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

Skip to comments.

Smoking-Gun Document Ties Policy To Housing Crisis
Investor's Business Daily ^ | 10/31/2011 | Paul Sperry

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: clinton; cra; fannie; holder; housing; meltdown; mortgage; obama

1 posted on 10/31/2011 7:09:48 AM PDT by Slyscribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Slyscribe

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!


2 posted on 10/31/2011 7:13:54 AM PDT by icwhatudo ("laws requiring compulsory abortion could be sustained under the constitution"-Obama official)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

...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.


3 posted on 10/31/2011 7:17:59 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Slyscribe

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.


4 posted on 10/31/2011 7:20:00 AM PDT by stickywillie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
At the same time these banks spent millions and millions advertising for more business.
5 posted on 10/31/2011 7:20:00 AM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow demorats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

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.


6 posted on 10/31/2011 7:20:58 AM PDT by Justa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Slyscribe

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.......


7 posted on 10/31/2011 7:22:04 AM PDT by liberalh8ter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

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.


8 posted on 10/31/2011 7:23:01 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Justa

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.””””

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.


9 posted on 10/31/2011 7:44:26 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter
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......

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.

10 posted on 10/31/2011 7:49:10 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Slyscribe

ping


11 posted on 10/31/2011 7:54:15 AM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stickywillie
Will heads roll, or will this evidence too be ignored.

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.

12 posted on 10/31/2011 8:05:19 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

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.


13 posted on 10/31/2011 8:06:16 AM PDT by Justa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Justa
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.

+1

14 posted on 10/31/2011 8:09:40 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles
No one was holding a gun on the banks, the most of which went under due to future developments that went broke not home loans, development and commercial loans killed them. When you lend money on a thousand acres of land and the borrow goes belly up after installing the streets and utilities what happens.
15 posted on 10/31/2011 8:10:30 AM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow demorats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

There are plenty of conservatives who point at Bush as well. They’re also uncomfortable with Perry.


16 posted on 10/31/2011 8:11:19 AM PDT by liberalh8ter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

https://docs.google.com/present/view?skipauth=true&id=ddp4zq7n_0cdjsr4fn

don’t know if linkie will work, but it is time to resurrect this again


17 posted on 10/31/2011 8:13:09 AM PDT by joe fonebone (Project Gunwalker, this will make watergate look like the warm up band......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
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.

18 posted on 10/31/2011 8:15:12 AM PDT by samtheman (Newt? Can you do it? Can you repudiate your time on the Pelosi couch?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Justa
When they got the prices so damn high. That there was no way average joe could make the payments, they pumped it more with interest only and balloon payments. No one forced the banks to make these loans, they did it to make money and keep the scam going.
19 posted on 10/31/2011 8:15:58 AM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow demorats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

click on link in post 17....it is a quick slideshow that explains the mortgage crisis completely


20 posted on 10/31/2011 8:19:30 AM PDT by joe fonebone (Project Gunwalker, this will make watergate look like the warm up band......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

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.


21 posted on 10/31/2011 8:24:13 AM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow demorats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

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)


22 posted on 10/31/2011 8:39:15 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]




Click the Pic             Thank you, JoeProBono

Gary and Harriet Set Their Portraits in Stained Glass
For a Window in Their New Home

Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!


Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly

If every FReeper and Lurker gave just $7 a month
No More FReepathons!

23 posted on 10/31/2011 8:46:10 AM PDT by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone; org.whodat

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.)


24 posted on 10/31/2011 9:03:02 AM PDT by samtheman (Newt? Can you do it? Can you repudiate your time on the Pelosi couch?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

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.


25 posted on 10/31/2011 9:21:50 AM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow demorats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

So the banks were willing participants in the fraud and not forced to participate by government sanction?


26 posted on 10/31/2011 9:31:12 AM PDT by samtheman (Newt? Can you do it? Can you repudiate your time on the Pelosi couch?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
Yes and no, at first they thought it a bad ideal, but then they were making about 5 to 10,000 per roll over, laid them off bought insurance, what could go wrong. They found out, the price gets so high you run out of buyers and the house of cards all fall down.
27 posted on 10/31/2011 9:37:43 AM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow demorats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

Interesting. Thanks.

I guess the phrase “crony capitalism” could apply?


28 posted on 10/31/2011 9:40:08 AM PDT by samtheman (Newt? Can you do it? Can you repudiate your time on the Pelosi couch?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

You do know that current estimates are that we have about 650 trillion in derivatives floating around. Some say that is a low number.


29 posted on 10/31/2011 9:40:35 AM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow demorats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

So how does one go about short-selling (or buying a put on) a derivative?


30 posted on 10/31/2011 9:47:35 AM PDT by samtheman (Newt? Can you do it? Can you repudiate your time on the Pelosi couch?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
...and then the banks bundled them up into securitized assets and sold them all over the world,

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.

31 posted on 10/31/2011 9:48:01 AM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
Find the poster that posts all the stock market reports here. He will fix you up.
32 posted on 10/31/2011 9:59:41 AM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow demorats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Slyscribe

book mark


33 posted on 10/31/2011 10:16:36 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter
There are plenty of conservatives who point at Bush as well.

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.

34 posted on 10/31/2011 2:00:33 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1 ;


35 posted on 10/31/2011 6:11:19 PM PDT by Leo Carpathian (fffffFRrrreeeeepppeeee-ssed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

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


36 posted on 10/31/2011 8:21:25 PM PDT by stickywillie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Slyscribe

Sure they did. They “create crisis” then assume more Un-Constitutional powers to “solve’ them.....


37 posted on 10/31/2011 8:23:19 PM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyscribe

Bump.


38 posted on 11/01/2011 11:41:15 AM PDT by Qbert ("The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry" - William F. Buckley, Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leo Carpathian
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.

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?

39 posted on 11/01/2011 1:16:04 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | 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