What does BLAME have to do with the Obamunists passing their unpopular agenda--an agenda SO unpopular that MOST people are against it--an agenda SO unpopular that it has caused the poll numbers for Obama and Congress to plummet--an agenda SO unpopular that the Donks are headed for big losses this fall?
While we are looking at unpopular agendas--Obambi's "Blame Bush" response for every ill facing his administration has reached its shelf life. The majority of voters now blame Obama. They've had enough of his whining and trying to deflect blame. Obama is viewed as ineffective.
Talk about never accepting responsibility!
-------------- "If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
That's because of government interference--FANNIE AND FREDDIE--the subject of this thread. If you bothered to look, you would see that SEVERAL TIMES Bush took the unusual step of asking Congress to look into Fannie and Freddie--but since the Donks controlled Congress, they appointed their own as Chairmen of the House and Senate Finance Committees--the very same committees with oversight on Fannie and Freddie.
QUOTE
2008 Nobel Prize in Economics winner Paul Krugman states that the notion "has been refuted up, down, and sideways."[104] He also noted in November 2009 that 55% of commercial real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being completely unaffected by the CRA.[105] According to San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank Governor Randall Kroszner, the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending" was contrary to their experience, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim.[100] In a Bank for International Settlements (BIS) working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust", relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event.[106] Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair,[101] Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan,[107] Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress,[108] Robert Gordon of the American Prospect,[109] Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation,[110] Daniel Gross of Slate,[111] and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.[112]
Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[67][113] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".[114] According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[115] A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.[116] Emre Ergungor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures.[117]
During a 2008 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the financial crisis, including in relation to the Community Reinvestment Act, asked if the CRA provided the "fuel" for increasing subprime loans, former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines said it might have been a catalyst encouraging bad behavior, but it was difficult to know. Raines also cited information that only a small percentage of risky loans originated as a result of the CRA.
-------------- The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
That's because of government interference--FANNIE AND FREDDIE--the subject of this thread. If you bothered to look, you would see that SEVERAL TIMES Bush took the unusual step of asking Congress to look into Fannie and Freddie--but since the Donks controlled Congress, they appointed their own as Chairmen of the House and Senate Finance Committees--the very same committees with oversight on Fannie and Freddie.
QUOTE
2008 Nobel Prize in Economics winner Paul Krugman states that the notion "has been refuted up, down, and sideways."[104] He also noted in November 2009 that 55% of commercial real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being completely unaffected by the CRA.[105] According to San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank Governor Randall Kroszner, the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending" was contrary to their experience, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim.[100] In a Bank for International Settlements (BIS) working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust", relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event.[106] Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair,[101] Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan,[107] Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress,[108] Robert Gordon of the American Prospect,[109] Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation,[110] Daniel Gross of Slate,[111] and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.[112]
Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[67][113] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".[114] According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[115] A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.[116] Emre Ergungor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures.[117]
During a 2008 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the financial crisis, including in relation to the Community Reinvestment Act, asked if the CRA provided the "fuel" for increasing subprime loans, former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines said it might have been a catalyst encouraging bad behavior, but it was difficult to know. Raines also cited information that only a small percentage of risky loans originated as a result of the CRA.
Are you trying to say he is constipated and full of chit?
-------------- My avatar is proof that I give a crap
What does BLAME have to do with the Obamunists passing their unpopular agenda--an agenda SO unpopular that MOST people are against it--an agenda SO unpopular that it has caused the poll numbers for Obama and Congress to plummet--an agenda SO unpopular that the Donks are headed for big losses this fall?
While we are looking at unpopular agendas--Obambi's "Blame Bush" response for every ill facing his administration has reached its shelf life. The majority of voters now blame Obama. They've had enough of his whining and trying to deflect blame. Obama is viewed as ineffective.
Talk about never accepting responsibility!
Bush succeeded in his mission to put everyone into a house, temporarily. Mission Accomplished..
A careful examination of the video shows that it was October, 2002. The policy was already in place from the Clinton administration.
Liberal's post was specific to the Community Reinvestment Act--passed in 1977. The act has been amended many times. From Wikipedia
QUOTE
Legislative changes 1992 Although minor amendments were made directly to the Community Reinvestment Act concerning the consideration of minority and female owned institutions & partnerships during evaluations first established in 1991, other portions of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 indirectly afftected the CRA practices at the time in requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing.[4]
In October 2000, to expand the secondary market for affordable community-based mortgages and to increase liquidity for CRA-eligible loans, Fannie Mae committed to purchase and securitize $2 billion of "MyCommunityMortgage" loans.[49][50] In November 2000 Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families." It stated that since 1997 Fannie Mae had done nearly $7 billion in CRA business with depository institutions, but its goal was $20 billion.[51] In 2001 Fannie Mae announced that it had acquired $10 billion in specially-targeted Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans more than one and a half years ahead of schedule, and announced its goal to finance over $500 billion in CRA business by 2010, about one third of loans anticipated to be financed by Fannie Mae during that period.[52]
Note that the mandate for Federal involvement happened during the Clinton Administration. Also note that the goal was to finance over $500 Billion in CRA loans.
Liberal omits this statement from his quote from Wikipedia
QUOTE
Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charges the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[95] In a commentary for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee on Financial Services, charged the CRA with "forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."[102] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Austrian school economist Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized low-income housing by pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country
Liberal--and liberals--would have us believe that the government pressure on banks to make loans to people that otherwise wouldn't qualify--upon possible penalty for NOT doing so--had no effect on the banking crisis--that these bankers WANTED to make those kinds of loans.
They would also have us believe that REQUIRING Fannie and Freddie to UNDERWRITE these loans had no effect on the runup (and subsequent downturn) in the housing market.
Those assumptions would have us believe that Fannie and Freddie have taken (and continue to take) those horrible losses for no good reason.
No--this issue can be laid right at the foot of government meddling. And the liberal response to the failure of government? OF COURSE--MORE GOVERNMENT!
-------------- "If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
Bush ties tax relief, home ownership President wants to add new minority home owners
3/27/2004 10:07:42 AM ET CRAWFORD, Texas — Focusing on the dream of home ownership for the nation’s minorities, President Bush on Saturday credited his tax relief program for being a key to driving the housing market to record levels.
“Because of tax relief, Americans have more to save, spend and invest — and that means millions of American families have moved into their first homes,” Bush said in his weekly radio address as he spent the weekend at his ranch.
In a swing through the Southwest on Friday, the president highlighted three of his economic policies he said can help nearly 400,000 low- or moderate-income families become home buyers.
One of the approaches, the American Dream Down Payment Act, will help low-income Americans afford the down payment and closing costs on their first home. Bush is asking Congress to provide $200 million a year for the program. He also proposes to make zero down-payment loans available to first-time buyers whose mortgages are guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration.
In addition, Bush is proposing a tax credit to encourage builders to provide 200,000 affordable homes over five years for low-income families.
These and other steps, he said, will push the nation toward his goal of adding 5.5 million new minority home owners by the end of the decade.
But housing advocates say assistance for renters is just as critical a component to addressing the housing needs of families with limited financial resources.
As Bush visited his state Friday, Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico said the administration is proposing cuts to key housing programs such as the Section 8 voucher program that helps low-income people defray rental costs, “the first rung on the ladder” to home ownership.
Liberal--and liberals--would have us believe that the government pressure on banks to make loans to people that otherwise wouldn't qualify--upon possible penalty for NOT doing so--had no effect on the banking crisis--that these bankers WANTED to make those kinds of loans.
These liberals(?) don't seem to agree with you, or Limbaugh.
QUOTE
2008 Nobel Prize in Economics winner Paul Krugman states that the notion "has been refuted up, down, and sideways."[104] He also noted in November 2009 that 55% of commercial real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being completely unaffected by the CRA.[105] According to San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank Governor Randall Kroszner, the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending" was contrary to their experience, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim.[100] In a Bank for International Settlements (BIS) working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust", relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event.[106] Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair,[101] Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan,[107] Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress,[108] Robert Gordon of the American Prospect,[109] Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation[/b],[110] Daniel Gross of Slate,[111] and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.[112]
-------------- The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
On December 16, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act, which was aimed at helping approximately "40,000 families a year" with their down payment and closing costs, and further strengthen America’s housing market.
This legislation complemented the President’s "aggressive housing agenda" announced in a speech he gave at the Department of Housing and Urban Development on June 18th 2002. In this speech the President outlined the partnerships needed to make homeownership a reality for millions more Americans by the end of the decade.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
Posted on: Aug. 15 2010,9:32 pm
(jimhanson @ Aug. 14 2010,2:45 pm)
QUOTE
Obambi's "Blame Bush" response for every ill facing his administration has reached its shelf life. The majority of voters now blame Obama. They've had enough of his whining and trying to deflect blame.
As opposed to:
QUOTE
A careful examination of the video shows that it was October, 2002. The policy was already in place from the Clinton administration.
Liberal's post was specific to the Community Reinvestment Act--passed in 1977. The act has been amended many times.
Note that the mandate for Federal involvement happened during the Clinton Administration.
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?
-------------- You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
