FACTS on Dubya's great recession

You and me both. Are yours clueless dumbasses on the internet too?

Aww, him still mad about me saying bad things about unionz in another thread. Him vewy vewy tender.

Dealt with prior in great detail. Unresponsive.

 

"I believe Allison, Wallison and my own extensive experience and knowledge moreso than Kimberly Amadeo. Readers are certainly free to draw their own conclusions."


Peter Wallison in 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.”

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.

Peter Wallison blamed the GSEs when he served as the fourth Republican on the FCIC panel. What did the other three Republicans make of his argument? Check out these released FCIC emails from the GOP members. They are really fun, because you can see the other Republicans doing damage control and debating whether Wallison and Pinto were on the take for making this argument — because the argument makes no sense when looking at the data.

There are lots of great quotes: “Re: peter, it seems that if you get pinto on your side, peter can’t complain. But is peter thinking idependently [sic] or is he just a parrot for pinto?”, “I can’t tell re: who is the leader and who is the follower,” “Maybe this email is reaching you too late but I think wmt [William M. Thomas] is going to push to find out if pinto is being paid by anyone.” And then there’s the infamous event where Wallison emailed his fellow GOP member: “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.”



LOL

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

 

...yet another unreadable, unstructured wall of babbling cut and paste not coming anywhere close to amounting to a cohesive argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

 

Unresponsive, repetitive, just another cutpaste, no paragraph structure, more googled up mess of a giant textvomit. Do better. Seriously, google king, until you learn the basics of creating and structuring a post, I'm doing nothing but making fun of you. Do better.

 

I've been over this cr*p so many times it hurts to even look at it.

And still we have the idiots arguing about "whether" instead of "how much".

This country is doomed, 50% of the voters have their heads buried so far up their party's butt they can't smell fresh air anymore.

 

" Quote Originally Posted by dad2three

"Banks were TERRIFIED of CRA"


Yes, -we- bankers were.

Quote Originally Posted by dad2three


Community Reinvestment Act, blamed for home market crash, didn't apply to the banks that did the most lending.
Dealt with in great detail previously, irrelevant, unresponsive."



LOL


Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf




Myth 3

The financial crisis was brought about because the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 forced banks to lend to people with low incomes who could not afford to pay back their mortgages: The FCIC Majority and Primary Dissent roundly reject this myth, leaving the Solo Dissent as the lone proponent of this shaky story





http://www.salon.com/2014/05/25/tox..._you_think_about_the_housing_market_is_wrong/



Let’s look at a few inconvenient facts. We had housing bubbles in the UK, Australia, Ireland, Spain, Iceland, Latvia, Canada, and a lot of Eastern Europe. Can we blame the CRA and Fannie and Freddie for that? How about the M&A boom, which resulted in a ton of leveraged loans being issued at super low spreads? If the Fed and other central banks had not driven rates to the floor, we’d see a good bit more distress and dislocation in this sector of the market. Oh, and how about the fact that banks in Continental Europe, which had no housing bubble in their home markets, and no evil Fannie or Freddie analogues, also nearly keeled over in the crisis?

This whole line of thinking is garbage, the financial policy equivalent of arguing that the sun revolves around the earth. Yes, the US and other countries provide overly generous subsidies to housing, and curtailing them over time would not be a bad idea. But that’s been our policy for decades. Calling that a major, let alone primary, cause of the crisis, is simply a highly coded “blame the poor” strategy


http://economistsview.typepad.com/e...-of-fcic-to-promote-crisis-urban-legends.html

 

Brad Miller has a post at Huffington Post called “Republican Amnesia on the Financial Crisis.” The important story is that that during the 2000s, conservatives and libertarians hated the CRA and the GSEs because they believed that these institutions blocked or slowed the ability to give loans to poor people. After the crash, the right did an immediate about-face, blaming these institutions for lending too much.

I’m not making that up. Check out the Miller post. I’ve been documenting this for a while. As Cato put it in 2003, “…by increasing the costs to banks of doing business in distressed communities, the CRA makes banks likely to deny credit to marginal borrowers that would qualify for credit if costs were not so high.” Bill Black walks through Wallison’s turnaround on everything, and the GSEs in particular, here and here.

Meanwhile, David Frum is reading the FCIC report. His post on the CRA, “Did Washington Push Banks to Make Bad Loans?,” ends with the quote: “George Bailey of It’s a Wonderful Life retired from mortgage lending forever. In the new anonymous securitized market, high-flown liberal egalitarian ideals became the material out of which self-interested and consequence-indifferent financial engineers built the biggest economic bomb since World War II.”

Firstly, and the FCIC report emphasizes this in passing, but we had a credit bubble, and bubbles showed up everywhere, not just in housing.

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/n...-society-bridge-permanent-republican-majority

 

...Yep, another spew of it. Can anyone else confirm that this poster's posts look like a cat ran across the keyboard? Or is it just me? If it's just me... eh, I know it's not just me. Does anyone else get the idea this guy is just cutpasting different font sized crap out of a folder on his desktop or a research paper he wrote for sophomore Econ? Certainly appears that way.

 

I get it Bubba, Peter Walllison and the OTHER CONSERVATIVES DOING AN ABOUT FACE SOOOO FAST, lol




the three Republican commissioners argued that the financial crisis was caused by a combination of dimly understood macroeconomic forces, an unforeseeable "perfect storm."


lol


Was this crisis preventable? "We don't know," said Republican FCIC commissioner Keith Hennessy. That argument has also been justly mocked by economics bloggers as "hoocoodanode?" ("Who could have known?"), but is far less laughable.



Only one commissioner, Peter Wallison, stuck with the Republican agitprop narrative.



Republican politicians with little scholarly reputation to protect are undeterred, of course, by the defection of three of the four Republican FCIC commissioners or by the repeated demolition of the narrative by economists.

But here's a question Republicans in Congress don't want to hear: why haven't they reminded us that they warned before the financial crisis that subprime mortgages would come to grief? And why haven't banks, happily exculpated by the narrative, reminded us that they warned at the time that they were being forced to make foolish loans that would endanger their solvency?




The answer is simple: the Republican narrative was created from scratch after the financial crisis.



During the height of subprime lending, the lending industry, conservative commentators and Republican politicians celebrated subprime mortgages as the triumph of the innovation that comes from unfettered capitalism. Subprime mortgages, they said, made homeownership possible for millions of American families who could never own their own home under the dreary, stultifying rules that Democrats like me proposed.



Robert Crouch testified at a congressional hearing on behalf of the Mortgage Bankers Association on November 5, 2003. Crouch said that "through innovations in the mortgage finance industry, and through various financing and risk enhancing tools created for the specific purpose of extending credit to our more needy communities, credit-impaired individuals now have ample opportunity to obtain loans through this 'non-prime,' or 'sub-prime' market." The growth of the subprime market, Crouch said, "disproportionately benefited low-income and minority borrowers, as these groups are much more likely to rely on subprime credit. One clear and visible outcome has been an increase in homeownership rates for low-income and minority borrowers."


...American Bankers Association. Dana said that "the ABA believes that the development of the subprime market has been a positive development for American consumers."



"I need not remind my colleagues on the committee that Americans currently enjoy the highest rate of homeownership in the history of America," Congressman Jeb Hensarling said at a congressional hearing on May 24, 2005. "The benefits of free enterprise and competition have been plentiful. With the advent of subprime lending, countless families have now had their first opportunity to buy a home or perhaps be given a second chance. The American dream should never be limited to the well-off or those consumers fortunate enough to have access to prime rate loans."



Nor was there a discouraging word about subprime mortgages from conservative commentators.



But in 2000, the conservative CATO Institute published an article that said "CRA" should stand for "Community Redundancy Act." The article argued that "progress predicated on technology, financial innovation, and competition -- not CRA -- has broadened the U.S. financial marketplace," including lending in neighborhoods that had once been redlined. If a lender discriminated against a low-income neighborhood, "the profit motive would lead another lender to move in and fill the void."



It's true that Republicans were critical of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the principle culprits in the Republican agitprop narrative. But Republicans' criticism was that Fannie and Freddie weren't buying enough mortgages for riskier, low-income borrowers.


lol

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-miller/republican-amnesia-on-the_b_816466.html

 

I have no idea what, if any, of the above are your thoughts, someone else's or just more of your cutpaste folder, and I'm not going to spend more time trying to puzzle it out. Are you disabled and typing with a stick attached to your nose? If so, I am sorry for "poking" fun at you.

 

"K then, you have just placed yourself on the horns of a dilemma in a thread YOU created and YOU titled "FACTS on Dubya's great recession." Are you 1. using the above to exonerate CRA? or MORE IMPORTANTLY 2. USING IT TO EXONERATE GWB and disprove your own thread premise? Can't have it both ways, so which? See if you can google yourself past that."


You mean for Dubya's REGULATOR failure as he cheered on the private markets ponzi scheme AS his policies, like upping F/F "affordable housing goals" from 50% to 56% AND stopping the Clinton rule from 2000 that restricted HIGH COST AND SUBPRIME LOANS? Dubya did BOTH of that in 2004. In 2003 Dubya FORCED F/F to purchase $440 billion in the SECONDARY (PRIVATE) markets, you know since Dubtya WAS the regulator???


lol

 

Are you disabled and typing with a stick attached to your nose? If so, I am sorry for "poking" fun at you.

 

I get it Bubba, it doesn't fall inline with your BIG LIE created by AEI, CATO, ED Pinto, Peter Wallison, etc so why actually attempt to answer ANY direct question LIKE WHY WERE OVER 50% OF LOANS IN 2006 NO OR LOW DOC LOANS? CRA REQUIREMENT? F/F QUOTA'S? LOL

 

Listen to the guy who thinks the Iraq Resolution's authorization language was 'boilerplate' and somehow not effective. Dude, you are a lonely retiree crank. just disappear and no one will notice.

We get it. You hate democrats, working Americans, unions, minorities, public education, federal poverty assistance, state assistance, gay marriage, women's rights, etc. etc. Just post this excerpt every time you get the urge to open your trap on these boards. Nothing will be missed in the translation/

 

So NO you WILL NOT, after using Peter Wallison as a source, even attempt to address his prior comments, lol

 

"“Republican Amnesia on the Financial Crisis.” The important story is that that during the 2000s, conservatives and libertarians hated the CRA and the GSEs because they believed that these institutions blocked or slowed the ability to give loans to poor people. After the crash, the right did an immediate about-face, blaming these institutions for lending too much.



I’m not making that up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-miller/republican-amnesia-on-the_b_816466.html


ANYTHING?


lol

 

I'll give this one a go, despite I don't have my "typing with a stick attached to one's nose" decoder ring handy.

Your source claimed that CRA was not a material cause of the mortgage collapse because other countries had similar crises. Now, arguendo, if that's the case, you cannot simultaneously claim, as you do in your thread title, that this was "Dubya's great recession." After all, if it happened all over the world in some strongly correlated way, nothing GWB did caused it. You have invalidated your own thread premise, and are firmly hung on the horns of a dilemma. So A) does the fact that the collapse was international exonerate BOTH CRA and GWB? Or B) do you want to disavow your cutpaste source? You can't have both, so which? I'll wait.

 

" the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans—a proxy for subprime loans—had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law.

Similarly, the Primary Dissent (3 OF 4 gopERS) explicitly states that the Community Reinvestment Act was not a “significant cause.” Many government officials and scholars have also rejected this myth



http://www.salon.com/2014/05/25/tox..._you_think_about_the_housing_market_is_wrong/

 

Keep on seethin on some ancient thread I owned you in that I hardly remember. You have no idea how hard I'm laughing right now.

 

Waiting.

 

Weird, you mean OTHER nations were hosed by the private markets like the US? I guess IG they had REGULATORS on the beat instead of, LIKE Dubya, who just cheered on the Banksters? Which nations DIDN'T that happen too again? lol




Dubya:

Change a Clinton era rule that stopped GSE's (Fann/Fredie) from using subprime loans to meet their affordable housing goals? (2004)

Forced the GSE's to UP their goals from 50% to 56% (including allowing that subprime part) in affordable housing (2004)

\FORCE GSE's to purchase $440 billion of MBS's in the secondary market 2004-2007 (2004)

(YES, THOSE 3 THINGS ADDED TOGETHER, CAUSED F/F DOWNFALL, EVEN THOUGH THEY ONLY HAD ABOUT 17% OF THE US DEFAULTING SUBPRIMES, HINT NOT CAUSED BY GSE'S BUT GSE'S WERE VICTIMS OF DUBYA'S POLICIES)


Fought ALL 50 state AG's who wanted to reign in the 'predatory' lenders, by invoking a civil war era rule? (2003)

AS the actual regulator of GSE's, allow F/F to chase the PRIVATE MARKETS to the bottom on those subprime loans (NOT to meet ANY goals at this point but BECAUSE they had lost so much market share) (late 2005)


Singed GOP legislation (2000 platform) legislation in the GOP Congress to give away 120,000+ FREE down payments 2004-2007 (2004 ADDI)


LITERALLY have regulator going to the wall street floor and use a chainsaw to cut regulations (2004)

Allow the 5 investment Banks, who fed the subprime bubble with easy credit, to lower their net capital rule which allowed the Banksters to go from 12-1 to 35-1+? (2004)

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“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.”


LOL

 

You have offered ZERO meaningful response to any of the knowledgeable, reasoned sources I have referenced in my posts, yet seem to be expecting me to respond thoughtfully to your repetitive cutpasting of tabloid level rags such as Salon, thinkprogress, huffpuff, and the ilk. What are you smoking? Is -that- why your posts don't make any sense? Have another puff, or rather huffnpuff. Keep on truckin dude!

 

Waiting.

 

- - - Updated - - -

THIRD TIME MIGHT BE THE CHARM FOR YOU LOW INFO TYPES?

Weird, you mean OTHER nations were hosed by the private markets like the US? I guess IF they had REGULATORS on the beat instead of, LIKE Dubya, who just cheered on the Banksters? Which nations DIDN'T that happen too again? lol




Dubya:

Change a Clinton era rule that stopped GSE's (Fann/Fredie) from using subprime loans to meet their affordable housing goals? (2004)

Forced the GSE's to UP their goals from 50% to 56% (including allowing that subprime part) in affordable housing (2004)

\FORCE GSE's to purchase $440 billion of MBS's in the secondary market 2004-2007 (2004)

(YES, THOSE 3 THINGS ADDED TOGETHER, CAUSED F/F DOWNFALL, EVEN THOUGH THEY ONLY HAD ABOUT 17% OF THE US DEFAULTING SUBPRIMES, HINT NOT CAUSED BY GSE'S BUT GSE'S WERE VICTIMS OF DUBYA'S POLICIES)


Fought ALL 50 state AG's who wanted to reign in the 'predatory' lenders, by invoking a civil war era rule? (2003)

AS the actual regulator of GSE's, allow F/F to chase the PRIVATE MARKETS to the bottom on those subprime loans (NOT to meet ANY goals at this point but BECAUSE they had lost so much market share) (late 2005)


Singed GOP legislation (2000 platform) legislation in the GOP Congress to give away 120,000+ FREE down payments 2004-2007 (2004 ADDI)


LITERALLY have regulator going to the wall street floor and use a chainsaw to cut regulations (2004)

Allow the 5 investment Banks, who fed the subprime bubble with easy credit, to lower their net capital rule which allowed the Banksters to go from 12-1 to 35-1+? (2004)

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“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.”


LOL

 

The banks did not make the loans by and large they bought them. Banks don't guarantee loans that's what Fannie and Freddie do Through FHA and VA. And lets not forget that F&F are sitting apile of bad loans themselves mostly the ones they couldn't sell to the banks in time. By the way pot meet Kettle. You keep yelling about talking points while continuously parroting them.