Posted on 12/27/2008 2:20:52 PM PST by fiscon1
Opponents and supporters alike have tried to put some context on Bush's responsibility for the mortgage mess that has turned into a full out economic crisis. The latest foray into this analysis is this piece from the New York Times in which all the blame was place on the Bush administration for the entire crisis. That is far too simplistic. Yet, there is no doubt that as President, Bush deserves plenty of blame for what is happening. The question is how much and for what.
From my perch inside the industry, here is how I see his role in this crisis. I think all of us remember that one of the themes of Bush's first term was the so called Ownership Society. In fact, for years Bush touted that under his administration there was record home ownership. For about three years, this became an integral mantra of Bush's domestic policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at theeprovocateur.blogspot.com ...
Your points would get more attention if they weren't delivered with such dripping contempt.
You will note that the mortgage crisis began in states hard hit by unemployment. I submit that many lost their jobs thus causing them to lose their houses. The idea that every person who is in foreclosure is a deadbeat or a liar is completely untrue. As the economy worsens the mortgage crisis will worsen.
I read the piece. I also read your start date on FR.
The original legislation is the source. If you would like to fast forward to Clinton years, that’s find.
Who glossed over and rewarded the corruption, blocking efforts to reform it, are Dodd, Frank, Johnson, Raines, ACORN and La Raza, but they are only part. Count in naked short sellers, whoever at Merrill Lynch or Chase that came up with derivative instruments, and the originator of the lawsuit which pushed the relaxed mortgage standards. “And you can blame a class action lawsuit entitled Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed Savings Bank (94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ), and a young Davis-Miner attorney named Barack Hussein Obama. http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama_cra_and_the_mortgage_mess/
Where the buck stops is at the point of the person who takes responsibility. I suggest you research all the warnings made by Bush and administration personnel who went before Congress in favor of necessary changes needed to correct the practices of making ninja loans possible, as well as thed not making of them a cause for penalty and fines.
I am a conservative. You can call me partisan for that cause any day of the week.
This issue has been an ongoing concern of the Boots household for at least 5 years. All those who have lived beyond their means or acted in such a way as to hide their own self reliance are to blame—that covers a lot of territory.
I know this was outside the perview of Fannie/Freddie because no doc, no income verification, and other loans of high fraud were created in sub prime and sold to wall street not to Fannie/Freddie. Certainly, it wasn’t Fannie/Freddie that forced people to lie on their applications. Furthermore, whatever Fannie/Freddie did has nothing to do with what Bush didn’t do. He looked the other way while all of this fraud occurred.
It seems that for folks like you we can have a massive economic crisis caused by the collapse of an entire industry which originated through massive fraud, and none of this is the fault of the President who was President when it happened.
Of course, none of you can then put any blame on Clinton for the internet bubble.
s/b fine.
s/b the, not thed.
Leave me alone.
I don’t think that is accurate, and it doesn’t change that there was an obscene amount of fraud. The mortgage crisis occurred because a massive amount of loans were done fraudulently. That is the truth. That is what anyone that was in the business for any period of time can tell you. It’s not some great revelation to point this out. For all of you to dismiss this as though it didn’t happen is too bad, but it doesn’t change that it happened.
"We've been through nearly a dozen hearings where frankly we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Mr. Chairman we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and in particular at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines."-Rep. Maxine Waters, 2004
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM
___________________________________________________________
History of Fannie Mae scandal
"Fannie Mae announces its long-awaited restatement, erasing $6.3 billion in profit from 2001 through June 30, 2004."
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/12/07/history_of_fannie_mae_scandal/?page=1
_________________________________________________________
Bailout Politics: The Congressional Dems who enabled this crisis are now being trusted to fix it?
Thomas Sowell, September 30, 2008
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWE3OWU3OTExYzNlNTUzMzY2YmJmOWZjMzcwN2M1NjU=
_________________________________________________________
Guilty Party: ACORN, Obama, and the mortgage mess
Mona Charen, September 30, 2008
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mzk4MmVkNzA1NGQ2NGRkZjQ2YjNmYjdlODZkMmQ4N2I=
_________________________________________________________
An ACORN Falls from the Tree: A congressional outrage
Ken Blackwell, September 29, 2008
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2Y5MTc0ZTAyMmE1Mjk3NGE3OWRiY2FkMjZlN2YxYzc=
_________________________________________________________
You don’t have to tell me that Fannie/Freddie are corrupt and dirty. I know plenty well they are. That doesn’t change the fact that Bush looked the other way while wholesale mortgage fraud was committed.
You're right by golly. Sure sounds like "Bush's fault" to me. Why didn't I think of that?
Very true. The lack of any coherent policy from Bush on this issue coupled with the obscene Wall St bailout will be Bush's legacy as a tool of the banksters
...
"To open up the doors of homeownership there are some barriers, and I want to talk about four that need to be overcome. First, down payments. A lot of folks can’t make a down payment. They may be qualified. They may desire to buy a home, but they don’t have the money to make a down payment. I think if you were to talk to a lot of families that are desirous to have a home, they would tell you that the down payment is the hurdle that they can’t cross." --George W. Bush, 2002
The real evil here is egalitarianism, and President Bush was just one of many suckers who fell for it.
That might be Bush’s policy.
But Congress’s policy was “perpetrate evil.”
Your post about lies has no facts whatsover, nor does your post blaming Bush. You have come to the wrong site if you just want to propagandize....
September 11, 2003– The Bush Administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are ...
-—THE NEW YORK TIMES -—
FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATOR REFORM ACT OF 2005
The United States Senate, May 25, 2006
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer,
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2087513/posts
People lying to get what they want didn’t begin in 2004. It has been going on forever. What did happen is explained by others, a change in governmental structure (the establishment of Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae) that took the risk out of lending to liars. At least the risk of the lenders, in the end we all were on the hook for the risk
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm
In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans.
In announcing the plan Monday at a home builders show in Las Vegas, Federal Housing Commissioner John Weicher called the proposal the "most significant FHA initiative in more than a decade." It would lead to 150,000 first-time owners annually, he said.
Nothing-down options are available on the private mortgage market, but, in general, they require the borrower to have pristine credit. Bush's proposed change would extend the nothing-down option to borrowers with blemished credit.
That's absolutely ludicrous, no matter who came up with the proposal. It is social engineering at its worst.
This would have been a great opportunity for our elected leaders to act like adults and put an end to the insanity.
“At least the risk of the lenders, in the end we all we’re on the hook for the risk.”
Now that is a true statement. We’ve learned that the original bailout was for 3-5% of the sub-prime loans. With the crap that we’re learning about who is getting some of this money, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised to learn about the 3 playboy bunnies who came trotting out of the Treasury building around the time the bailout was passed (and no, I am not going to give my source for that).
As for the commercial loans, others of the sub-prime loans, autos, and, of course, what we’re going to see from retail, we just have no idea now, do we.
Boots
Which regulations have now changed as a result of CRA practices? As I understand it, none. I would be happy to have that information updated.
It is my understanding that banks do not do business with the poor and impoverished because they don’t have money. It is also my understanding that certain banks like Chase pursposely set aside money to cover their risk made on making loans that stood a good chance of going bad, rather than not making such loans and being fined by Fannie & Freddie for not making the loans, after inspection of their books and practices by ACORN.
These banks, like the example, Chase, then turned around and cut workforce pell mell, along with outsourcing to India all the business it can, to hedge their bets even more and cover the bill on the back end.
The CRA sub-prime is wealth redistribution, pure and simple, in my book. It has now bled over to every single industry as the economic downturn gathers momentum.
I agree completely with you about this. I can’t believe what has happened. I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.