As America Changes, Some Anxious Whites Feel Left Behind

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

Stop accusing me of doing the things you do; that's called projection.

:lolup: Moron thinks a fed paper covering it's ass is the final say. :rofl2: Fucking twit.

No one "weakened" the underwriting standards you dumb fuck. The GSE's were on full stupid mode led by an arrogant brain dead clueless leftist democratic crook named Franklin Raines.

At the same time, the House also introduced similar legislation, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 1461), in the Spring of 2005. The House Financial Services Committee had crafted changes and produced a Committee Report by July 2005 to the legislation. It was passed by the House in October in spite of President Bush's statement of policy opposed to the House version, which stated: "The regulatory regime envisioned by H.R. 1461 is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial institutions."[32] The legislation met with opposition from both Democrats and Republicans at that point and the Senate never took up the House passed version for consideration after that.[33]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae
 
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.


So a few things:

1) It doesn't say the GSE were to blame
2) It establishes that the GSE's were the victims
3) Bush was the one who stopped any GSE reform in 2003; not that it mattered anyway, GSE's didn't cause the crisis...you guys did.
 
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

:lolup: Another massive pile of race hustling bile. :rofl2: Yep, we really need to quote a race hustling fool like LBJ; the man who lied us into Vietnam. :rofl2:

Liberals are the dumbest fucks on the planet.
 
So a few things:

1) It doesn't say the GSE were to blame
2) It establishes that the GSE's were the victims
3) Bush was the one who stopped any GSE reform in 2003; not that it mattered anyway, GSE's didn't cause the crisis...you guys did.

:lolup: Lying leftist moron now claims GSE's were VICTIMS!!! :rofl2: STFU dimwitted wonder dunce.

giphy.gif
 
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.

Yes they did, you illiterate:

"Strong opposition by the Bush administration forced a top Republican congressman to delay a vote on a bill that would create a new regulator for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

What does that sentence say? Is English your first language? When you read that sentence, what do the words mean to you?


Despite what appeared to be a broad consensus on GSE regulatory reform, efforts quickly stalled. A legislative markup scheduled for October 8, 2003, in the House of Representatives was halted because the Bush administration withdrew its support for the bill,

So what do those words above mean?
 
I'm not about keeping a party of fascists and racists around for the sake of a two-party system.

the two party system is not mandated


its the natural way of things


we have tons of parties

THE PEOPLE ONLY REALLY LIKE THE TWO MAIN ONES


why?


One fights for good democratic ideas

the other main party is the tool of the rich assholes who pay money to keep fooling the foolable
 
:lolup: Moron thinks a fed paper covering it's ass is the final say. :rofl2: Fucking twit.

No one "weakened" the underwriting standards you dumb fuck. The GSE's were on full stupid mode led by an arrogant brain dead clueless leftist democratic crook named Franklin Raines.

At the same time, the House also introduced similar legislation, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 1461), in the Spring of 2005. The House Financial Services Committee had crafted changes and produced a Committee Report by July 2005 to the legislation. It was passed by the House in October in spite of President Bush's statement of policy opposed to the House version, which stated: "The regulatory regime envisioned by H.R. 1461 is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial institutions."[32] The legislation met with opposition from both Democrats and Republicans at that point and the Senate never took up the House passed version for consideration after that.[33]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

Firstly, don't rely on Wikipedia for your sources.

Secondly, yes, standards were weakened. That's what Bush's Working Group on Financial Markets said in 2008.

And thanks for posting a link showing Bush opposed GSE reform. Not that it mattered anyway; GSE's didn't cause the housing bubble...your shitty deregulation and tax cuts did.
 
Firstly, don't rely on Wikipedia for your sources.

Secondly, yes, standards were weakened. That's what Bush's Working Group on Financial Markets said in 2008.

And thanks for posting a link showing Bush opposed GSE reform. Not that it mattered anyway; GSE's didn't cause the housing bubble...your shitty deregulation and tax cuts did.

WIKI IS FINE
 
:lolup: Moron thinks a fed paper covering it's ass is the final say. :rofl2: Fucking twit.

No one "weakened" the underwriting standards you dumb fuck. The GSE's were on full stupid mode led by an arrogant brain dead clueless leftist democratic crook named Franklin Raines.

At the same time, the House also introduced similar legislation, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 1461), in the Spring of 2005. The House Financial Services Committee had crafted changes and produced a Committee Report by July 2005 to the legislation. It was passed by the House in October in spite of President Bush's statement of policy opposed to the House version, which stated: "The regulatory regime envisioned by H.R. 1461 is considerably weaker than that which governs other large, complex financial institutions."[32] The legislation met with opposition from both Democrats and Republicans at that point and the Senate never took up the House passed version for consideration after that.[33]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

Also, that's not from my link. So you lied. You linked it to Wikipedia, not my link. Why do you lie? Oh right, because you're a Conservative and all Conservatives can do is lie.
 
:lolup: Lying leftist moron now claims GSE's were VICTIMS!!

They were victims. You're the ones who forced them into counting risky loans toward affordable housing goals in 2004, after Clinton and the Democrats banned that in 2000.

Everything Conservative touches turns to shit. Everything. There is no exception. Conservatives have done nothing good for this country ever. Ever.
 
Not the Fed you stupid motherfucker...Bush's Working Group on Financial Markets said that.

So now you're not even reading links given to you. That's because you're a fraud. But you know that already.

you are debating an idiot russo bot hole
 
just use these asshole ass mites as a framework to repeat the real facts

people read this stuff believe it or not

lots of people look but dont post

but do read
 
https://www.mercurynews.com/2008/09/26/sec-chief-acknowledges-failure-of-voluntary-oversight/


News

SEC chief acknowledges failure of ‘voluntary oversight”


By Mercury News | themerc@bayareanewsgroup.com |
September 26, 2008 at 3:11 pm


post 338


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.”
 
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.



post 333

the whole time the Bush assholes were fighting the sates who were trying to make state laws to regulate the banks
 
Back
Top