As America Changes, Some Anxious Whites Feel Left Behind

evince said:
SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.


eight fucking years
Click to expand...

post 326
 
evince said:
WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a longtime proponent of deregulation, acknowledged Friday that failures in a voluntary supervision program for Wall Street’s largest investment banks had contributed to the global financial crisis, and he abruptly shut the program down.
The SEC’s oversight responsibilities will largely shift to the Federal Reserve.
Also Friday, the SEC’s inspector general released a report strongly criticizing the agency’s performance in monitoring Bear Stearns before it collapsed in March. Christopher Cox, the commission chairman, said he agreed that the oversight program was “fundamentally flawed from the beginning.”
Click to expand...

post 330
 
evince said:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21707830-How-the-Bush-Administration-Protected-Predatory-Lending



Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers
By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A25

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

The writer was governor of New York.
Click to expand...

post 333
 
evince said:
One of the major promises of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is to stimulate greater competition in the financial services industry, and give investors a wider array of services at lower prices. Much of that has occurred, but not as much as was expected, in part due to ambiguity in the governing legal rules. Today's action is especially important to help bring the legislative promise of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to fulfillment.

the linkisthfirst link in my signature


this was done by the republican party to avoid the good effects in the Gram leach bliely act signed by Clinton


the republicans didn't implement the rules so the banks got everything they wanted and NONE of the things they didnt want from GLB act


The GLB act would have worked fine if the fucking republicans under Bush has implemented the rules
Click to expand...

post 316
 
Truth Detector said:
No one "de-regulated" mortgages you lying leftist moron. .
Click to expand...

Yes you did. You dramatically weakened underwriting standards for subprimes. "Dramatically weakening standards" is another way of saying deregulation.

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that 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.”
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...s update.pdf


Truth Detector said:
ood lord; you morons just make up your bullshit as you go.
Click to expand...

Stop accusing me of doing the things you do; that's called projection.
 
The Twerp said:
The links are in the post you responded to you, boy wonder...they're light blue. Is this your first time on a message board?

Here's the 2000 Clinton-era HUD rule: "(In 2000) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

Here's Bush reversing that rule: "In 2004, the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."

See, my links come from the WaPo and the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

Yours are just bullshit propaganda from right-wing echo chamber.

You're a joke, dude.
Click to expand...

From your link you dumbfuck, you're the idiot saying it wasn't GSEs:

Conclusion

If the affordable housing goals don’t account for the GSEs’ purchases of high risk subprime mortgages and their subsequent financial collapse, what does? The best explanation is the simplest. The GSEs badly misjudged the risk of subprime and Alt-A mortgages. They thought there were large profits to be made in the growing subprime market, and they sought to maintain and expand their share of the home mortgage market. They were not alone in misjudging the risks of subprime mortgages; so did other lenders. Indeed, the GSEs were by no means the first lenders to run into problems with their non-prime portfolios; HSBC and New Century were frontpage news in February 2007. But the GSEs, because they were bigger and were required to hold less capital took the biggest risks and had the most spectacular problems.

The GSEs have made other misjudgments than threatened their solvency. Economists have often analyzed risk for financial institutions along three dimensions:
interest rate risk, credit risk, operations risk. The GSEs have experienced all three.

Again, this had NOTHING to do with Bush and EVERYTHING to do with the Government extending it's hand into mortgage lending practices and demanding quotas. That happens to be a Liberal leftist Democratic Party of the Jackass policy.
 
The Twerp said:
The links said Bush was the one who killed GSE reform.

Do you know how to read?
Click to expand...

No they did not dumbass. But then, you're a dumbass on steroids who arrogantly thinks he has a brain and can argue complex issues. It is OBVIOUS that you are neither; just another wannabe blowhard blaming Republicans of Democratic failures.
 
The Twerp said:
I'm not about keeping a party of fascists and racists around for the sake of a two-party system.
Click to expand...

:lolup: Fascist moron on the left believing in a one party system. Sieg Heil!! :rofl2:

giphy.gif
 
Trump gave them exactly what LBJ said would make fools of many, when LBJ said:
President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."


Trump gave them Muslims and Mexicans to look down upon and to sweeten the deal he offered, he gave them a renewed sense to promote racism against blacks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top