W:1083,1531:2983:3137]******Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

Vern said:

poor OC, I cant help you. I asked eohrn to help you but I knew it was a longshot because it would have required him to show some integrity. Hey, I know, why dont you ask eohrn what he thinks. You like asking questions so ask eorhn>

Click to expand...

Please if you would, reply directly to my remarks, I am not asking another poster anything, I am asking you.

We see banks that had applications to open branches and commit to mergers denied on the basis of CRA compliance. What can be inferred from this?

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

OpportunityCost said:

Please if you would, reply directly to my remarks, I am not asking another poster anything, I am asking you.

We see banks that had applications to open branches and commit to mergers denied on the basis of CRA compliance. What can be inferred from this?

Click to expand...

OC,I have to laugh because like all conservatives you think I have to respond to your questions but never answer mine. And I've answered your question. But sadly, you're still trying to "imply" that if one bank was denied because of the CRA it means the CRA is a requirement. I just don't understand how you are able to ignore the vast majority of banks with poor CRA ratings were not stopped from expanding or merging yet you still cling to the 'requirement" narrative. Let me answer question again

It can be inferred that poor CRA ratings can stop a merger or expansion but its not a requirement. Here's you trying to spin the simple fact that poor CRA ratings can stop (not must stop) a bank from merging or expanding.

OpportunityCost said:

Banks that were denied found it to be a requirement didn't they? How do we know? Because they were denied on that basis.

Click to expand...

So conversely, banks that weren't denied didn't find it to be a requirement. You obviously have some magic definition of requirement that you just cant explain so have to ask "questions" as if what you are posting is true.

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

Vern said:

OC,I have to laugh because like all conservatives you think I have to respond to your questions but never answer mine. And I've answered your question. But sadly, you're still trying to "imply" that if one bank was denied because of the CRA it means the CRA is a requirement. I just don't understand how you are able to ignore the vast majority of banks with poor CRA ratings were not stopped from expanding or merging yet you still cling to the 'requirement" narrative. Let me answer question again

It can be inferred that poor CRA ratings can stop a merger or expansion but its not a requirement. Here's you trying to spin the simple fact that poor CRA ratings can stop (not must stop) a bank from merging or expanding.



So conversely, banks that weren't denied didn't find it to be a requirement. You obviously have some magic definition of requirement that you just cant explain so have to ask "questions" as if what you are posting is true.

Click to expand...

So your assertion is compliance is not required despite evidence of banks being denied expansions or mergers on that basis? Regulations have consequences attached to them to force compliance, generally, the government will enforce the regulation harshly in a few instances to get other parts of the industry to comply.

Other evidence to back the idea is that banks are tested for compliance to CRA standards, there is no point to testing their compliance if there are no consequences to non-compliance.

More evidence is the law itself stating such.

What was your evidence?

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

OpportunityCost said:

So your assertion is compliance is not required despite evidence of banks being denied expansions or mergers on that basis? Regulations have consequences attached to them to force compliance, generally, the government will enforce the regulation harshly in a few instances to get other parts of the industry to comply.

Other evidence to back the idea is that banks are tested for compliance to CRA standards, there is no point to testing their compliance if there are no consequences to non-compliance.

Click to expand...

You've asked that question OC. And now look, you've created a "why bother" narrative out of thin air to cling to your "requirement" narrative. CRA ratings have been explained to you already. You've ignored that the way you ignore the difference between "may" and "will"

More evidence is the law itself stating such.
What was your evidence?

Click to expand...

Asking questions over and over and posting "nuh uh" is not evidence. And ignoring exactly what the law says is also not evidence. Here's the part of the law from your post 3025 that you're not reading.

c) Interested parties. The OCC takes into account any views expressed by interested parties that are submitted in accordance with the OCC's procedures set forth in part 5 of this chapter in considering CRA performance in an application listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

(d) Denial or conditional approval of application. A bank's record of performance may be the basis for denying or conditioning approval of an application listed in paragraph (a) of this section.

Yep, it stills "may be the basis" not "will be the basis". That hasn't changed. You just don't get to post as if "may" and "will" are the same word. But OC, do you know what has changed. You used to pretend banks couldn't merge or expand without compliance. thanks to me you know they can merge or expand without CRA compliance. In fact you know the vast majority of non compliant banks were allowed to merge or expand.

OpportunityCost said:

I said without CRA compliance they can't form mergers or acquire other banks and are hindered from growth.

Click to expand...

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

Vern said:

You've asked that question OC. And now look, you've created a "why bother" narrative out of thin air to cling to your "requirement" narrative. CRA ratings have been explained to you already. You've ignored that the way you ignore the difference between "may" and "will"


Asking questions over and over and posting "nuh uh" is not evidence. And ignoring exactly what the law says is also not evidence. Here's the part of the law from your post 3025 that you're not reading.

c) Interested parties. The OCC takes into account any views expressed by interested parties that are submitted in accordance with the OCC's procedures set forth in part 5 of this chapter in considering CRA performance in an application listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

(d) Denial or conditional approval of application. A bank's record of performance may be the basis for denying or conditioning approval of an application listed in paragraph (a) of this section.

Yep, it stills "may be the basis" not "will be the basis". That hasn't changed. You just don't get to post as if "may" and "will" are the same word. But OC, do you know what has changed. You used to pretend banks couldn't merge or expand without compliance. thanks to me you know they can merge or expand without CRA compliance. In fact you know the vast majority of non compliant banks were allowed to merge or expand.

Click to expand...

May be is the words you will hang your argument on. Banks don't take on unnecessary risks. If they want to expand, they will make sure they are in compliance because they won't want to risk government intervention on their actions. That's how most enforcement works.

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

OpportunityCost said:

May be is the words you will hang your argument on.

Click to expand...

OC, to answer your question (yea, it’s a question even though you used a period), yes, I will hang my argument on the words “may be”. In fact I will hang it just on the word “may”. And don’t forget, I’m also hanging it on the data that showed the vast majority of non-compliant banks were not blocked from merging or expanding. If the law used the word “will” instead of the word “may” all non-compliant banks would have been blocked from merging or expanding. That’s how “requirements” work.

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

Vern said:

OC, to answer your question (yea, it’s a question even though you used a period), yes, I will hang my argument on the words “may be”. In fact I will hang it just on the word “may”. And don’t forget, I’m also hanging it on the data that showed the vast majority of non-compliant banks were not blocked from merging or expanding. If the law used the word “will” instead of the word “may” all non-compliant banks would have been blocked from merging or expanding. That’s how “requirements” work.

Click to expand...

Ah, so laws aren't requirements now, that will be spectacular news to the banks that were blocked from expansions or mergers.

Face it, it says may but banks aren't going to take the chance and if they didn't have a plan in place would have one as soon as a federal regulator says they should do so.

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

OpportunityCost said:

Ah, so laws aren't requirements now, that will be spectacular news to the banks that were blocked from expansions or mergers.

Face it, it says may but banks aren't going to take the chance and if they didn't have a plan in place would have one as soon as a federal regulator says they should do so.

Click to expand...

It is almost as if Vern is actively trying not to understand....

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

OpportunityCost said:

Ah, so laws aren't requirements now, that will be spectacular news to the banks that were blocked from expansions or mergers.

Face it, it says may but banks aren't going to take the chance and if they didn't have a plan in place would have one as soon as a federal regulator says they should do so.

Click to expand...

OC, you can flail forever (and you seem to want to) but my posts don't have to pretend that the vast majority of non compliant banks were not blocked from merging or expanding. That proves CRA compliance is not a requirement for merging or expanding. Can you at least admit that not all non-compliant banks were blocked? It'll help me understand if you are purposely not understanding what "requirement" means. I'll even type so you can just cut and paste it

Not all non-compliant banks were blocked from merging or expanding.

If you're willing to post about this "requirement" for several dozen posts then certainly I'm not asking too much. thanks in advance.

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

Fledermaus said:

It is almost as if Vern is actively trying not to understand....

Click to expand...

Fled, you seem to understand OC's point about "requirement". Can you please explain it to me. thanks in advance.

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

Vern said:

OC, you can flail forever (and you seem to want to) but my posts don't have to pretend that the vast majority of non compliant banks were not blocked from merging or expanding. That proves CRA compliance is not a requirement for merging or expanding. Can you at least admit that not all non-compliant banks were blocked? It'll help me understand if you are purposely not understanding what "requirement" means. I'll even type so you can just cut and paste it

Not all non-compliant banks were blocked from merging or expanding.

If you're willing to post about this "requirement" for several dozen posts then certainly I'm not asking too much. thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

Not all speeders are given tickets. Not all regulations have enforced consequences if they have a plan in place to reach compliance. Regulatory compliance often works like that, here is your warning, submit how your bank will improve its rating and we may or may not approve your application. Regulators tend to make examples of a few in the industry in efforts to make sure others comply. Its how regulation actually work unless the violations are egregious.

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

OpportunityCost said:

Not all speeders are given tickets. Not all regulations have enforced consequences if they have a plan in place to reach compliance. Regulatory compliance often works like that, here is your warning, submit how your bank will improve its rating and we may or may not approve your application. Regulators tend to make examples of a few in the industry in efforts to make sure others comply. Its how regulation actually work unless the violations are egregious.

Click to expand...

OC, I was pretty sure you couldn't just post "yes vern, not all non-compliant banks were blocked from merging or expanding." what is it about your narrative that prevents you from just admitting simple facts. Its just a fact that not all non-compliant banks were blocked from merging or expanding. And its just a fact that the vast majority of non-compliant banks were not blocked from expanding or merging. Anyhoo, here's the data again.

"Since about 95 percent of these institutions generally receive passing CRA grades --outstanding or satisfactory--one would expect about 90 percent of the mergers between two randomly chosen institutions to be approved without a detailed CRA review. In fact, more than 99 percent were. The Treasury Department reports that of the 86,000 merger applications filed since 1985, there were only 755 CRA protests.5 In these protested cases, 690 mergers were approved, and only 65 were denied on CRA grounds, a rejection rate of .0008. "

FRB: Speech, Gramlich -- The Community Reinvestment Act -- June 16, 1999

Oh and OC, you also posted the false rhetoric that CRA loans were risky loans.

Thus, the long-term evidence shows that the CRA has not pushed banks into extending loans that perform out of line with their traditional businesses. Rather, the law has encouraged banks to be aware of lending opportunities in all segments of their local communities as well as to learn how to undertake such lending in a safe and sound manner.

Federal Reserve Board - The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis

Unlike you, I can back up what I post. I don't have to weave a tortured tapestry of rhetoric to imply my points. I simply back them up.

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

OpportunityCost said:

Not all speeders are given tickets. Not all regulations have enforced consequences if they have a plan in place to reach compliance. Regulatory compliance often works like that, here is your warning, submit how your bank will improve its rating and we may or may not approve your application. Regulators tend to make examples of a few in the industry in efforts to make sure others comply. Its how regulation actually work unless the violations are egregious.

Click to expand...

Pearls before swine. Such are the facts before someone who refuses to understand.

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

Vern said:

OC, I was pretty sure you couldn't just post "yes vern, not all non-compliant banks were blocked from merging or expanding." what is it about your narrative that prevents you from just admitting simple facts. Its just a fact that not all non-compliant banks were blocked from merging or expanding. And its just a fact that the vast majority of non-compliant banks were not blocked from expanding or merging. Anyhoo, here's the data again.

"Since about 95 percent of these institutions generally receive passing CRA grades --outstanding or satisfactory--one would expect about 90 percent of the mergers between two randomly chosen institutions to be approved without a detailed CRA review. In fact, more than 99 percent were. The Treasury Department reports that of the 86,000 merger applications filed since 1985, there were only 755 CRA protests.5 In these protested cases, 690 mergers were approved, and only 65 were denied on CRA grounds, a rejection rate of .0008. "

Click to expand...

That's called massaging the numbers. If you have 755 protests and 65 denied, you have an 9% chance of being denied if you aren't in compliance. Know many banks that are willing to take that risk? Because most banks abhor risk.

FRB: Speech, Gramlich -- The Community Reinvestment Act -- June 16, 1999

Oh and OC, you also posted the false rhetoric that CRA loans were risky loans.

Thus, the long-term evidence shows that the CRA has not pushed banks into extending loans that perform out of line with their traditional businesses. Rather, the law has encouraged banks to be aware of lending opportunities in all segments of their local communities as well as to learn how to undertake such lending in a safe and sound manner.

Federal Reserve Board - The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis

Unlike you, I can back up what I post. I don't have to weave a tortured tapestry of rhetoric to imply my points. I simply back them up.

Click to expand...

Since I already gave you detailed loan charts in this thread several times showing that CRA loans had both greater delinquency and great default rates than banks current loan rates of same, I don't know, maybe that's a political narrative trying to avoid the fact that CRA loans did increase the risk to banks.

Vern, no snark, please. Its not needed, not wanted, and not warranted.

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

OpportunityCost said:

That's called massaging the numbers. If you have 755 protests and 65 denied, you have an 9% chance of being denied if you aren't in compliance. Know many banks that are willing to take that risk? Because most banks abhor risk.

Click to expand...

Yes OC, 9% of the applications involving non-compliant banks when there was an actual complaint were stopped. That means 91% were not stopped even with an official complaint. Yet you continue to claim CRA compliance was a requirement. And dont forget about this, 100% of the applications involving non-compliant banks were approved when there was no official complaint . We just don’t know what that number is exactly but we know it had a 100% approval rating. Besides equating "CRA loans with high risk" (more on this in a minute) you're now claiming not being able to merge or expand is "high risk". This isn't as bad as not understanding the word "requirement" but it shows a pattern. and OC, banks jumping in headfirst into predatory, low downpayment no doc Bush Loans to the point of destroying the economy kinda throws a wet blanket on "most banks abhor risk".

Since I already gave you detailed loan charts in this thread several times showing that CRA loans had both greater delinquency and great default rates than banks current loan rates of same, I don't know, maybe that's a political narrative trying to avoid the fact that CRA loans did increase the risk to banks.

Click to expand...

First off OC, you need to understand you posting "nuh uh" disputes nothing. I posted a blurb from the fed that disputes you effortlessly equating “CRA to high risk” . It clearly stated "the long-term evidence shows that the CRA has not pushed banks into extending loans that perform out of line with their traditional businesses". What I posted doesn't magically go away because you posted "nuh uh". And guess what, you also posted a link that disputes your narrative. from your post 3025

Consequently, banks are unlikely to receive CRA consideration for higher-risk lending, particularly if regulators explicitly discourage certain practices (discussed below), arguably weakening the linkage between higher-risk lending and the CRA.

And second, I don't remember you posting any charts let alone posting them “several times”. what is the post # or numbers? And just so you know "both greater delinquency and great default rates than banks current loan rates of same" is not real clear. I saw where you were going with it but I didn't see where it ended up when you said " banks current loan rates of same". Same what? So tell me where the charts so we can see what you are referring to.

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

Vern said:

Yes OC, 9% of the applications involving non-compliant banks when there was an actual complaint were stopped. That means 91% were not stopped even with an official complaint. Yet you continue to claim CRA compliance was a requirement. And dont forget about this, 100% of the applications involving non-compliant banks were approved when there was no official complaint . We just don’t know what that number is exactly but we know it had a 100% approval rating. Besides equating "CRA loans with high risk" (more on this in a minute) you're now claiming not being able to merge or expand is "high risk". This isn't as bad as not understanding the word "requirement" but it shows a pattern. and OC, banks jumping in headfirst into predatory, low downpayment no doc Bush Loans to the point of destroying the economy kinda throws a wet blanket on "most banks abhor risk".



First off OC, you need to understand you posting "nuh uh" disputes nothing. I posted a blurb from the fed that disputes you effortlessly equating “CRA to high risk” . It clearly stated "the long-term evidence shows that the CRA has not pushed banks into extending loans that perform out of line with their traditional businesses". What I posted doesn't magically go away because you posted "nuh uh". And guess what, you also posted a link that disputes your narrative. from your post 3025

Consequently, banks are unlikely to receive CRA consideration for higher-risk lending, particularly if regulators explicitly discourage certain practices (discussed below), arguably weakening the linkage between higher-risk lending and the CRA.

And second, I don't remember you posting any charts let alone posting them “several times”. what is the post # or numbers? And just so you know "both greater delinquency and great default rates than banks current loan rates of same" is not real clear. I saw where you were going with it but I didn't see where it ended up when you said " banks current loan rates of same". Same what? So tell me where the charts so we can see what you are referring to.

Click to expand...

Vern, I have no intention of relinking a damn thing to you. I already linked it in this thread. The delinquency and default rates for CRA loans were higher for mortgages than banks current mortgages. Those charts showed the actual delinquency and default rates over several years. CRA loans were higher.

We do not know the circumstances of the bans refused or the banks not refused. You are assuming you know. You absolutely do not. They could have written actions plans to get into compliance, they could have greatly improved their compliance but not into acceptable ranges, you do not know, you just assume you do. As I have said to you over and over, regulatory compliance tends to work by government making examples of the most egregious and waiting for the rest to fall into line while getting assurances of how they tend to get into compliance. But hey keep carping about may and must, it works really great for the banks that were refused, I am sure they took the regulations as a suggestion like you did. Guess they learned...

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

OpportunityCost said:

Vern, I have no intention of relinking a damn thing to you. I already linked it in this thread. The delinquency and default rates for CRA loans were higher for mortgages than banks current mortgages. Those charts showed the actual delinquency and default rates over several years. CRA loans were higher.

We do not know the circumstances of the bans refused or the banks not refused. You are assuming you know. You absolutely do not. They could have written actions plans to get into compliance, they could have greatly improved their compliance but not into acceptable ranges, you do not know, you just assume you do. As I have said to you over and over, regulatory compliance tends to work by government making examples of the most egregious and waiting for the rest to fall into line while getting assurances of how they tend to get into compliance. But hey keep carping about may and must, it works really great for the banks that were refused, I am sure they took the regulations as a suggestion like you did. Guess they learned...

Click to expand...

OC, you posted no charts. Please post them so we can discuss what you think they show. also, nothing changes the fact that over 99% of applications were approved without a detailed CRA review.

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

Vern said:

OC, you posted no charts. Please post them so we can discuss what you think they show. also, nothing changes the fact that over 99% of applications were approved without a detailed CRA review.

Click to expand...

I posted a link to a PDF with charts. Go back and look. Also doesn't change that apparently some were not. Approximately 9% of those not in compliance. Why were they denied again? Oh that's right, because they weren't in compliance. But you keep insisting there are no consequences, I bet those 60ish banks disagree.

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

OpportunityCost said:

I posted a link to a PDF with charts. Go back and look. Also doesn't change that apparently some were not. Approximately 9% of those not in compliance. Why were they denied again? Oh that's right, because they weren't in compliance. But you keep insisting there are no consequences, I bet those 60ish banks disagree.

Click to expand...

I did look OC. this is now request #3, please post the charts. And OC this makes no sense "Approximately 9% of those not in compliance". I'm guessing you're trying to "massage" the numbers. You realize you accused the fed of doing that. Lets review

86,000 applications subject to CRA review
99.1% of applications approved with no CRA review
.9% (755) had a CRA review due to an official complaint
91% of .9% (690) approved in spite of official complaint
9 % of .9% (65) not approved
100% of non compliant banks without review approved.


Since about 95 percent of these institutions generally receive passing CRA grades --outstanding or satisfactory--one would expect about 90 percent of the mergers between two randomly chosen institutions to be approved without a detailed CRA review. In fact, more than 99 percent were. The Treasury Department reports that of the 86,000 merger applications filed since 1985, there were only 755 CRA protests.5 In these protested cases, 690 mergers were approved, and only 65 were denied on CRA grounds, a rejection rate of .0008. "

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

Vern said:

I did look OC. this is now request #3, please post the charts. And OC this makes no sense "Approximately 9% of those not in compliance". I'm guessing you're trying to "massage" the numbers. You realize you accused the fed of doing that. Lets review

86,000 applications subject to CRA review
99.1% of applications approved with no CRA review
.9% (755) had a CRA review due to an official complaint
91% of .9% (690) approved in spite of official complaint
9 % of .9% (65) not approved
100% of non compliant banks without review approved.


Since about 95 percent of these institutions generally receive passing CRA grades --outstanding or satisfactory--one would expect about 90 percent of the mergers between two randomly chosen institutions to be approved without a detailed CRA review. In fact, more than 99 percent were. The Treasury Department reports that of the 86,000 merger applications filed since 1985, there were only 755 CRA protests.5 In these protested cases, 690 mergers were approved, and only 65 were denied on CRA grounds, a rejection rate of .0008. "

Click to expand...

LOL you keep going back to the numbers ignoring the banks that were refused. If they were refused on CRA compliance grounds that means it IS necessary to comply to some extent. Unless you want to argue those banks don't exist.

As for the charts, you want the information, you go hunting for it. It IS there, its not my fault you spend endless pages engaging in argument by insult, ridicule and argument to the stone making pages upon pages of saying nothing. Go look for some of the links. Can't be more than 20 pages back.

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

OpportunityCost said:

LOL you keep going back to the numbers ignoring the banks that were refused. If they were refused on CRA compliance grounds that means it IS necessary to comply to some extent. Unless you want to argue those banks don't exist.

As for the charts, you want the information, you go hunting for it. It IS there, its not my fault you spend endless pages engaging in argument by insult, ridicule and argument to the stone making pages upon pages of saying nothing. Go look for some of the links. Can't be more than 20 pages back.

Click to expand...

OC, I’ve ignored nothing and you’ve posted no charts. Someday I’d like you to explain how I’m ignoring something that I’ve posted repeatedly. For now I’d like you focus on the charts you have not posted. Can you please post the charts you claim to have posted several times.

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

Fishking said:

George? You mean Dems that pushed for crappy housing loans and then supported it with GSAs? .

Click to expand...

Wow, it just seems like the second I turn my back you cons (and con like posters) go right back to believing long disproven lies. Can you put into words this ‘dems did it/something something GSEs” narrative. To help you understand the facts, here’s bush stopping GSE reform in 2003

Vern said:

"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
Despite what appeared to be a broad consensus on GSE regulatory reform, efforts quickly stalled. A legislative markup scheduled for October 8, 2003, in the House of Representatives was halted because the Bush administration withdrew its support for the bill,
http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/er04_framewhite.pdf

(fyi, broad consensus means it would have probably passed. what happened to it again? oh yea bush stopped it)

Click to expand...

Here’s bush reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSE purchases of abusive subprime loans

Vern said:

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

404

Click to expand...

See if you can work these facts into your “narrative”. There are more Bush GSE policies like raising the housing goals, stopping reform again in 2005, "encouraging" GSEs to buy 440 billion in subprime loans in the secondary market but just focus on these two. Thanks in advance.

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

dcsports said:

And trying to pin the mortgage bubble on Bush... as well as all the subsequent deficits, is even more silly.
.

Click to expand...

There is nothing silly about holding bush accountable for his housing policies that lead to the Bush Mortgage Bubble. In the very first post of this thread, Bush tells you it started late 2004. that's almost 4 years into his admin. that fact alone makes it not "silly". If you peruse the thread you'd learn about his policies that encouraged, funded and protected his mortgage bubble. Take you time DC, don't rush your obligatory "nuh uh".

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

Vern said:

There is nothing silly about holding bush accountable for his housing policies that lead to the Bush Mortgage Bubble. In the very first post of this thread, Bush tells you it started late 2004. that's almost 4 years into his admin. that fact alone makes it not "silly". If you peruse the thread you'd learn about his policies that encouraged, funded and protected his mortgage bubble. Take you time DC, don't rush your obligatory "nuh uh".

Click to expand...

As a reminder, many of those policies started under Obama, and when Repubilcans raised the alarm over what Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were doing, it was democrats who pushed back, stating there was nothing to worry about.

Re: Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs[W:1083,1531:2983]]

dcsports said:

As a reminder, many of those policies started under Obama, and when Repubilcans raised the alarm over what Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were doing, it was democrats who pushed back, stating there was nothing to worry about.

Click to expand...

oh DC, this post is ridiculous and I'm even giving you the benefit of the doubt that you meant to type Clinton instead of Obama (and its not a definite that you meant to). First, please name the policies under Clinton that allowed Banks to stop checking the borrowers ability to repay the loan. And name the policies that prevented Bush's regulators from doing their jobs.

Anyhoo, while we wait for that to never happen, lets discuss "pushed back". "Pushed back" tells me that you know republicans controlled congress. Please explain how magically makes the republicans not responsible. Oh and fyi, democrats "pushed back" against trumps deficit ballooning tax cuts. Guess what, they passed. Here's the best part about your obedient "pushed back" narrative. You cant push back against something that's not there. Yea, not only did Bush stop GSE reform in 2003 and 2005, he said that GSEs were perfectly fine. His reform was about "enforcing GSE quotas for low income loans". yea, your conservative masters never told you that did they. Here's Bush's treas sec telling barney frank there is nothing wrong with Freddie and fannie in 2003

Vern said:

Testimony from W’s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation’ of the GSE’s
“
“
Mr. Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.
“

- THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES

Click to expand...

Yes DC, he said "far from it". Well that completely obliterates your false and obedient narrative about "pushed back". And just for laughs, here's bush derailing GSE reform again in 2005. Pay close attention to why he was against it

Vern said:

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

Click to expand...

HOLY CRAP!!!! He literally derailed GSE reform because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers." poor DC, if I was clinging to a false narrative that GSEs were responsible for the Bush Mortgage bubble then I would be crushed to learn bush is still responsible.