Helen Thomas - Typical Liberal Jew Hater
- Thread starter RockX
- Start date
charver
You lookin' at my pint?
Thanks for the warning.
I shall now maintain a constant level of alertness for suspicious gentlemen clouded with the unmistakable stench of camel vaginas.
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
It was Bush who bailed out the banks not Obama. You would have been the first to bellyache if all your savings and investments, assuming you have any, disappeared down the crapper. If you really want to know why the whole mess occurred then you would do a lot worse than buy a copy of A Colossal Failure of Good Sense. You can buy a used copy on Amazon for 4 or 5 dollars, I'm sure that you're good for that.
Amazon.com: A Colossal Failure of Common Sense: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers (9780307588333): Lawrence G. McDonald, Patrick Robinson: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51SIovP1D1L.@@AMEPARAM@@51SIovP1D1L
Last edited:
christiefan915
Catalyst
And that stalwart Republican Greenspan said he himself didn't see it coming.
"The New York Times wrote, "a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending. ... Mr. Greenspan refused to accept blame for the crisis but acknowledged that his belief in deregulation had been shaken."
In Congressional testimony on October 23, 2008, Greenspan acknowledged that he was "partially" wrong in opposing regulation and stated "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity — myself especially — are in a state of shocked disbelief." Referring to his free-market ideology, Greenspan said: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”
Greenspan admitted fault in opposing regulation of derivatives and acknowledged that financial institutions didn't protect shareholders and investments as well as he expected.
Yes! Thanks so much for finding this.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Too long to print in full but here's a starter:
Jeff Dunetz at Big Government must have passed the right-wing media journalism test. He follows in the same hollowed ethical standards as Andrew Breitbart himself, James O’Keefe and Kevin Pezzi. Dunetz swears this is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but - Blame Barney Frank for the Recession, Not George Bush
Frank aggressively fought reform efforts by the Bush administration. He told The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s problems were “exaggerated.” Exaggerated? Thanks to Fannie and Freddie the housing market collapsed and we fell into this “great recession.”
That paragraph is 99% meaningless nonsense. Republicans controlled the House in 2003 and Tom The hammer Delay of K-Street infamy was House Majority Leader. The House, unlike the Senate is ruled by simple majority. Delay controlled the agenda and Bush 43 was in the White House. Frank could have set himself on fire and still had absolutely zero effect on any Republican attempts to legislate new regulations or create regulatory reform. Fannie and Freddie did not cause the housing bubble or the Great Recession. The numbers don’t add up. In addition Fannie and Freddie did not have that kind of power. Most of their loans were not subprime.
Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.
Look at the numbers. While the credit bubble was peaking from 2003 to 2006, the amount of loans originated by Fannie and Freddie dropped from $2.7 trillion to $1 trillion. Meanwhile, in the private sector, the amount of subprime loans originated jumped to $600 billion from $335 billion and Alt-A loans hit $400 billion from $85 billion in 2003. Fannie and Freddie, which wouldn’t accept crazy floating rate loans, which required income verification and minimum down payments, were left out of the insanity...
(Article continues)
http://thelonggoodbye.wordpress.com...y-frank-the-housing-bubble-and-the-recession/
Jeff Dunetz at Big Government must have passed the right-wing media journalism test. He follows in the same hollowed ethical standards as Andrew Breitbart himself, James O’Keefe and Kevin Pezzi. Dunetz swears this is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but - Blame Barney Frank for the Recession, Not George Bush
Frank aggressively fought reform efforts by the Bush administration. He told The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s problems were “exaggerated.” Exaggerated? Thanks to Fannie and Freddie the housing market collapsed and we fell into this “great recession.”
That paragraph is 99% meaningless nonsense. Republicans controlled the House in 2003 and Tom The hammer Delay of K-Street infamy was House Majority Leader. The House, unlike the Senate is ruled by simple majority. Delay controlled the agenda and Bush 43 was in the White House. Frank could have set himself on fire and still had absolutely zero effect on any Republican attempts to legislate new regulations or create regulatory reform. Fannie and Freddie did not cause the housing bubble or the Great Recession. The numbers don’t add up. In addition Fannie and Freddie did not have that kind of power. Most of their loans were not subprime.
Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.
Look at the numbers. While the credit bubble was peaking from 2003 to 2006, the amount of loans originated by Fannie and Freddie dropped from $2.7 trillion to $1 trillion. Meanwhile, in the private sector, the amount of subprime loans originated jumped to $600 billion from $335 billion and Alt-A loans hit $400 billion from $85 billion in 2003. Fannie and Freddie, which wouldn’t accept crazy floating rate loans, which required income verification and minimum down payments, were left out of the insanity...
(Article continues)
http://thelonggoodbye.wordpress.com...y-frank-the-housing-bubble-and-the-recession/
christiefan915
Catalyst
Yet plenty of repubs in both the Senate and the House voted to help Fannie and Freddie.
The 272-152 roll call Wednesday by which the House passed a bill that aims to help homeowners facing foreclosure and to prevent mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from collapsing.
A "yes" vote is a vote to pass the bill.
Voting yes were 227 Democrats and 45 Republicans.
Voting no were 3 Democrats and 149 Republicans.
The Senate has passed a housing and Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac rescue package (H.R. 3221) by a vote of 72 (Y) to 13 (N). The bill was not modified by the Senate and will therefore be sent to the President for his signature.
christiefan915
Catalyst
bravo wants people to think the repubs had no say-so in bailing Fannie and Freddie but the record show different.
Yes, it does and I still want him to show me what they did to rectify what he thinks is other mess! I don't see them making any sweeping changes in the industry and fighting for the little guys!
Greenspan is not a stupid man by any measurement....For him to claim that
he "had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending. " just strikes me a disingenuous at best and an outright lie at the worst......
I'm a laymen and even I can understand that "wanton" mortgage lending is just asking for trouble....lending to people at 120% of the value of a property with no demand that the borrower has the means to repay the loan is nothing short or stupidity.....
and .....allowing unregulated trading of 'derivatives' is beyond stupidity....
derivatives are nothing more than make-believe assets....
No one wants over regulation of any kind, but no regulation makes no sense either.....do the people running our country have no freakin' common sense at all...
Last edited:
Why, I hit my head on the floor when I fainted, we agree!
Bfgrn
New member
You post this as proof? A disingenuous pile of You Tube garbage. How can you watch that crap without realizing it is a hack job? All the hacking, cutting off of comments and editing was done for the sole purpose of slandering Democrats, not providing any truth. There is no context. Many of the comments and conversations were not even related to the subject. There were comments related to questions about pay and bonuses etc.
If this is what America has come to, this country is toast.
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.
Federal Reserve Board data show that:
* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.
Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.
It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.
This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.
To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.
But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.
During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.
In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.
Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz17MSCaMMW