FACTS on Dubya's great recession

Dodge noted Bubs

 

I certainly didn't read that multifonted, unreadable, incomprehensible nightmare, ya got me there.

 

Of course not Bubs, why would you want to do that? You might have to have some spin about why the 3 GOPers were calling out not only Wallison, but Ed Pinto too, lol

 

Hmm, from your own amazon page:

"Bailout Nation morphs into a Bust"

(the above is a well-reasoned, balanced review, so good I think readers here might like to read it)

http://www.amazon.com/Bailout-Natio...?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0

"Ritholtz decided to join the consensus left-wing orthodoxy about the financial crisis - that it was primarily a failure of the free market, and that if only more regulation had been in place it all could have been avoided. How he can not see the glaring internal contradiction is own conclusions is beyond me He spends over a hundred pages persuasively proving his case that all the government did was disastrous - that their actions in case after case carried horrid unintended consequences - that policymakers have been ineffective bureaucrats for decades - and so forth and so on. Then, in a bizarre twist reeks of ideological plagiarism, Ritholtz morphes into a market-blaming leftist in chapter 11, boldly asserting that if only the government had better controlled and regulated the evil free market all would have been fine. I have read every single credible book on the financial crisis that has been published, and I have never seen a more eggregious case of an author trying to stand on all sides."

"An extremist point of view that leaves much unexplored and grows tiring"

"Disappointing Factual Distortions, Unrealistic Childish Regulatory Solutions, and Left-Wing Ideology"

"Biased Re-write of History"

"A Waste of Money"

 

The FCIC Investigation, Wallison on the GSEs and the Conservative Echo Chamber


Peter Wallison, who is also a fellow dealing with financial regulation for the American Enterprise Institute. He, along with another person named Ed Pinto, have been at the center of the campaign to blame the GSEs for the crisis.

First off, let’s remember what this document is. The FCIC report was designed to be our age’s Pecora Commission, a collection and investigation of original documents and primary sources along with summary document that scholars, historians, economists and reporters will use for generations. It is designed for our government’s investigative powers to get to the bottom of what went wrong in the bubble and the subsequent crash. It was important that honest conservatives and libertarians were on this to provide balance and insight. The panel required serious scholars and investigators, those whose ultimate agenda and requirements were to the truth and the public.

What did we get with AEI’s Peter Wallison? From the documents:

…on November 3, 2010, the day after the mid-term congressional elections in
which Republicans took control of the House, Republican Commissioner Peter Wallison emailed Republican Commissioner Douglas Holtz-Eakin: “It’s very important, I think, that what we say in our separate statements not undermine the ability of the new House GOP to modify or repeal Dodd-Frank.”

The next day, he sent a similar e-mail to Vice Chairman Thomas, attaching an article
entitled “GOP Pledges Major Changes to Dodd-Frank, Fannie and Freddie, CFPB.” He wrote:

“Garrett [Rep. Scott Garrett] has also suggested in the past a complete repeal of Dodd-Frank. This effort should not be undermined. That law will suppress economic growth because it was based on the idea that more regulation was necessary. Boehner also said yesterday that changing this law was a priority.”

Think about this. Wallison is putting pressure on his fellow Republican members to write their FCIC report to serve the political ends of the Republican party and its backers in their legislative quests. Not goals of the public, which we as taxpayers were paying him at the level of a level IV of the Executive Schedule to do, a pretty nice pro-rated six-figure salary, and not the goals of disinterested research. This is the person who leads the financial reform team at the American Enterprise Institute.


https://rortybomb.wordpress.com/201...n-the-gses-and-the-conservative-echo-chamber/

 

Anonymous right wingers? Shocking. Now if they had the same appeal as the reviews I gave from USA Today, Forbes, Bloomberg, etc??? lol

Note it got 4.4 stars out of 5 right??? lol

 

Oh, you think that cherry-pick citing to three people (none of whom voted for the actual partisan report on the mortgage collapse as released... so do you like them or not? can't have it both ways), disagreeing with this or that, stands as an argument of your own that neither Wallison or Pinto are credible sources? It doesn't. Such an argument would entail you posting your own analysis and disagreement with Wallison's or Pinto's methodology in estimating the true amount of subprime loans. I already posted the rationale for Pinto's estimates from a footnote in the dissent. You ignored that entirely in favor of going on and on and on and on and on about these three Republicans. Priceless and typical.

 

Yeah, and I think anyone interested would do well to read the first review I linked. It's the best one I've seen, far better than the MSM sources. I doubt you agree. But really, all anyone interested in learning about the mortgage collapse needs to do to understand the truth is just watch the Allison video I linked previously.

 

We already know that undistinguished leftist bloggers have been furiously at work trying to discredit real industry insiders who dare to depart from the party line. Shocking.

BTW the hagiography that this new "left of Trotsky" blogger you have googled up perpetuates re: the utterly partisan FCIC report as some kind of "shining beacon in the darkness" is one of the most egregious exercises in bald-faced, pukeworthy partisan hackery I've seen lately. You couldn't have possibly picked a more partisan, extremist source to try to discredit a dissent by Wallison that is not particularly partisan.

I don't find anything in your quote of his leftblog persuasive of anything.

 

First Bubs, YOUR premise NOW is I can't have it both ways, BUT you ignored Wallison having it both ways, crying F/F weren't doing enough to help the private banksters and S&L's in 2004 THEN 4 years later blaming F/F for the subprime crisis???? lol

Wallison Reinvents History

This column discusses Wallison's views on the first two subjects while the crisis was developing. Wallison is well-known for his long-standing criticisms of Fannie and Freddie, but most people do not know the nature of those criticisms. Wallison praised subprime mortgage loan and complained that Fannie and Freddie purchased too few subprime loans. Wallison (correctly) explained that Fannie and Freddie's CEOs acted to maximize their wealth - not to fulfill any public purpose involving affordable housing. He also explained that they used accounting abuses to make themselves wealthy.




...By Peter J. Wallison | House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection
(July 22, 2003)

Fannie and Freddie suggest that they provide special assistance to minority families hoping to become homeowners. And if they did this disproportionately--that is, helped minorities or low income borrowers more than they helped middle class borrowers--that would be a powerful argument for preserving their current status.

But they do not do this.




...HUD's Affordable Housing Regulations

Introduction
By Peter J. Wallison | AEI event on HUD's housing regulations
(September 13, 2004)

In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing. After studying the issue for years, HUD has finally proposed regulations that would tighten the definitions of such terms as "low and moderate income," "underserved areas," and "very low income families." Then HUD set a goal that required Fannie and Freddie to devote increasing percentages of their total business to assisting families in the affected groups to become home owners.

In the regulations we will be considering in this conference, HUD is making a valiant effort to bring the activities of Fannie and Freddie into alignment with their statutory mission and with their advertising claims..




The key point is that the Republican leadership knew exactly what it would get when it appointed Wallison to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. He was there because he would have to repudiate his entire career before he could ever join in a bipartisan report


MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE FROM WALLISON HERE BUBS


http://therealnews.com/t2/component...his-own-positions-on-the-causes-of-the-crisis

 

Pinto was destroyed here Bubs

5. Expanding the subprime loan category to say GSEs had more exposure makes no sense: Some argue that the GSEs had huge subprime exposure if you create a new category that supposedly represents the risks of subprime more accurately. This new “high-risk” category is associated with a consultant to AEI named Ed Pinto, and his analysis deliberately blurs the wording on “high-risk” and subprime in much of his writings




http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/1...ampaign=Feed:+TheBigPicture+(The+Big+Picture)


THE THREE GOPERS WHO DISAGREED WITH WALLISON??? LOL

6. Even some Republicans don’t agree with this argument: The three Republicans on the FCIC panel rejected the “blame the GSEs/Congress” approach to explaining the crisis in their minority report. Indeed, they, and most conservatives who know this is a dead end, tend to take a “it’s a whole lot of things, hoocoodanode?” approach.

SAME LINK BUBS


Why Isn't FCIC Commissioner Peter Wallison Facing Criminal Prosecution After He Lied To Congress?



In his latest Bloomberg op-ed, FCIC Commissioner echoes his perjured testimony, wherein he claimed that the Commission ignored the discredited analysis of his colleague at the American Enterprise Institute.


Let’s count the lies:
1. The FCIC did look carefully at Pinto’s research;
2. The FCIC did question Pinto at length and accept all his submissions;
3. The FCIC did test the accuracy of Pinto’s research, and
4. Pinto’s research was made available to all members of the FCIC.
5. The FCIC considered and debunked Pinto's claims, and detailed the process in its report, on page 219 and elsewhere.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...iminal-Prosecution-After-He-Lied-To-Congress#


LOL

LIKE SHOOTING FISH IN A TOILET BOWL BUBS

 

Sorry Bubs, you are slipping, in your ad hom you left out your usual"union" mantra? Late there? lol

 

It is like shooting fish... but in an echo chamber composed of leftblogger Ritholtz, leftblogger rortybomb, leftblogger kos, and cutpaster you (with not an iota of actual banking experience between you) furiously trying to discredit far more accomplished industry veterans with factoids, cherry-picks, and all manner of ill-formed, out of context partisan hackery... and failing miserably at it. Yep just like shooting fish.

 

Yet behind closed door the Republicans on the FCIC are in damage control mode. They can’t find a way to deal with Wallison and this argument and they are actively working to play him and his research partner against each other. They are even so confused as how someone could buy the entirety of this argument that they are worried that it was planted by a paid interest and that their fellow member is a “parrot” for those interests. The Republican Vice-Chair might even have done some quiet snooping to get a sense of what is going on.

The Republicans in the main dissent throw the argument under the bus in a subtle way, but never mention the Pinto/Wallison thesis by name (the majority report does). That way the echo chamber can keep on spinning with this argument. And spin it does. That’s a pretty serious disinformation operation.

https://rortybomb.wordpress.com/201...n-the-gses-and-the-conservative-echo-chamber/



The apologetic free market puppets simply can’t accept the facts that the private sector screwed up

 

Most of DeKalb County Georgia is the suburbs, including this hood, where I used to howl at the moon in the woods when I was a kid:

"WILLIS: A truck driver, Bernita saved up $14,000 to close on a six-bedroom house. Purchase price -- $180 grand. She thought she got a deal on her first loan, a two-year adjustable rate mortgage at 8.375 percent. Her monthly payments -- $1,200." http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/28/siu.01.html

A limit of $359,650 for a single family residence operated like a catalyst:

“SEC. 123. CONFORMING LOAN LIMITS.

(a) Fannie Mae.--
(1) General limit.--Section 302(b)(2) of the Federal
National Mortgage Association Charter Act (12 U.S.C.
1717(b)(2)) is amended by striking the 7th and 8th sentences
and inserting the following new sentences: ``Such limitations
shall not exceed $359,650 for a mortgage secured by a single-
family residence,”

The money the builders and bankers make in getting rid of those irresponsibly sized houses (by having “A truck driver, Bernita” babysit a white collar worker’s house with an ARM) is then used for more irresponsibility in constructing a glut or bubble.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/1461/text

The fact is that in 2005 that bill only mentioned LTV and no mention of DTI, and loan-to-value becomes a problem when the market is artificially high (from a stimulus, such as the Bush Tax Cuts which even Iriemon might remember I have always said I opposed), but a reasonable DTI is what insures that the debtor can survive a downturn in the housing market, and that requires regulation by the FED and laws by Congress.

In Camelot the king can regulate: he can regulate zoning with regard to mixed use hoods, he can regulate house sizes, and he can regulate bank loans.

In a Democracy the ultimate regulator is Congress the Senate (States or patrician class, before the amendment) and House (plebian class): they can delegate authority to a FED that answers to their laws requiring safe and sound banking practices to maintain the value of money by regulating things like DTI or capital requirements, and unless the Judicial Branch says the zoning laws are unconstitutional they have no power over the local Zoning Board of a county of a State.

In Camelot the king can say you must provide an adequate amount of housing in every hood that is affordable due to the size of the house not the loan manipulation.

“This is NOT Camelot stupid!”

To maintain black hoods (without massive gerrymandering) the Democrats are motivated to maintain concentrations of blacks to preserve black Districts, and the only way to prevent too many whites moving in to those nice houses it to give the loans to those who can’t really afford them.

2004 Democratic Platform:

"Average family debt is higher than ever. And as they lose the struggle to make ends meet, one out of every seven middle class families may be bankrupt by the end of the decade...over time, fiscal discipline saves families thousands of dollars on their mortgages and credit cards.”

“You have probably caught that Visa credit card commercial in which a wily wife hides her many shopping sprees under the bed and up in the attic, all out of sight from her clueless husband.
The punch line is that she could have won all that stuff she rung up on the plastic. But the reality behind such behavior is hardly a laughing matter.” (Rene a. Guzman, San Antonio Express-News Jan. 12, 2005 12:00 AM)

Neither Feeney or Kosmas (that is DEMOCRAT) responded to this:

"No creditor shall issue debt to any household which could exceed a 36% debt to income ratio, without the written knowledge and consent of both spouses or domestic partners in the household and each and every creditor the household already owes."

Feel free to comment on that suggested law, otherwise I consider you just like them:

And my Vampire Usurer blood sucking monster Tea Party representative in Congress said that debt in a marriage is a State matter, the Vampire Usurer blood sucking monster Tea Party State representative did not respond.

"Your debt-to-income ratio
36% or less: This is a healthy debt load to carry for most people.

37%-42%: Not bad, but start paring debt now before you get in real trouble.

43%-49%: Financial difficulties are probably imminent unless you take immediate action.

50% or more: Get professional help to aggressively reduce debt.

Source: Gerri Detweiler, author of The Ultimate Credit Handbook"
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/tools/modebtratio.htm

"Fed to discuss max 50% debt-to-income ratio for borrowers, prohibition on 'stated-income' loans to subprime borrowers, and other new rules" (May 29th, 2007, 3:38 pm) http://mortgage.freedomblogging.com...ns-to-subprime-borrowers-and-other-new-rules/

The simple fact is that fiscal discipline does not save anyone from a bad mortgage or six credit cards, only regulation of DTI and safe and sound banking practices can do that. The lack of Bush tax cuts could have helped prevent the bubble, and certainly we would have had the projected trillion dollars in surplus by the time of such a collapse if it happened anyway, I admit that, as I argued against the tax cuts before 9/11 and after argued repeatedly that cutting taxes and a deficit in a long war was stupid (in a short war a new invention called a “deficit” allowed the British to defeat the French), but fiscal discipline still could not prevent average family debt being higher than ever.

Bush was not regulator.

To adequately manage community reinvestment, to not create black hoods or what Southern Democrats called “(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) Town,” the Congress is limited in its control over the zoning of hoods, but with proper regulations of banking with regard to DTI, through the banks the regulators indirectly could refuse the builder’s construction loan for the hood on the grounds that it does not provide safe and sound banking practices to have too many large expensive houses to fit the demographics. And adequate regulation of DTI could prevent the seizure of accounts by a judge obtained by the usurer’s lawyer through the use of a forged signature of a “consumer” for purposes of debt collection, such that the “consumer” who did not know the credit cards existed never got a day in court or notice before seizure, for payment of predatory lending (two Capital One cards, two Discover cards, and two Chase cards) by Vampire Usurers who established a Blood Bank in the attic on the invite of one, putting someone horribly behind on their mortgage.

 

You blaming the poor/blacks has already been debunked

EVERYTHING else you posit, as usual is just right wing nonsense with no bearing on Dubya's regulator failure. Yes Dubya had the FBI, SEC, OCC, HUD, Fannie/Freddie, etc in his branch of Gov't. It's called CABINET LEVEL POSITIONS Bubs

Explain to me what Gov't rule required over 50% of loans in 2006 to be low/no doc loans (stated income, liar loans, ninja, etc)???


Then give me the law that had over 90% of loans in the same year (2006) were ARMS (adjustable)???

 

I did not blame poor blacks in that post you are responding to, so I guess at this point I will just figure you have proven yourself beyond all doubt to be a troll.

One reason I don’t vote for Democrats anymore is because they have this idea that a cabinet official or a president can change the laws, such as telling someone they can’t get a loan. Sorry, only your treasonous Emperor Obama can do that kind of stuff with the full support of the Party of Treason.

Check the date, you have responded to it several times, it is 2007 before the FED, of which Bush and no cabinet official had any control over their rules before it was News they were “to discuss max 50% debt-to-income ratio for borrowers, prohibition on 'stated-income' loans to subprime borrowers, and other new rules”:

"Fed to discuss max 50% debt-to-income ratio for borrowers, prohibition on 'stated-income' loans to subprime borrowers, and other new rules" (May 29th, 2007, 3:38 pm)

PAY ATTENTION TO THAT DATE AND TRY READING.

Let me try again:

"Fed to discuss max 50% debt-to-income ratio for borrowers, prohibition on 'stated-income' loans to subprime borrowers, and other new rules" (May 29th, 2007, 3:38 pm)

Without a law that prohibits ARM’s, or percentages thereof, there was nothing any cabinet official or president could do to stop them, except of course the traitor Obama, which is why I on my own mentioned the pitfalls of them to a black couple during the Clinton Administration. There is nothing Bush or any cabinet official could do to stop those loans, they are the fault of the Congress, the Banks, and the RETARDS who got them.

http://edgehillrealtors.hpearce.com/calculators/index.php?aid=034400131

 

More gymnastics to give Dubya a free pass. Shocking'


"Fed to discuss max 50% debt-to-income ratio for borrowers, prohibition on 'stated-income' loans to subprime borrowers, and other new rules"


PLEASE give me a link that works?? lol



"Without a law that prohibits ARM’s, or percentages thereof, there was nothing any cabinet official or president could do to stop them"



Not only did Dubya take a blind eye but he actively rescinded State laws that would have prohibited the predatory lending by Commercial Banks. Bush was an ENABLER of bad loans in the bubble.



Acting on a request from a national bank, the OCC in 2003 concluded that federal law preempts the provisions of the Georgia Fair Lending Act (GFLA) that would otherwise affect national banks’ real estate lending. At this same time, the OCC also proposed a final rule to clarify the types of state laws that are applicable to national banks. In early 2004, the OCC adopted a final rule providing that state laws that regulate the terms of credit are preempted. The main features of state anti-predatory lending statutes are typically provisions that restrict or prohibit certain loan terms.

Now why would Bush do that besides the fact that banks told him to? that's easy, to increase subprime lending

In addition, clarification of the applicability of state laws to national banks should remove disincentives to subprime lending and increase the supply of credit to subprime borrowers.
http://www.occ.gov/publications/publ...0/wp2004-4.pdf


BTW, ALL 50 STATES SUED, AND WON IN 2009, TO LATE TO STOP DUBYA'S BUBBLE!





The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is an independent bureau within the United States Department of the Treasury that was established by the National Currency Act of 1863 and serves to charter, regulate, and supervise all national banks and thrift institutions and the federal branches and agencies of foreign banks in the United States

The OCC pursues a number of main objectives:

ensures the safety and soundness of the national banking system;
fosters competition by allowing banks to offer new products and services;
improves the efficiency and effectiveness of OCC supervision especially to reduce the regulatory burden;
ensure fair and equal access to financial services to all Americans;
enforces anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism finance laws that apply to national banks and federally licensed branches and agencies of international banks; and
is the agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting acts of misconduct committed by institution-affiliated parties of national banks, including officers, directors, employees, agents and independent contractors (including appraisers, attorneys and accountants).

The OCC participates in interagency activities in order to maintain the integrity of the national banking system. By monitoring capital, asset quality, management, earnings, liquidity, sensitivity to market risk, information technology, consumer compliance, and community reinvestment, the OCC is able to determine whether or not the bank is operating safely and soundly, and meeting all regulatory requirements.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Comptroller_of_the_Currency#Duties_and_functions





Keep up your nonsense Bubs, you have NOTHING else

- - - Updated - - -

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

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

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

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html


Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!



Thanks again to the Bush administrations for allowing the greedy & unethical brokers to operate at their will.

 

The link in question is from the time (2007), but anyone can find more to substantiate it just by a simple search.

“To ensure that national banks and federal savings associations operate in a safe and sound manner, provide fair access to financial services, treat customers fairly, and comply with applicable laws and regulations.” http://www.occ.gov/about/what-we-do/mission/index-about.html

“The President, with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, appoints the Comptroller to head the agency for a five-year term.”

“The OCC was the prototype for a particular kind of government agency meant to operate free of political constraint and interference. Congress gave the OCC authority to operate independently in important respects.” http://www.occ.gov/publications/pub...ions-reports/occ-strategic-plan-2015-2019.pdf

What part of independent did you miss?

June 6, 2007: “Should there be a rebuttable presumption that a loan is unaffordable if the borrower's debt-to-income ratio exceeds 50% at loan origination?
From all practical purposes, a loan allowing debt-to-income ratio of more than 50% is unaffordable. Let us assume an average (hypothetical) income tax rate of 25%, an average (hypothetical) state tax rate of 3.5% and 7.65% FICA and Medicare deduction. The total deduction on account of these taxes would be 36.15% of the gross income. After adding 36.15% to debt-to-income ratio of 50%, the borrower would be left with only 13.85% of the gross income to take care of other living expenses.” http://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2007/June/20070619/OP-1288/OP-1288_10_1.pdf

August 15, 2007: “Finally, there should be a presumption that a loan is unaffordable if the borrower’s debt-to-income ratio exceeds 50%.” http://www.usmayors.org/pressreleases/documents/mortgage_letter_081507.pdf

Need any more?

September 12, 1996: “We estimate that, on average, the household sector increased its debt-to-income ratio about 5 percentage points between 1992 and 1995. This was the result of a 2 percentage point increase in mortgage debt, from 59.8 percent of income to 61.9 percent of income and a 3 percentage point increase in nonmortgage consumer debt, from 16.9 percent of income to 19.8 percent of income.” http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/1996/19960912.htm

October 30,2013: “The QM's primary reform would require the lender to determine that the borrower is able to repay the loan at the time the mortgage is agreed, and that after the loan has been closed the borrower will not have a debt-to-income ratio that exceeds 43 percent.” 8
“8 However this 43 percent limitation is largely illusory. First, the Dodd-Frank Act granted FHA the authority to set its own definition of QM. On September 30, 2013 FHA announced its proposed QM rule, which adopts in whole FHA's current underwriting standards, which routinely allow for DTIs in excess of 43 percent. Second, the CFPB exempted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac approved loans from the 43 percent requirement. The CFPB's action was another reminder of how quickly credit lessons can be supplanted by other concerns: "In light of the fragile state of the mortgage market as a result of the recent mortgage crisis, however, the Bureau is concerned that creditors may initially be reluctant to make loans that are not qualified mortgages, even though they are responsibly underwritten. The final rule therefore provides for a second, temporary category of qualified mortgages that have more flexible underwriting requirements so long as they satisfy the general product feature prerequisites for a qualified mortgage and also satisfy the underwriting requirements of, and are therefore eligible to be purchased, guaranteed or insured by .. .the GSEs while they operate under Federal conservatorship or receivership..." p. 6, http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201301 cfpb final-rule ability-to-repay.pdf “

Did you like that?

Here, I will repost this for you:

"Your debt-to-income ratio
36% or less: This is a healthy debt load to carry for most people.

37%-42%: Not bad, but start paring debt now before you get in real trouble.

43%-49%: Financial difficulties are probably imminent unless you take immediate action.

50% or more: Get professional help to aggressively reduce debt.

Source: Gerri Detweiler, author of The Ultimate Credit Handbook"
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/tools/modebtratio.htm

So is 43% okay with you?

"No creditor shall issue debt to any household which could exceed a 36% debt to income ratio, without the written knowledge and consent of both spouses or domestic partners in the household and each and every creditor the household already owes."

My suggestion has no effect on current loans due to ex post facto, and really all it does is make for knowledge and consent. So in complement with existing law and regulations the DTI could still be higher. And at the time I wrote that no Gay marriage existed, which is why I used “domestic partners.”

Why don’t you just go to the Federal Reserve site and search to your heart’s content. Somewhere in there you will find they wanted less than 50% debt-to-income when discussing the new rules, but felt they did not have the law; I do not keep every link or quote I previously posted, and so late in the game one would have to slog through too much to find those discussions from 2007 and before that.

Call it nonsense again, this topic is way over their limit.

YOu get this:
" First, the Dodd-Frank Act granted FHA the authority to set its own definition of QM. On September 30, 2013 FHA announced its proposed QM rule, which adopts in whole FHA's current underwriting standards, which routinely allow for DTIs in excess of 43 percent. Second, the CFPB exempted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac approved loans from the 43 percent requirement. "

 

So NO, you can't refute Dubya WAS the regulator AND fought ALL 50 states who wanted to reign in predatory lending AND before the court case was won in 2009, people concerned with how Dubya ignored the quality of loans Banksters were handing out to ANYONE with breathed, wanted the fed reserve to enact underwriting guidelines.

Yes the Dodd/Frank act the GOP fought and continue to fight set standards, that were relaxed during Dubya's recession YET Gov't loans during Dubya's ponzi scheme performed 450%-600% better than private market loans, you know before Dodd/Frank tightened it up????


Your inability to produce a link to YOUR posit is noted Bubs

Weird how Gov't loans (BACKED, BOUGHT, INSURED), FHA, F/F etc performed SOOO well compared to the loans in the private markets 2004-2007 when Banksters abandoned underwriting and just handed out over 50% of loans in 2005 with low/no doc loans. You know the type FHA couldn't take, EXCEPTING Dubya who WAS the regulator of F/F and in late 2005 Dubya allowed F/F to chase the private markets to the bottom as they were losing market share?



DON'T UNDERSTAND OCC WAS UNDER TREASURY, AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH CABINET LEVEL POSITION? You know like the Dept of Justice (FBI, DEA, etc), Dept of Education, Agriculture, State, etc?


The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise.

The Cabinet and independent federal agencies are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement and administration of federal laws. These departments and agencies have missions and responsibilities as widely divergent as those of the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch


Supreme Court Strikes Down Bush-Era Preemption Rule -- But Decision is Too Late To Impact Subprime Mortgage Mess


Although the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling today in Cuomo v. Clearing House Association won’t garner anywhere near the attention being given to the Court’s other 5-4 decision today, Ricci v. DeStefano, the ruling in Clearing House is an important one that will help states protect their citizens through enforcement of fair lending laws. The ruling is also the death knell for one of the remaining vestiges of the Bush Administration’s aggressive pro-preemption campaign that protected corporate interests at the expense of both our federalist system and everyday Americans.

As we’ve previously discussed here, at issue in Clearing House was the validity of a regulation adopted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) under President George W. Bush that preempted state efforts to enforce fair lending laws against branches of national banks. The regulation prevented states from enforcing their own laws against predatory lending and discriminatory credit practices – including the types of practices that directly resulted in last year’s subprime mortgage crisis -- and was part of an aggressive effort by the Bush Administration to use federal preemption to trump important state laws that protect consumers, the environment, and public health and safety. Although President Obama recently ordered executive branch agencies to review “preemption preambles” and codified preemption rules to ensure that they do not seek to unjustifiably preempt state authority, this action came too late for the regulation at issue in the Clearing House case and, in fact, the Obama Administration chose to defend this regulation before the Supreme Court.

http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/940

 

While most executive agencies have a single director, administrator, or secretary appointed by the President of the United States, independent agencies (in the narrower sense of being outside presidential control) almost always have a commission, board, or similar collegial body consisting of five to seven members who share power over the agency. (This is why many independent agencies include the word "Commission" or "Board" in their name.) The President appoints the commissioners or board members, subject to Senate confirmation, but they often serve with staggered terms, and often for longer terms than a usual four-year Presidential term, meaning most Presidents will not have the opportunity to appoint all the commissioners of a given independent agency. Normally the President can designate which Commissioner will serve as the Chairperson

In reality, the high turnover rate among these commissioners or board members means that most Presidents have the opportunity to fill enough vacancies to constitute a voting majority on each independent agency commission within the first two years of the first term as President.


Presidents have found the independent agencies more loyal and in lockstep with the President's wishes and policy objectives than some dissenters among the executive agency political appointments


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepe...ates_government#Independent_regulatory_agency

 

Look retard, sites go down over time.

" First, the Dodd-Frank Act granted FHA the authority to set its own definition of QM. On September 30, 2013 FHA announced its proposed QM rule, which adopts in whole FHA's current underwriting standards, which routinely allow for DTIs in excess of 43 percent. Second, the CFPB exempted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac approved loans from the 43 percent requirement. "

I am done here.

 

Don't know why you are bringing up the nonsense. It has ZERO to do with Dubya';s regulator failure 2003-2008 as he cheered on the Banksters as they gave out loans to ANYONE who was breathing....

 

One of the reasons I choose not to come here often is because of the abject ignorance some left wing posters write, which takes away from factual discussion and continually sound like fairy tales.

As is always the case with you and your arguments is, you answer my apple with a long winded discussion about oranges.

The absolute totally true facts is, the upswing in price over value started in 1996. Another fact, even though the pundits did not consider it a "balloon" until 2004 is irrelevant. The laws started with Carter, went no where for a while then took off in the wrong direction with Clinton and Bush. Though Clinton WAS a better fiscal president than Bush does not change the fact that he is involved in the most disastrous housing boom and bust the nation has ever known. You don't believe that BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE IT. Typical of left wing extremist fanatics.

BTW, in answer to an ignorant concept that because private lenders not subject to congressional regulations had to follow the ones who were of go bankrupt in the process. Why not try to learn something instead of your constant believing of propaganda and re-spewing it at us.

 

Perfect. Funny thing is they ALL do here, call from the exact same playbook, over and over and over.