Posted on 09/30/2008 6:55:09 AM PDT by RDasher
Unbelievable video of Bush promoting zero down loans for minorities....
You-tube blocked at work - bump for home viewing.
Bush reduced the minimum HUD down payment from 3% to 0%.
Those red areas mapped are the places with the highest concentrations of legal immigrants and blacks. Do we have any evidence that illegals got funding for houses?
The vast amount of defaults were not poor people.
I know two families who took advantage of Bush's zero down and they have improved their lives and paid every penny they owe every month.
Homelessness decreased 30% from 2005 - 2007.
Is there any evidence that Bush's plan actually cost in the end? Bush was pushing for closer oversight of Fannie and Freddie. It was greedy bankers that caused this mess.
You know, Dan I’ve been pondering. All these Bush apologists for this mess forget one thing. Bush had a majority in the House and Senate during all those times he was supposedly “warning” us about the impending fiasco. Why was nothing passed under his leadership to stop it?
The zero down payment does help get people into homes that will pay for them. In 1982, we bought our home with a VA loan and zero down. We would have had to wait years and years to save 20%. I was exceedingly grateful for a $0 down option.
Same reason the majority democrats can't pull us out of Iraq as they promised, the 60 votes needed in the senate.
True, but there are caveats.
During the 104th Congress (1995-1997), 105th Congress (1997-1999) and 106th Congress (1999-2001), the Republicans were the majority party.
In the 107th Congress (2001-2003), the Senate was equally divided between the parties, but the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote cast by the outgoing Al Gore.
But, the Republicans became the majority party again in the 108th Congress (2003-2005) and held it through the 109th Congress (2005-2007).
The House was been under the control of the Republicans from the 104th Congress (1995-1997) through the 109th Congress (2005-2007).
As you point out, during the years Bush was supposedly trying to reform Fannie and Freddie, the Republicans controlled the government.
So, if there was malfeasence in the government it was because the Republicans let it happen or were active participants.
As bad as the Democrat plan was in propping up Fannie and Freddie, President Bush and the 6 years of Republican Congress did nothing about it.
Because every time they tried they were accused of racism and backed away.
Bush asked for oversight.
The problem is if you have no or little standards on who gets a loan, it is to late to watch what the loan is doing with the bad loan. Over sight or not. The other problem is Bush did not use the bully pulpit to put pressure on Congress. Maybe he was to concerned about the war, but really no excuse.
See my post #98
The vast amount of defaults were not poor people.
Source, please? (other than anectdotal)
Is there any evidence that Bush's plan actually cost in the end? Bush was pushing for closer oversight of Fannie and Freddie. It was greedy bankers that caused this mess.
Um, the collapse of the subprime industry?
Seriously, yes, there is evidence. Here's a glimpse:
Mortgages to Illegal Immigrants Come Under Fire
Bush was calling for oversight at the same time he was asking Fannie and Freddie to increase their commitments to the 'minority' market by $440 billion and 5.5 million new 'minority' home owners. (See: President Calls for Expanding Opportunities to Home Ownership)
Bush's Partnership for Prosperity Agreement (with Mexico) and New Alliance Task Force was aimed directly at Mexican illegal aliens, not American minorities. (See: Partnership for Prosperity Agreement (with Mexico))
That's why the USA Patriot Act of 2001 contained a provision in section 326(b) to allow banks to accept Mexican Matricula Consular cards to be used as ID to open an account. US citizens and legal residents don't need consular ID.
More even more info, see: Illegal Immigration and the Mortgage Mess
I never heard a peep from them about giving US taxpayer dollars to Mexican illegal aliens.
???
Did Bush insist on strong-arming banks which didn’t give out enough bad loans
???
I agree with the following response to the video
*****************
You’ll notice that Bush wanted money for “BUYER EDUCATION”
Bush said that borrowers should be educated
a. so they could avoid predatory lenders and
b. so that they could know “how much house” they could afford.
1. Why were people given LARGER loans than they could afford?
2. Why did the Democrats obstruct the oversight reforms Bush called for?
*********
Bush DID ask for expansion of programs to help home buyers.
But, it is not clear whether he ACTUALLY asked for $440 Billion or MERELY thanked "lenders" for their $440 commitment
At any rate
Would Bush have asked for this if he had known Fannie Mae was cooking the books?
Would Americans have allowed this to continue for 5 more years if an independent overseer told them about the abuses?
If Democrats had supported reform we would be in much better shape now.
No he would not have. In fact, the next year 2003, he raised the flag that those instutions were in trouble and put forth a proposal for regulations and oversight which was beat down by the Democrats.
New York Times
Published: September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
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 two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
Continued:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Until the conservatives admit that a good portion of the GOP is part of the problem it will never get fixed.
Bush's speech the next day was more clear (See: President Reiterates Goal on Homeownership:
And so, therefore, I've called -- yesterday, I called upon the private sector to help us and help the home buyers. We need more capital in the private markets for first-time, low-income buyers. And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and, as I understand, it's about $440 billion over a period of time. They've used their influence to create that much capital available for the type of home buyer we're talking about here. It's in their charter; it now needs to be implemented. Freddie Mac is interested in helping. I appreciate both of those agencies providing the underpinnings of good capital.
He wanted to make sure that his pet project, i.e.: home loans for Mexican illegal aliens, the one made possible by his Partnership for Prosperity Agreement (with Mexico) and New Alliance Task Force and the one that defined his entire domestic economic policy in his first term, lived a long and profitable life.
His backers were depending on it. They probably had trillions in the pipeline that would be lost if the pipeline blew up.
With the way the dems were mis-managing it, Bush knew, via his backers, that it would blow up before the end of his second term.
So, he tried as best he could to wrest control from Congress before it happened.
Again, not to protect the American taxpayer, but to protect the bankers.
Bush was pushing for closer oversight of Fannie and Freddie...more than five years ago....
Congress twiddled its thumbs while the US burned
Things would be different for everyone right now
if Congress had listened to Bush 5 years ago
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.