Skip to comments.Smoking-Gun Document Ties Policy To Housing Crisis
Posted on 10/31/2011 7:09:45 AM PDT by Slyscribe
President Obama says the Occupy Wall Street protests show a "broad-based frustration" among Americans with the financial sector, which continues to kick against regulatory reforms three years after the financial crisis.
"You're seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on the abusive practices that got us into this in the first place," he complained earlier this month.
But what if government encouraged, even invented, those "abusive practices"?
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
You mean forcing banks to lend to people who could not pay it back was a bad idea? Who knew!? It was obviously Wall Streets fault!
...and then the banks bundled them up into securitized assets and sold them all over the world, with the help of S&P’s and Moody’s who gave them a AAA rating. It was a great con.
Will heads roll, or will this evidence too be ignored. Years ago, it was published that der reader himself threatened to bring discrimation proceedings against Citibank, but they settled out of court, and started issuing loans to folks who could never, ever pay them back. This is all so clear, but not even Senator Pat Roberts, proud former Marine, would give it lip service during the ‘08 election season.
Well, since the banks got the government to subsidize their losses while retaining the notes it was a great deal for the banks.
The government is subsidizing private mortgage debt with public money. It’s a win-win for the banks and a lose-lose for the American people. The effect of their policy is to keep housing prices high, extending maximum indebtedness to Americans with losses covered by taxpayers.
It’s crony-federalism. Wakeup.
This isn’t news to anyone who has been paying attention. Of course, the liberals vehemently deny Slick Willy’s expansion of the CRA had anything to do with the housing bubble but then again, they still worship him despite Lewinsky, the impeachment, Vince Foster, Whitewater, Clinton’s ignorance of Bin Laden.......
Well sure, once the con was in place and the money was rolling in. And then, of course, the government bails them out when it all goes bad. Did I say great con? More like perfect con.
Well, since the banks got the government to subsidize their losses while retaining the notes it was a great deal for the banks.
The government is subsidizing private mortgage debt with public money. Its a win-win for the banks and a lose-lose for the American people.””””
It all started with Jimmah Carter & his ‘Community Reinvestment Act & his attitude that “very American deserved to own their own home” Carter ordered the banks to recognise Welfare payments & food stamps as INCOME. Most of the people who got these bad loans didn’t qualify to buy a T-shirt on payments.
Democrats started this mess & they have fed at the Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac trough until they fattened themselves up like hogs. Banks were in the cross hairs in a situation which could only lead to their downfall.
What also isn't news to anyone who's been paying attention is Duh-bya's eyeballs-deep involvement in the housing crash.
Of course, the conservatives will vehemently deny Bush had anything to do with it and will still worship him despite the Partnership for Prosperity Agreement (with Mexico), the New Alliance Task Force, US Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico and his championing of Shamnesty.
It will be ignored--as it has been so far. It will fall to economic historians to assess this for posterity. Most likely, the objective historians will not be US historians, because anyone in the US who reaches the obvious conclusion that government-driven reverse racial discrimination was a factor in the housing debacle is politically incorrect and risking their job.
The purpose of the CRA wasn’t to provide homes it was to pump up housing prices and extend mortgage debt.
If they wanted lower income earners to be able to afford homes they would have acted to depress housing costs, not increase costs.
It’s a classic pump-and-dump. The large mortgage and MBS issuers have run a government-backed con. The taxpayers and (inflated) mortgage holders are the marks.
Follow the money. It’s all about the debt. How much and who owes whom.
There are plenty of conservatives who point at Bush as well. They’re also uncomfortable with Perry.
don’t know if linkie will work, but it is time to resurrect this again
No one was holding a gun on the banks...Really? I'm no expert but I've read numerous times (and seen testimony in the House and Senate to that effect) that banks were forced to participate in questionable lending practices in which basically ineligible (by any reasonable standard) buyers were "given an opportunity" to buy a home.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Like I said, I am no expert.
But I really have read it and seen it testified to many times... so if I am wrong, I'm not alone.
click on link in post 17....it is a quick slideshow that explains the mortgage crisis completely
When the laws were first passed about red lining and etc, the banks were all up in the air that this would drive up their loss. If you look back at the start, foreclosures were flat lined, no noticeable increase. I remember the first home I sold to a couple of funny girls, my friend at the bank looked at the application and the contract, and said damn, always a first time for every thing.
colluding with the banks to have them lend to high risk neighborhoods and then as a matter of policy looking the other way when the promissory notes were sold in bundles BECAUSE the banks were giving campaign contributions. (or then the bankers and insiders)
I’ve seen that slide-show before and it is clever and don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to argue or stick up for the banks, but I clearly remember back in 2008, when all this happened, a lot of stuff was written and a lot of links were posted to hearings in which Bush administration people were warning the Free Lenders like Maxine Waters and Barney Frank (I particularly remember Barney Frank calling them scare-mongers) that the new regulations that REQUIRED banks to lend money to unqualified borrowers would bring down the system.
Typical of Bush wishy-washyness they didn’t keep pushing the issue, but they did put it out there, early in the 2000s, if I remember correctly.
Was that all a lie? Were there no government rules that basically forced banks to lend money to people who “needed a break”?
I certainly remember a LOT of stuff written and spoken on that subject.
Was it ALL not true?
(A lot of it was posted here, by the way.)
LOL,, before Bush, gave lip service against these high leverage loans, he and mel martinaze worked out a deal for fanny to make more of them. But once again, these loans did not go wrong until the price got so high, from speculation, and fake demand, that it was like a ponzi scheme that runs out of new investors. Why worry about loans going bad when you have laid off the risk, with hedges. Fact is loans without risk have no value, because risk sets the rate. The simple fact is that the fake housing boom gave birth to a lot of fraud. And the CRA played a part, but it was in effect for years and nothing happened. Then in the middle of the night with no hearings phil gramm slipped the credit modernization act through the congress, and gambling became legal on wall street.
So the banks were willing participants in the fraud and not forced to participate by government sanction?
I guess the phrase “crony capitalism” could apply?
You do know that current estimates are that we have about 650 trillion in derivatives floating around. Some say that is a low number.
So how does one go about short-selling (or buying a put on) a derivative?
Actually, it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who "bundled them up into securitized assets and sold them all over the world". They did this so as to get more money to buy (i.e. fund) even more sub-prime mortgages.
It was the banks who bought these securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that got burned.
Well, there are some. Most conservatives choose to ignore Bush's domestic policies and their effects on the US economy.
For example, this article by Paul Sperry, an otherwise trustworthy conservative on staff at IBD, completely ignores the actions Bush took while in office that not just exacerbated the housing situation, but IMO, actually helped bring about the housing crash.
The article jumps from Clinton to Obama and the effects they had while skipping Bush's actions completely.
In the article, no mention is made at all about the goals of Bush's Partnership for Prosperity Agreement (with Mexico) or the agreement's effects on the housing market.
No mention is made of the New Alliance Task Force and the ways that US banking laws were fundamentally changed for the worse.
He also ignored Bush's stated goals to see 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the time he left office or that he wanted to see Fannie and Freddie increase their commitments to the 'minority' markets by $550 billion dollars or that he allowed banks that served the hispanic 'minority' markets, a euphemism for illegal aliens, to claim CRA credit.
Sperry overlooks Bush relaxing the banking rules that allowed Mexican illegal aliens to participate in the US banking market.
He also looks the other way at Bush trying to give US Social Security benefits to Mexican illegal aliens.
Or, that he ordered interior and border immigration enforcement virtually halted.
Not to mention that he publicly championed Mexican granting citizenship to tens of millions illegal aliens all the while telling US citizes lies, like "They're just doing the jobs Americans refuse to do".
All of this was done to get more people into the US housing market. And, if Bush couldn't find enough Americans, then he was going to market to the Mexicans and see to it that there were no barriers to them entering the US markets.
These are just the bullet points. Once you start diving into the details of what Bush did, it gets just as ugly as what Clinton or Obama has done.
With an election year coming with all the finger pointing, and lies that will be said, we must keep this going because the public has a very short memory!!!
PLEASE SHARE BEFORE IT IS REMOVED...
This video clearly shows that George Bush warned Congress way back in 2001, that this economic crisis was coming, if something was not done. But, the Congress refused to Listen, along with the arrogant Congressman, Barney Frank.
This video says it all. The liberal media reportedly did not want this video on You Tube; it was taken off.
This link is of the same video, but, is routed through Canada. Everyone in America needs to see this before it is yanked off the Internet again!
Let’s see how far we can spread it before it’s pulled off the Canadian site.
wouldn’t it be just like a fixer like Herman, to make this an election issue in ‘12? folks who fix things get to the nub of problems, and apply commonsense, conservative solutions. that’s Herman’s MO. wtf
Sure they did. They “create crisis” then assume more Un-Constitutional powers to “solve’ them.....
Ah, yes. The old 'George W. Bush tried to save the country, but the evil democrats blocked him at every turn' canard.
In reality, that video was put out by the Bush administration to divert attention away from Bush's actions which led directly to the housing meltdown.
Did you notice it made no mention of Bush's actions during his first term that forever altered the US housing market?
Answer these questions, grasshopper. If you dare.
For what purpose did Bush meet with Mexico President Vicente Fox a mere three (3) weeks after his inauguration?
Exactly what was the purpose of the US/Mexico Partnership for Prosperity Agreement?
New Alliance Task Force?
American Dream Down Payment Act?
Why did the Bush Justice Dept. and Treasury Dept. give their blessings to the change in banking regulation to allow banks to accept the Matricula Consular card as ID?
Why did the Bush Administration change the rules to allow banks that served the 'minority' market through international remittances to claim CRA credit?
Why did Bush champion amnesty for Mexican illegal aliens?
Why did the Bush administration claim that national security was a priority and form the TSA and DHS while supposedly fighting a "War on Terrorism", then leave the southern borders wide open by ordering border and interior immigration enforcement to the lowest levels in years?
Why didn't the Bush administration complete the southern border fence despite the signing the appropriations into law?
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.