Bill Maher rails against COVID restrictions: It's time to admit pandemic is 'over'

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)--which required banks to make mortgage loans to borrowers that were riskier than their normal loans--was certainly a part of the same government-quota approach that underlay the affordable housing requirements and was strongly supported by Congressman Frank.

Barney Frank's most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

Of the 19.2 million subprime and low quality loans that were on the books of government agencies in 2008, 12 million (about 62%) were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie.

It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans.

By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007.

As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government. When these mortgages failed in unprecedented numbers in 2008, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S., they weakened all financial institutions and caused the financial crisis.

Congressman Frank makes assertions about who was responsible, but he, like all those who hold his position, have no data. He says that the banks were responsible, but cannot challenge the figures outlined above. These numbers show, beyond question, that it was government housing policy that caused the financial crisis.

Even he has admitted it. In an interview on Larry Kudlow's show in August 2010, he said "I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie. It was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it."

Have Republicans "blamed the housing crisis on the Clinton-era push to lend more to poor people" as Frank suggested? Of course not. Those who took advantage of the opportunity offered by the government's policies are not to blame for the crisis, just as those who make use of Medicare or other government programs are not responsible for the government's current debt problems. It is the government's fault for offering a housing finance program without making any effort to prevent the deterioration in mortgage underwriting standards.

For most of his career, Congressman Frank was one of the leaders of the effort in Congress to meet the demands of activists like ACORN for an easing of underwriting standards in order to make home ownership more accessible to more people. It was perhaps a worthwhile goal, but it caused the financial crisis when it was done by lowering mortgage underwriting standards. In the end, it was a colossal policy error by Congress and two presidential administrations. Frank admitted this in the Kudlow interview above. To his credit, Frank recognized his error by 2007, but by that time it was too late. Fannie and Freddie were nearing insolvency and the housing market was so engorged with subprime and other low quality mortgages that nothing could save it.

Peter Wallison was a member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, appointed by Congress to investigate the causes of the 2008 financial crisis. He dissented from the FCIC's majority report, and in his dissent, he used the data above to indict government's housing policy.


https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/
 
I had enough of Maher about 10 years ago. He's a comedian first and foremost. He always ruined the debates because he saw an opportunity to insert a joke. 'New Rules' still rocks, but I've had enough of his nonsense when he's on a soap box.

Quit lying. You loved him when he was bashing Republicans, didn't you?
 
No. It was driven by ordinary greed among banks and people. It was gambling.


Wasn't it enabled by the Community Reinvestment Act, which incrementally mandated an erosion of underwriting standards? In April, 2005, a pack of pandering DEMOCRATS led by Barney Frank pushed for the extension of extremely high-risk loans backed by the federal government, as I recall.
 
Non-sequitur fallacies.

Bush didn't cause the crash. Obama didn't cause the stock market to crash as a result of it.

Nope, they were certainly on Bush's watch. That is when we had votes to save the banking system. The stock market crashed during Bush, The home evictions did too. Bush was shedding 800,000 jobs a month at the end of his term.
 
Wasn't it enabled by the Community Reinvestment Act, which incrementally mandated an erosion of underwriting standards? In April, 2005, a pack of pandering DEMOCRATS led by Barney Frank pushed for the extension of extremely high-risk loans backed by the federal government, as I recall.

Not quite. The CRA did lower standards for first time home buyers, and that certainly was an enabling factor, but the high risk loans were for house flippers...people buying 2nd, 3rd, 4th homes while employed as a waitress, for example. Those loans were made with balloon payments. The idea was to make a quick sale by flipping the house and make money using these loans before the balloon payment came due.

Then housing prices dropped. People were forced to hold the house they could not afford the balloon payment for. They just mailed the keys to the bank and let the bank take possession of the property. Now the banks were getting a lot of property they had to maintain and try to unload. That depressed house prices further. The cascade started. As bank after bank accumulated bad loans, and interbank loans were threaded through them, it took some time to unwind.

Obama further exacerbated the situation by bailing out the banks, essentially rewarding risky behavior, and extending the downturn into another depression that lasted eight years.

The cause was greed; from people, and from the banks.
 
Nope, they were certainly on Bush's watch.
Bush did not cause the crash.
That is when we had votes to save the banking system.
Nothing could save the banking system.
The stock market crashed during Bush,
So? Bush didn't cause that either.
The home evictions did too.
Home evictions increase dramatically, they did not crash.
Bush was shedding 800,000 jobs a month at the end of his term.
Bush wasn't firing anyone.
 
I had enough of Maher about 10 years ago. He's a comedian first and foremost. He always ruined the debates because he saw an opportunity to insert a joke. 'New Rules' still rocks, but I've had enough of his nonsense when he's on a soap box.

Do you like Colbert?
 
I like Maher a lot, but he's not a virologist, so his opinion is uninformed and therefore meaningless. I don't understand why people can't listen to actual scientists regarding science.
 
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)--which required banks to make mortgage loans to borrowers that were riskier than their normal loans--was certainly a part of the same government-quota approach that underlay the affordable housing requirements and was strongly supported by Congressman Frank.

Barney Frank's most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.

Of the 19.2 million subprime and low quality loans that were on the books of government agencies in 2008, 12 million (about 62%) were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie.

It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans.

By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007.

As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government. When these mortgages failed in unprecedented numbers in 2008, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S., they weakened all financial institutions and caused the financial crisis.

Congressman Frank makes assertions about who was responsible, but he, like all those who hold his position, have no data. He says that the banks were responsible, but cannot challenge the figures outlined above. These numbers show, beyond question, that it was government housing policy that caused the financial crisis.

Even he has admitted it. In an interview on Larry Kudlow's show in August 2010, he said "I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie. It was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it."

Have Republicans "blamed the housing crisis on the Clinton-era push to lend more to poor people" as Frank suggested? Of course not. Those who took advantage of the opportunity offered by the government's policies are not to blame for the crisis, just as those who make use of Medicare or other government programs are not responsible for the government's current debt problems. It is the government's fault for offering a housing finance program without making any effort to prevent the deterioration in mortgage underwriting standards.

For most of his career, Congressman Frank was one of the leaders of the effort in Congress to meet the demands of activists like ACORN for an easing of underwriting standards in order to make home ownership more accessible to more people. It was perhaps a worthwhile goal, but it caused the financial crisis when it was done by lowering mortgage underwriting standards. In the end, it was a colossal policy error by Congress and two presidential administrations. Frank admitted this in the Kudlow interview above. To his credit, Frank recognized his error by 2007, but by that time it was too late. Fannie and Freddie were nearing insolvency and the housing market was so engorged with subprime and other low quality mortgages that nothing could save it.

Peter Wallison was a member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, appointed by Congress to investigate the causes of the 2008 financial crisis. He dissented from the FCIC's majority report, and in his dissent, he used the data above to indict government's housing policy.


https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/

That's a great article.
 
I like Maher a lot, but he's not a virologist, so his opinion is uninformed and therefore meaningless. I don't understand why people can't listen to actual scientists regarding science.

Be sure not all scientists have the same opinion, this is especially true regarding the present pandemic. Look at the Great Barrington Declaration to see that's a fact. Also often as not, politicians use scientists to bolster their own chosen course of action and to take the heat off of them.


 
Back
Top