Posted on 09/30/2008 6:55:09 AM PDT by RDasher
Unbelievable video of Bush promoting zero down loans for minorities....
Thanks for providing the quote
Bush's quote makes it clear that Bush did not specifically ask for $440 billion.
He learned ("I understand") that they were going to arrange for that amount.
Bush: I appreciate both of those agencies providing the underpinnings of good capital.
Well, we now know the capital was not good.
The next year, Bush called for oversight.
About year later we all learned Fannie Mae fraudulently mistated their earnings.
More years passed and Congress didn't do anything... until they were forced to do it.
Let's take up a collection to buy new shoes for the Democrats.
The Democrats' shoes have got to be worn out from so much foot-dragging.
I think Bush was basically naive about how such programs are managed. I also don’t think there are predatory lenders. I have not seen any examples of that.
My last home loan was a ‘no doc loan’, but that might of had to do more with the fact I put 65 percent down. ;-)
You ACTUALLY think Bush HAD a bully pulpit?!????
LOL.LOL. LOL.
The Democrats have not co-operated since "day one." Daschle and Gephart were lying when they "vowed" to co-operate.
I see your point. But I think otherwise.
I think he might have underestimated the numbers and strength of "community organizer" sleeper cells.
So many Dem trolls on this thread. Too bad for them, people blame the Democrats when it comes to the Fannie and Freddie corruption. Back fired on the Dems big time.
I think you're taking the quote out of context:
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.
More years passed and Congress didn't do anything... until they were forced to do it.
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).
The 107th Congress ended and the 108th Congress started on January 4, 2003. Bush called for his reform on September 11, 2003 during the 108th Congress, which was once again under Republican control
I don't understand why the Republicans in control of Congress failed to heed their own President's call to action?
Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs:
2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)
September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.
September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
Bush MAY have asked for the exact amount $440 billion.
But your quote doesn't allow us to conclude he did.
Democrats who want to say "Bush asked for $440 billion," will have to come up with another source.
This quote says 2 things only
1. Bush asked them for an increaseThat's ALL this says.
2. Bush heard back from them that they would help with $440 billion.
Let's say that
1. I ask you to lend me "some money" and
2. in response you give me $10
No one should that I asked you for $10.
I'm not sure if you're referring to me or not, so let me just say that had you been around here during Clinton's Presidency you would have seen many of us speaking out just as loudly in our criticism of his policies and actions.
They tried, but couldn't get 60 votes in the Senate.
Do you have a source for this?
Sigh...
I can't disagree with that :-(
Double sigh.
Bush’s “undocumented immigrants” needed homes in which to have their anchor babies.
When you get the links for how hard the Republicans in Congress worked to fix the system, please post them.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac set money aside every year, long before Bush became president, to help low income citizens get loans. This $440 billion is simply the amount that would be set aside over these particular years 2005 - 2009. This was not additional money for Bush's zero down Dream program.
The crisis we now have is a result of plummeting property values, not just sub prime interest rate loans. Property values have never gone down before.
Any losses that can be attributed to Bush, specifically, can only be attributed to minorities who were helped by his specific HUD Dream program. If oversight regulations were put into place as Bush wanted, there wouldn't be all these defaults and none of these loans to illegals.
LOL - a little diversion
Only 6% of houses have defaulted in 3 years.
http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?content=pr03-140.cfm
That's a picture of the president from the press conference shown in the video.
http://fhaloanadvice.com/h.-r.-6694-passes-out-of-committee/
And let me know when you get the links that prove the Democrats did much more than insist that there was no problem.
I guess neither of us needs to prove that Bush repeatedly asked Congress to do something.
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.