Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

790 KABC: 2002 President Bush Speech Offering Road to Home Ownership
KABC Listen Live ^ | September 30, 2008

Posted on 09/30/2008 9:28:02 AM PDT by bd476


This was not the first thing I wanted to hear this morning, yet perhaps I don't understand the context of President Bush's speech nor his intentions back then. What I heard this morning reminded me of President Johnson's Great Society programs. Again, and hopefully I have misunderstood the background on this.

The following is my partial transcription of audio clips aired 7:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. on 790 KABC Talk Radio September 30, 2008. I also found the text of President Bush's 2002 speech and I posted it following my partial transcript of the audio segments.





President Bush's 2002 Speech

at the

Conference on Minority Home Ownership

George Washington University


Los Angeles KABC talk show host Doug McIntyre is playing the tape of President Bush's 2002 speech where President Bush thanked the heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for helping assure the right to home ownership for all.

President Bush said that there is a home ownership gap for minorities. President Bush said that it was important to make monies available for down payments.

He said that minorities often have a difficult time getting the down payment for a home, trouble acquiring home loans and trouble making monthly mortgage payments.

President Bush mentioned the billions of dollars spent in vouchers for Section 8 Housing for leased apartments. President Bush said that as it is, Section 8 Housing encourages leases rather than home ownership.

President Bush said that he would like to see the Section 8 vouchers used as script for down payments and as payment for mortgages instead of leases.

President Bush said that he would like to have those Section 8 vouchers used instead to help those who can't afford to make a down payment on a home. President Bush said that he would like Section 8 vouchers to be used as script to help those who have trouble making monthly mortgage payments on a home.

Help 5 1/2 Million More People Own Their Own Homes

President Bush spoke of his dream to help 5 1/2 million more people to own their own home within the next five years.

President Bush called the program "American Dream Down Payment Fund."



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: downpayments; homes; mortgage; section8

The text of President Bush's 2002 Speech:

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 15, 2002


President Hosts Conference on Minority Homeownership

George Washington University
Washington, D.C.


THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, all. Thanks, for coming. Well, thanks for the warm welcome. Thank you for being here today. I appreciate your attendance to this very important conference. You see, we want everybody in America to own their own home. That's what we want. This is -- an ownership society is a compassionate society.

More and more people own their homes in America today. Two-thirds of all Americans own their homes, yet we have a problem here in America because few than half of the Hispanics and half the African Americans own the home. That's a homeownership gap. It's a -- it's a gap that we've got to work together to close for the good of our country, for the sake of a more hopeful future. We've got to work to knock down the barriers that have created a homeownership gap.

I set an ambitious goal. It's one that I believe we can achieve. It's a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we'll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families. (Applause.)

Some may think that's a stretch. I don't think it is. I think it is realistic. I know we're going to have to work together to achieve it. But when we do our communities will be stronger and so will our economy. Achieving the goal is going to require some good policies out of Washington. And it's going to require a strong commitment from those of you involved in the housing industry.

Just by showing up at the conference, you show your commitment. And together, together we will work over the next decade to enable millions of our fellow Americans to own a piece of their own property, and that's their home.

I appreciate so very much the home owners who are with us today, the Arias family, newly arrived from Peru. They live in Baltimore. Thanks to the Association of Real Estate Brokers, the help of some good folks in Baltimore, they figured out how to purchase their own home. Imagine to be coming to our country without a home, with a simple dream. And now they're on stage here at this conference being one of the new home owners in the greatest land on the face of the Earth. I appreciate the Arias family coming. (Applause.)

We've got the Horton family from Little Rock, Arkansas, here today. Actually, it's not Little Rock; it's North Little Rock, Arkansas. I was corrected. (Laughter.) I appreciate so very much these good folks coming all the way up from the South. They were helped by HUD, they were helped by Freddie Mac. Obviously, they've got a young family. And when we start talking about owning a home, a smile spread right across the face of the dad that could have lit up the entire town of Washington, D.C. (Applause.) I appreciate you all coming. Thanks for coming. He had to make sure I knew that he was educated in Texas. (Laughter.)

Finally, Kim Berry from New York is here. She's a single mom. You're not going to believe this, but her son is 18 years old. (Laughter.) She barely looked like she was 18 to me. And being a single mom is the hardest job in America. And the idea of this fine American working hard to provide for her child, at the same time working hard to realize her dream, which is owning a home on Long Island, is really a special tribute to the character of this particular person and to the character of a lot of Americans. So we're honored to have you here, Kim, and thanks for being such a good mom and a fine American. (Applause.)

I told Mel Martinez I was serious about this initiative. We started talking about it and I said, well, you know, I'm the kind of fellow, I don't like to lay out a goal and don't mean it. I think it's not -- I don't think it's fair for the American people to be -- to have a President or anybody else, for that matter, lay out a goal and just kind of say it, but don't mean it. I mean it. And the good news is, Mel Martinez believes it and means it, as well. He's doing a fine job of running HUD, and I'm glad he has joined my Cabinet. (Applause.)

And I picked a pretty spunky deputy, as well, Alphonso Jackson -- my fellow Texan. (Applause.) I call him A.J.

I appreciate the Secretary of Agriculture being here. She's got a lot of money having to do with rural housing. I appreciate Ann's commitment to rural America. And I'm really proud of the job she's doing, as well, for the American people, serving in my Cabinet. Thanks for coming, Ann. (Applause.)

I've got some others in my administration, as I look around. I see Rosario Marin, who's the Treasurer of the United States. Rosario used to be a mayor. Thank you for coming, Madam Mayor. (Applause.) She understands how important housing is. I see other mayors around here, and I want to thank the mayors for coming. After all, it's in your interest that this project succeed.

I know we've got some folks from the faith-based community here. Luis Cortes, from Philadelphia is here; and my friend, Kirbyjon Caldwell, from Houston, Texas. Kirbyjon, I had breakfast with him this morning. He told me he was going to have to leave before my speech. He's a wise man, that Kirbyjon Caldwell. (Laughter.) But he has gone back home to Texas. I appreciate Margaret Spellings and her staff. Margaret is the Domestic Policy Advisor to the President, and I want to thank you for putting on this conference, Margaret.

All of us here in America should believe, and I think we do, that we should be, as I mentioned, a nation of owners. Owning something is freedom, as far as I'm concerned. It's part of a free society. And ownership of a home helps bring stability to neighborhoods. You own your home in a neighborhood, you have more interest in how your neighborhood feels, looks, whether it's safe or not. It brings pride to people, it's a part of an asset-based to society. It helps people build up their own individual portfolio, provides an opportunity, if need be, for a mom or a dad to leave something to their child. It's a part of -- it's of being a -- it's a part of -- an important part of America.

Homeownership is also an important part of our economic vitality. If -- when we meet this project, this goal, according to our Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, we will have added an additional $256 billion to the economy by encouraging 5.5 million new home owners in America; the activity -- the economic activity stimulated with the additional purchasers, the additional buyers, the additional demand will be upwards of $256 billion. And that's important because it will help people find work.

Low interest rates, low inflation are very important foundations for economic growth. The idea of encouraging new homeownership and the money that will be circulated as a result of people purchasing homes will mean people are more likely to find a job in America. This project not only is good for the soul of the country, it's good for the pocketbook of the country, as well.

To open up the doors of homeownership there are some barriers, and I want to talk about four that need to be overcome. First, down payments. A lot of folks can't make a down payment. They may be qualified. They may desire to buy a home, but they don't have the money to make a down payment. I think if you were to talk to a lot of families that are desirous to have a home, they would tell you that the down payment is the hurdle that they can't cross. And one way to address that is to have the federal government participate.

And so we've called upon Congress to set up what's called the American Dream Down Payment Fund, which will provide financial grants to local governments to help first-time home buyers who qualify to make the down payment on their home. If a down payment is a problem, there's a way we can address that. And when Congress funds the program, this should help 200,000 new families over the next five years become first-time home buyers.

Secondly, affordable housing is a problem in many neighborhoods, particularly inner-city neighborhoods. You may -- we may have qualified home buyers, but if there's no home to buy, this initiative isn't going anywhere. And so one of the things that we're going to -- that I'm doing is proposing a single-family affordable housing credit to encourage the construction of single-family homes in neighborhoods where affordable housing is scarce. (Applause.)

Over the next five years the initiative will provide home builders and therefore home buyers with -- home builders with $2 billion in tax credits to bring affordable homes and therefore provide an additional supply for home buyers. It's really important for us to understand that we can provide incentive for people to build homes where there's a lack of affordable housing.

And we've got to set priorities. And one of the key priorities is going to be inner-city America. Good schools and affordable housing will help revitalize our inner cities.

Another obstacle to minority homeownership is the lack of information. You know, getting into your own home can be complicated. It can be a difficult process. I had that very same problem. (Laughter and applause.)

Every home buyer has responsibilities and rights that need to be understood clearly. And yet, when you look at some of the contracts, there's a lot of small print. And you can imagine somebody newly arrived from Peru looking at all that print, and saying, I'm not sure I can possibly understand that. Why do I want to buy a home? There's an educational process that needs to go on, not only to explain the contract, explain obligation, but also to explain financing options, to help people understand the complexities of a homeownership market, and also at the same time to protect people from unscrupulous lenders, people who would take advantage of a good-hearted soul who is trying to realize their dream.

Homeownership education is critical. And so today, I'm pleased to announce that through Mel's office, we're going to distribute $35 million in 2003 to more than 100 national, state and local organizations that promote homeownership through buyer education. (Applause.)

And, of course, one of the larger obstacles to minority homeownership is financing, is the ability to have their dream financed. Right now, we have a program that all of you are familiar with, maybe our fellow Americans are, and that's what they call a Section 8 housing program, that provides billions of dollars in vouchers to help low-income Americans with their rent. It encourages leasing. We think it's important that we use those vouchers, that federal money to help low-income Americans go from being somebody who leases to somebody who owns; that we use the Section 8 program to not only help with down payment, but to help with continuing monthly mortgage payments after they're into their new home. It is a -- it is a way to help us meet this dream of 5.5 million additional families owning their home.

I'm also going to encourage the lending industry to develop a mortgage market so that this script, these vouchers, can regularly be used as a source of payment to provide more capital to lenders, who can then help more families move from rental housing into houses of their own.

These are some of the barriers that home owners face, potential home owners face, and this is what we intend to do about it. But like in a lot of our life, government can't do everything. It's impossible to provide every aspect of a national strategy, particularly in this case. And that's why we need the help of private and nonprofit sectors in our country to help play a vital role in helping to meet the goal. Many of you here represent the nonprofit, as well as the private sectors of our economy and our country, and I want to thank you for your commitment.

Last June, I issued a challenge to everyone involved in the housing industry to help increase the number of minority families to be home owners. And what I'm talking about, I'm talking about your bankers and your brokers and developers, as well as members of faith-based community and community programs. And the response to the home owners challenge has been very strong and very gratifying. Twenty-two public and private partners have signed up to help meet our national goal. Partners in the mortgage finance industry are encouraging homeownership by purchasing more loans made by banks to African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities.

Representatives of the real estate and homebuilding industries, through their nationwide networks or affiliates, are committed to broadening homeownership. They made the commitment to help meet the national goal we set.

Freddie Mae -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- I see the heads who are here; I want to thank you all for coming -- (laughter) -- have committed to provide more money for lenders. They've committed to help meet the shortage of capital available for minority home buyers.

Fannie Mae recently announced a $50 million program to develop 600 homes for the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. Franklin, I appreciate that commitment. They also announced $12.7 million investment in a condominium project in Harlem. It's the beginnings of a series of initiatives to help meet the goal of 5.5 million families. Franklin told me at the meeting where we kicked this office, he said, I promise you we will help, and he has, like many others in this room have done.

Freddie Mac recently began 25 initiatives around the country to dismantle barriers and create greater opportunities for homeownership. One of the programs is designed to help deserving families who have bad credit histories to qualify for homeownership loans. Freddie Mac is also working with the Department of Defense to promote construction and financing for housing for men and women in the military.

There's all kinds of ways that we can work together to meet the goal. Corporate America has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place. Corporate America has responded. As an example -- only one of many examples -- the good folks at Sears and Roebuck have responded by making a five-year, $100 million commitment to making homeownership and home maintenance possible for millions of Americans.

There have been other steps that are being taken to close the homeownership gap. And you've heard some of the stories here today, people much more eloquent than me, to talk about what's taking place on the front line of meeting this national goal.

The non-profit groups are bringing homeownership to some of our most troubled communities. And as you know, I'm a strong advocate of what I call the faith-based initiative. And the reason I am is because I understand the universal call to love a neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself, and that includes helping somebody find a home.

One such example is the Enterprise Foundation, a national non-profit organization that provides assistance to grassroots homeownership organizations. Because of their work, as one example, 185 affordable homes will be available in the Baltimore neighborhood that was once so crime-ridden that people had written it off. Revitalizing neighborhoods is a real possibility if people put their mind to it. And at the same time, you're helping people own a home in America.

And the faith-based community is doing some fantastic work when it comes to encouraging homeownership, whether it be financial counseling, or job training or other outreach services, to help people understand what it takes to buy a home.

And then there's my friend Kirbyjon Caldwell. He not only provides counseling and job training, he actually decided to encourage a development of homes in the Houston area. People -- low-income people are going to be able to more afford a home in Texas because of Kirbyjon's vision and work. He's answered the call of faith to help people help themselves and to help them realize dreams.

The other thing Kirbyjon told me, which I really appreciate, is you don't have to have a lousy home for first-time home buyers. If you put your mind to it, the first-time home buyer, the low-income home buyer can have just as nice a house as anybody else. And I know Kirbyjon. He is what I call a social entrepreneur who is using his platform as a Methodist preacher to improve the neighborhood and the community in which he lives.

And so is Luis Cortes, who represents Nueva Esperanza in Philadelphia. I went to see Luis in the inner-city Philadelphia. Luis is -- at least he was -- he's probably still there -- in what one would call a tough neighborhood. There's a lot of abandoned buildings. And I mean, beautiful old structures just empty. Luis had a dream to revitalize his neighborhood, starting with a good charter school, one that would work, one that would teach kids how to read and write and add and subtract.

But he also understood that a homeownership program is incredibly important to revitalize this neighborhood that a lot of folks had already quit on. I suspect one day we'll all go back to Luis' neighborhood and we'll find first-time home owners there, and a good education system. And this will be the beginning of a -- of a neighborhood revitalization in that part of Philadelphia, because there was vision and drive and hope for our fellow citizens.

So I want to thank you all for coming. I want to thank you for your determination to help close the minority homeownership gap. It's an incredibly important initiative for this country. See, America is a good and generous country. It's a great place. Part of it was to make sure that the dream, the American Dream, the ability to come from anywhere in our society and say, I own this home, is a reality -- can be achievable for anybody, regardless of their status, regardless of their -- of whether or not they -- whether or not they think the dream is meant for them.

I mean, we can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.

Again, I want to tell you, this is an initiative -- as Mel will tell you, it's an initiative that we take very seriously. We're going to stay on it until we're -- until we achieve the goal. And as we all achieve the goal, we can look back and say, America is a better place for our hard work, our efforts and our desires for our fellow Americans to realize the greatness of our country.

Thank you for coming. May God bless your vision. May God bless America. (Applause.)

END 2:18 P.M. EDT

White House Office of the Press Secretary October 15, 2002


1 posted on 09/30/2008 9:28:07 AM PDT by bd476
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bd476

Compassionate Conservatism, my friends.


2 posted on 09/30/2008 9:31:08 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Taglines are The Devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bd476
The president does not make the laws, he just signs the bills. And when you try to get along in Washington with a new tone, this is what you get.

Geo W is a Republican like his father, he is not a Conservative Republican.

3 posted on 09/30/2008 9:34:40 AM PDT by Dustbunny (Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. The Gipper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

This Administration, along with LBJ’s, proves that “Guns & Butter” don’t go together after all.


4 posted on 09/30/2008 9:34:56 AM PDT by A_Former_Democrat (H)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dustbunny

Can’t imagine what condition this country would be in if Kerry or Gore had been elected.


5 posted on 09/30/2008 9:36:30 AM PDT by Dustbunny (Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. The Gipper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: A_Former_Democrat
This Administration, along with LBJ’s

Always remember to spit when you say the name LBJ.

6 posted on 09/30/2008 9:36:44 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Taglines are The Devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

The speech was in ‘02...whatever good intentions were meant by that speech, Bush did propose changes to Freddie/Fannie—I think in 2003.

These changes presumably would’ve made the restrictions a bit tighter, or at least not allowed those entities to screw up like they did. Democrats resisted, and look where we are now.

Bush’s culpability seems to be less as an overt player and more of not pushing hard enough for the changes he (or his surrogates) knew were needed.


7 posted on 09/30/2008 9:37:44 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (Just say NObama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

and did ABC mention this?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON New York Times
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

‘’There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,’’ Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration’s proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies’ exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration’s proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

‘’The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,’’ Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ‘’We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,’’ the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

‘’These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,’’ he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration’s package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company’s mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

‘’We welcome the administration’s approach outlined today,’’ Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company’s 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ‘’responsible proposal.’’

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

‘’The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,’’ said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ‘’Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie’s operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.’’

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

‘’These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,’’ said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ‘’The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.’’

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

‘’I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,’’ Mr. Watt said.


8 posted on 09/30/2008 9:47:22 AM PDT by edzo4 (Vote McCain, Keep Your Change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bd476

Bush’s plan was basically a government subisidy for home ownership. The democrats plan with Freddie Mae was to lower lending standards.

A person who makes 20k a year is still going to get those housing vouchers when he hits hard times.

A person who makes 20k a year is going to default on his mortage if he is given a loan he can’t truly afford.

One plan causes you to move to an apartment during hard times. The other causes you to wreck the financial sector. Pretty big difference.


9 posted on 09/30/2008 9:48:45 AM PDT by DiogenesLaertius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bd476

Why are the VDare folks posting all this stuff today? Trying to help Obams by saying “everybody did it”?


10 posted on 09/30/2008 9:49:35 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Bush’s culpability seems to be less as an overt player and more of not pushing hard enough for the changes he (or his surrogates) knew were needed.

Hardly. Bush is eyeballs deep in this.

I won't post the entire list again, but suffice to say that Bush has been working to give US tax dollars to Mexican illegal aliens since he met with Vicente Fox on February 16, 2001 (3 weeks after his inauguration) to discuss the terms of the Partnership for Prosperity Agreement (with Mexico) and put together the New Alliance Task Force in 2003 to bring US banks and financial institutions together with Mexican illegal aliens.

See: Partnership for Prosperity Agreement (with Mexico)

11 posted on 09/30/2008 9:49:56 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
Also good intentions with long term consequences.

12 posted on 09/30/2008 10:26:48 AM PDT by bd476
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dustbunny
President Bush has an M.B.A. and I don't have an M.B.A. That's why I'm not sure what his intentions were.

13 posted on 09/30/2008 10:30:31 AM PDT by bd476
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: montag813

montag813 wrote: "Why are the VDare folks posting all this stuff today? Trying to help Obams by saying 'everybody did it'?"


LOL! Who are you referring to?

Are you a member of VDare trying to recruit? If so, please go away.

14 posted on 09/30/2008 10:41:27 AM PDT by bd476
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

see post 8.


15 posted on 09/30/2008 12:11:34 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (Just say NObama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
see post 8.

Thanks for the head's up.

This is making less sense now.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration’s proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

‘’The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,’’ Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ‘’We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,’’ the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

‘’These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,’’ he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac already had a federal regulator assigned to watch them. This regulator was a part of HUD.

Bush wanted to create a new regulatory agency over at Treasury.

Of course, there's no guarantee that this new regulator would have done any better job guarding Fannie and Freddie than the existing one, however.

So, Bush would rather create another new federal bureaucracy than fix the one already charged with oversight of Fannie and Freddie.

It's a mystery to me how the creation of a new federal regulator to do the exact same job as the existing one would've fixed the problem.

Here's what the OFHEO's web site says about their mission. (See: Supervision and Regulation)

The Federal Housing Enterprises Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 gives OFHEO a broad range of supervisory tools that the agency may employ not only to address Enterprise problems in a remedial fashion but also to take actions to prevent such problems from developing. The agency’s use of those authorities helps mitigate systemic risk by reducing the risk of failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

16 posted on 09/30/2008 1:16:14 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
Ol' Dan Tucker wrote: "So, Bush would rather create another new federal bureaucracy than fix the one already charged with oversight of Fannie and Freddie.

It's a mystery to me how the creation of a new federal regulator to do the exact same job as the existing one would've fixed the problem. "


After reading the article linked above, I'm wondering if he simply wanted to remove the burden and responsibility of oversight from his bailiwick. In 2003 President Bush had an immense amount on his plate already.

I'm just guessing here, though.

17 posted on 09/30/2008 1:40:16 PM PDT by bd476
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bd476
Are you a member of VDare trying to recruit? If so, please go away.

No. Someone mentioned that this came from someone at VDare.

18 posted on 09/30/2008 2:26:50 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

Not sure, but certainly the rules about low income home loans should’ve been revoked.

Did you see Ann Coulter’s latest column about this mess?

I lay this 90% or more at the feet of the Democrats.


19 posted on 09/30/2008 3:01:36 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (Just say NObama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bd476
After reading the article linked above, I'm wondering if he simply wanted to remove the burden and responsibility of oversight from his bailiwick. In 2003 President Bush had an immense amount on his plate already.

It could be. But, as the article says, except for appointing the directors, Congress controlled the two and Bush wanted to transfer control to the Executive branch, via Treasury.

IMO, Snow saying that the appointment of the directors should be removed from the President doesn't sound like the George W. Bush I've come to know. It smells like bait.

OTOH, it could be that, in a weird and perverted way, Bush was actually being a fiscally-responsible steward. Not for Americans, but for his backers, the bankers.

He wanted to make sure that his pet project, i.e.: Federally-backed home loans for Mexican illegal aliens, the one defined by his Partnership for Prosperity Agreement (with Mexico) and New Alliance Task Force and the one that defined his entire domestic economic policy in his first term, lived a long a profitable life.

His backers were depending on it. They probably had trillions in the pipeline that would be lost if the pipeline blew up.

With the way the dems were mis-managing it, he knew, via his backers, that it would blow up before the end of his second term.

So, he tried as best he could to wrest control from Congress before it happened.


Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

20 posted on 09/30/2008 5:34:46 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Did you see Ann Coulter’s latest column about this mess?

The 9-24-08 column? Yes. I just read it.

She's mostly correct, but ignores Bush's role in this debacle, i.e.: The Partnership for Prosperity Agreement (with Mexico) and New Alliance Task Force.

I lay this 90% or more at the feet of the Democrats.

I think Bush and the dems are equally culpable. Each knew what the other was doing but wanted their 30 pieces of silver, America be damned.

While the dems bloated the CRA and used it as a slush fund, Bush opened the federally-backed home loan system to Mexican illegal aliens who have no loyalty to this country and are not under the jurisdiction of our laws.

Clinton was bad. Bush was worse.

21 posted on 09/30/2008 5:45:42 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

Well, I disagree. The Democrats created a horrible mess with the Fannie/Freddie/Lehman nonsense. Their people were running those shows or near the top of the ladders.

Blaming Bush or making him worse than Clinton is capitulation and contrary to all we know about the world views and approaches of the two men.

Been nice talkin’ to you.

RD


22 posted on 09/30/2008 5:52:14 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (Just say NObama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Blaming Bush or making him worse than Clinton is capitulation and contrary to all we know about the world views and approaches of the two men.

Let's examine Bush's record and see if you still feel the same way.

On February 16, 2001, just 3 weeks after his inauguration, Bush met with Vicente Fox to discuss the terms of the Partnership for Prosperity Agreement (with Mexico). (See: Partnership for Prosperity Agreement (with Mexico))

The P4P agreement was signed on September 6, 2001.

On October 26, 2001, Bush signed the USA Patriot Act of 2001 into law. Contained in section 326(b) was the provision that allowed US banks to accept the Mexican Matricula Consular card as valid ID for opening a bank account.

Congress sent a request for opinion to Bush's Treasury Dept. about 326(b). Bush's Treasury responded back that the Matricula Consular card would be an acceptable form of ID to open a bank account.

Note that no Mexican banks accept their own government's Matricula Consular card as valid ID for opening a bank account because the bearer's identity is all but untraceable. In contrast, thanks to Bush's Treasury Dept., almost all US banks accept it.

On June 17, 2002, Bush held a press conference. In this press conference he said that by 2010 he wanted to see 5.5 million new 'minority' home owners.

He called on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase commitments to the 'minority' market by $440 billion. (See: President Calls for Expanding Opporunities to Home Ownership)

Here's how he described the minorities:

Three-quarters of white America owns their homes. Less than 50 percent of African Americans are part of the homeownership in America. And less than 50 percent of the Hispanics who live here in this country own their home. And that has got to change for the good of the country. It just does.

In response to the mandate contained in the P4P agreement, the New Alliance Task Force was formed in May 2003. (See: New Alliance Task Force)

The NATF is a broad-based coalition of 62 members, including the FDIC, Mexican Consulate, 34 banks, community-based organizations, federal bank regulatory agencies, government agencies, and representatives from the secondary market and private mortgage insurance (PMI) companies.

Their goal was to open the Mexican illegal alien market to US banks and visa-versa using low-cost remittances as the bait. As Bush's 2002 speeches show he was talking about hundreds of billions of tax dollars to directly benefit millions of Mexican illegal aliens.

The NATF was organized into four working groups that were tasked with the following goals:

In 2004, Wells Fargo reported that they had signed up 400,000 new Matricula Consular accounts and at the time were opening up 22,000 new accounts a month. Keep in mind this is just Wells Fargo and that sub-prime lending would not reach its peak until 2005-2006.

The IRS says they've issued over 11 million ITINs since its inception. Mexico says they've issued over 5 million Matricula Consular cards.

But, none of this would be workable if ICE was deporting the banks' new customers. Once again, Bush swung into action, hobbling border and interior enforcement.

Worksite arrests of illegal aliens fell some 97 percent, from 2,859 in 1999 to 159 in 2004. Investigations targeting employers of illegal immigrants fell more than 70 percent, from 7,637 in 1997 to 2,194 in 2003. Arrests on job sites fell—precipitously, from 17,554 in 1997 to 445 in 2003. Fines levied for immigration-law violations fell from 778 in 1997 to 124 in 2003. Notices of intent to fine employers fell from 865 in 1997 to just 3 in 2004.

When the USA Patriot Act came up for renewal in 2004, some republicans wanted to remove the provision that allowed banks to accept Matricula Consular ID as the consular ID is unreliable.

Barney Frank (D-MA) and some of his Republican and Democrat friends swung into action to protect it:

Anti-matrícula proposal defeated; financial institutions can continue accepting consular ID's:

In a vote of 222 to 177, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bipartisan amendment, H.Amdt. 754, introduced by Reps. Michael Oxley (R-OH), Barney Frank (D-MA), Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), Ed Pastor (D-AZ), and Rubén Hinojosa (D-TX) to strike the so-called Culberson amendment that would have prohibited the Treasury Dept. from implementing regulations that allow financial institutions to accept matrícula consular identification cards as part of a valid customer identification program under the USA PATRIOT Act...

In countering Culberson’s allegations that the FBI and the Justice Dept. were opposed to the bipartisan amendment to preserve the use of matrícula consular cards, Bachus presented a letter for the record written by Deputy Atty. Gen. James B. Comey and addressed to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. The letter, dated Sept. 14, 2004, stated:

The Department of Justice fully supports the Administration’s current policy under the USA PATRIOT Act that requires banks and other financial institutions to establish reasonable procedures for the identification and verification of new account holders, which is set forth in regulations of the Department of the Treasury. Therefore the [Justice] Department supports the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment to H.R. 5025 that preserves these regulations. . . . The Department of Justice, including the FBI, continue[s] to work closely with the Treasury Department on this and other issues related to halting all financing of terrorists.

In the final roll call vote, 49 Republicans supported the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe-Pastor-Hinojosa amendment and 16 Democrats opposed it. This legislative victory was a joint effort by financial institutions, immigrants’ rights groups, consumer groups, and many others who worked in coalition to defeat, once again, efforts to limit the acceptance of consular ID cards by banks, credit unions, thrifts, and other financial entities.

As you can see, Bush has been helping Mexican illegal aliens since he took office in 2001 and he has never wavered in his active support of them.

Been nice talkin’ to you.

FRegards,

23 posted on 09/30/2008 7:30:17 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
I forgot to mention this part of Bush's 2002 press conference:

In Bush's June 17, 2002 speech, he also called for the creation of the American Dream Down Payment Fund.

And so here are some of the ways to address the issue. First, the single greatest barrier to first time homeownership is a high downpayment. It is really hard for many, many, low income families to make the high downpayment. And so that's why I propose and urge Congress to fully fund the American Dream Downpayment Fund. This will use money, taxpayers' money to help a qualified, low income buyer make a downpayment. And that's important.

And, Congress responded with the American Dream Downpayment Act:

Amends the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act to: (1) authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make grants to State and local participating jurisdictions for downpayment assistance and related home repair to low-income, first-time home buyers; and (2) limit family assistance to the greater of six percent of the purchase price or $10,000. Requires a participating jurisdiction to include intended grant uses in its fiscal year comprehensive housing affordability strategy under such Act.

Sets forth State and local jurisdiction allocation formulas. Permits fund reallocation.

Requires the Comptroller General to report respecting the impact of such grants on a State-by-State basis.

Terminates grant authority after December 31, 2007. Authorizes specified FY 2004 through 2007 appropriations.

Makes the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 inapplicable to such assistance.

The act was authorized to appropriate up to $200 million per year of US taxpayer funds between FY2004 through FY2007 to go to 'minorities'.

Care to hazard a guess as to which 'minority' group this was intended to benefit?

24 posted on 09/30/2008 7:54:40 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson