blaming Republican "deregulation" or the president's failure to recognize the seriousness of the problem or act. But these claims fall apart, as a partial history of the last decade shows.
Bush's first budget, written in 2001 — seven years ago — called runaway subprime lending by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets."
In 2003, Bush's Treasury secretary, John Snow, proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry sincethe savings and loan crisis a decade ago." Did Democrats in Congress welcome it? Hardly.
"I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," declared Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., in a response typical of those who viewed Fannie and Freddie as a party patronage machine that the GOP was trying to dismantle. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," added Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del. . . .

. . . .In 2005, Fed chief Alan Greenspan sounded the most serious warning of all: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk" by doing nothing, he said. When a bill later that year emerged from the Senate Banking Committee, it looked like something might finally be done.
Unfortunately, as economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, "the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter."
Had they done so, it's likely the mortgage meltdown wouldn't have occurred, or would have been of far less intensity. President Bush and the Republican Congress might be blamed for many things, but this isn't one of them. It was a Democratic debacle, from start to finish.
RealClearMarkets - Don't Blame Bush for Subprime Mess​

Click to expand...

Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae

In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September.

Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005.


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.

WEIRD FRIST WOULDN'T CALL FOR A VOTE RIGHT? DEMS FAULT? lol

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


Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

dad2three2001 said:

Sorry , your premise on SEVERAL posts here say regulations/regulators aren't needed. Clearly you are wrong. I pointed out Bankster free to wheek and deal aided and abetted by weak regulatory oversight in the US under Bush, allowed this to happen. If you decide to continue to bury your head to FACTS, I can't help you

BTW, Policy has consequences, thus BUUUSSSSHHHHHH was brought up. Despite right wingers amnesia of 2001-20098

Click to expand...

Actually, no, I never said that regulations aren't needed, in fact, I never implied it, and I never mentioned regulators to say they aren't needed. I was talking about the CFPB, which has nothing to do with Bush, and everything to do with Elizabeth Warren, who is one of the 2 subjects of this thread.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

Actually, no, I never said that regulations aren't needed, in fact, I never implied it, and I never mentioned regulators to say they aren't needed. I was talking about the CFPB, which has nothing to do with Bush, and everything to do with Elizabeth Warren, who is one of the 2 subjects of this thread.

Click to expand...

Squishy narrative, that's what YOU are. Your entire premise was people aren't stupid and don't need someone between them and the Banksters. Honesty, try it once!