Great Youtube Clip…

[Arraya]

‘

[luchabee]

It was a bubble. Took time to inflate. Please watch the video posted by Hippmat:

http://www.youtube.com/TheMouthPeace

Also, from Community Reinvestment Act Wiki:

Clinton Administration Changes of 1995
In 1992 the United States Congress passed a housing law requiring the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing. This increased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s pooling and selling of such loans as securities, (i.e. securitization), and it expanded the secondary market for those loans.[2]

In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[6] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.[3][5]

The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Banks set up CRA departments, a CRA consultant industry was created and new financial-services firms helped banks invest in packaged portfolios of CRA loans to ensure compliance. Established and new community groups began marketing such mortgages. The Senate Banking Committee estimated that as of 2000, as a result of CRA, such groups had received $9.5 billion in services and salaries. As of that time such groups also had received tens of billions of dollars in multi-year commitments from banks, including ACORN Housing $760 million; Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America $3 billion; a New Jersey Citizen Action-led coalition $13 billion; the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance $220 million.[3][unreliable source?]

The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998. Other loans increased by only 17 percent.[7][8] Related rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks, encouraging banks to make even more loans to low income communities, often with no down payment and little documentation. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market.[9] Due to massive financial losses, on September 7, 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the conservatorship of the FHFA.[10])

[edit] GW Bush Administration Changes of 2005
In 2002 there was an inter-agency review of the effectiveness of the 1995 regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act and new proposals were considered.[5]

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency put new regulations into effect September of 2005. [11]

The regulations were opposed by a contingent of Democrats.[12]

The regulations included less restrictive new definitions of “small” and “intermediate small” banks.[2] “Intermediate small banks” were defined as banks with assets of less than $1 billion, but allows banks to opt for examination as a large bank.[11] Currently banks with assets greater than $1.061 billion have their CRA performance evaluated according to lending, investment and service tests. The agencies use the Consumer Price Index to adjust the asset size thresholds for small and large institutions annually.[5]

[luchabee]

It was a bubble. Took time to inflate. Please watch the video posted by Hippmat:

http://www.youtube.com/TheMouthPeace

Also, from Community Reinvestment Act Wiki:

Clinton Administration Changes of 1995
In 1992 the United States Congress passed a housing law requiring the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing. This increased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s pooling and selling of such loans as securities, (i.e. securitization), and it expanded the secondary market for those loans.[2]

In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[6] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.[3][5]

The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Banks set up CRA departments, a CRA consultant industry was created and new financial-services firms helped banks invest in packaged portfolios of CRA loans to ensure compliance. Established and new community groups began marketing such mortgages. The Senate Banking Committee estimated that as of 2000, as a result of CRA, such groups had received $9.5 billion in services and salaries. As of that time such groups also had received tens of billions of dollars in multi-year commitments from banks, including ACORN Housing $760 million; Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America $3 billion; a New Jersey Citizen Action-led coalition $13 billion; the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance $220 million.[3][unreliable source?]

The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998. Other loans increased by only 17 percent.[7][8] Related rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks, encouraging banks to make even more loans to low income communities, often with no down payment and little documentation. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market.[9] Due to massive financial losses, on September 7, 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the conservatorship of the FHFA.[10])

[edit] GW Bush Administration Changes of 2005
In 2002 there was an inter-agency review of the effectiveness of the 1995 regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act and new proposals were considered.[5]

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency put new regulations into effect September of 2005. [11]

The regulations were opposed by a contingent of Democrats.[12]

The regulations included less restrictive new definitions of “small” and “intermediate small” banks.[2] “Intermediate small banks” were defined as banks with assets of less than $1 billion, but allows banks to opt for examination as a large bank.[11] Currently banks with assets greater than $1.061 billion have their CRA performance evaluated according to lending, investment and service tests. The agencies use the Consumer Price Index to adjust the asset size thresholds for small and large institutions annually.[5]

[luchabee]

It was a bubble. Took time to inflate. Please watch the video posted by Hippmat:

http://www.youtube.com/TheMouthPeace

Also, from Community Reinvestment Act Wiki:

Clinton Administration Changes of 1995
In 1992 the United States Congress passed a housing law requiring the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing. This increased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s pooling and selling of such loans as securities, (i.e. securitization), and it expanded the secondary market for those loans.[2]

In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[6] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.[3][5]

The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Banks set up CRA departments, a CRA consultant industry was created and new financial-services firms helped banks invest in packaged portfolios of CRA loans to ensure compliance. Established and new community groups began marketing such mortgages. The Senate Banking Committee estimated that as of 2000, as a result of CRA, such groups had received $9.5 billion in services and salaries. As of that time such groups also had received tens of billions of dollars in multi-year commitments from banks, including ACORN Housing $760 million; Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America $3 billion; a New Jersey Citizen Action-led coalition $13 billion; the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance $220 million.[3][unreliable source?]

The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998. Other loans increased by only 17 percent.[7][8] Related rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks, encouraging banks to make even more loans to low income communities, often with no down payment and little documentation. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market.[9] Due to massive financial losses, on September 7, 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the conservatorship of the FHFA.[10])

[edit] GW Bush Administration Changes of 2005
In 2002 there was an inter-agency review of the effectiveness of the 1995 regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act and new proposals were considered.[5]

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency put new regulations into effect September of 2005. [11]

The regulations were opposed by a contingent of Democrats.[12]

The regulations included less restrictive new definitions of “small” and “intermediate small” banks.[2] “Intermediate small banks” were defined as banks with assets of less than $1 billion, but allows banks to opt for examination as a large bank.[11] Currently banks with assets greater than $1.061 billion have their CRA performance evaluated according to lending, investment and service tests. The agencies use the Consumer Price Index to adjust the asset size thresholds for small and large institutions annually.[5]

[luchabee]

It was a bubble. Took time to inflate. Please watch the video posted by Hippmat:

http://www.youtube.com/TheMouthPeace

Also, from Community Reinvestment Act Wiki:

Clinton Administration Changes of 1995
In 1992 the United States Congress passed a housing law requiring the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing. This increased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s pooling and selling of such loans as securities, (i.e. securitization), and it expanded the secondary market for those loans.[2]

In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[6] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.[3][5]

The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Banks set up CRA departments, a CRA consultant industry was created and new financial-services firms helped banks invest in packaged portfolios of CRA loans to ensure compliance. Established and new community groups began marketing such mortgages. The Senate Banking Committee estimated that as of 2000, as a result of CRA, such groups had received $9.5 billion in services and salaries. As of that time such groups also had received tens of billions of dollars in multi-year commitments from banks, including ACORN Housing $760 million; Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America $3 billion; a New Jersey Citizen Action-led coalition $13 billion; the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance $220 million.[3][unreliable source?]

The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998. Other loans increased by only 17 percent.[7][8] Related rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks, encouraging banks to make even more loans to low income communities, often with no down payment and little documentation. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market.[9] Due to massive financial losses, on September 7, 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the conservatorship of the FHFA.[10])

[edit] GW Bush Administration Changes of 2005
In 2002 there was an inter-agency review of the effectiveness of the 1995 regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act and new proposals were considered.[5]

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency put new regulations into effect September of 2005. [11]

The regulations were opposed by a contingent of Democrats.[12]

The regulations included less restrictive new definitions of “small” and “intermediate small” banks.[2] “Intermediate small banks” were defined as banks with assets of less than $1 billion, but allows banks to opt for examination as a large bank.[11] Currently banks with assets greater than $1.061 billion have their CRA performance evaluated according to lending, investment and service tests. The agencies use the Consumer Price Index to adjust the asset size thresholds for small and large institutions annually.[5]

[luchabee]

It was a bubble. Took time to inflate. Please watch the video posted by Hippmat:

http://www.youtube.com/TheMouthPeace

Also, from Community Reinvestment Act Wiki:

Clinton Administration Changes of 1995
In 1992 the United States Congress passed a housing law requiring the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing. This increased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s pooling and selling of such loans as securities, (i.e. securitization), and it expanded the secondary market for those loans.[2]

In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[6] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.[3][5]

The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Banks set up CRA departments, a CRA consultant industry was created and new financial-services firms helped banks invest in packaged portfolios of CRA loans to ensure compliance. Established and new community groups began marketing such mortgages. The Senate Banking Committee estimated that as of 2000, as a result of CRA, such groups had received $9.5 billion in services and salaries. As of that time such groups also had received tens of billions of dollars in multi-year commitments from banks, including ACORN Housing $760 million; Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America $3 billion; a New Jersey Citizen Action-led coalition $13 billion; the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance $220 million.[3][unreliable source?]

The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998. Other loans increased by only 17 percent.[7][8] Related rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks, encouraging banks to make even more loans to low income communities, often with no down payment and little documentation. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market.[9] Due to massive financial losses, on September 7, 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the conservatorship of the FHFA.[10])

[edit] GW Bush Administration Changes of 2005
In 2002 there was an inter-agency review of the effectiveness of the 1995 regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act and new proposals were considered.[5]

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency put new regulations into effect September of 2005. [11]

The regulations were opposed by a contingent of Democrats.[12]

The regulations included less restrictive new definitions of “small” and “intermediate small” banks.[2] “Intermediate small banks” were defined as banks with assets of less than $1 billion, but allows banks to opt for examination as a large bank.[11] Currently banks with assets greater than $1.061 billion have their CRA performance evaluated according to lending, investment and service tests. The agencies use the Consumer Price Index to adjust the asset size thresholds for small and large institutions annually.[5]

[TheBreeze]

So tell me again how the Republicans weren’t able to stop the housing bubble?

I’ll answer my own question. It looks like both Obama and McCain blame a 1999 bill that was signed by Bill Clinton as the reason for the current economic debacle:

John McCain and Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns are pointing fingers at each other’s political camps over who were the architects of a 1999 banking deregulation bill many cite as reasons for the current financial and mortgage lending mess on Wall Street.

The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act broke down barriers between banks, securities firms, mortgage lenders and insurance companies. That deregulation repealed Great Depression-era bank regulations with the approval of former president Bill Clinton.

The Gramm bill encouraged lending during the strong housing market but has put banks, investment houses and insurance companies in peril since the housing bust which started two years ago. The measure allowed those lending money to sell off those loan portfolios to other companies, thus disconnecting the lending risk.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/09/15/daily81.html

If you read the article, it looks like both parties had members who supported the bill.

However, while the bill above may have opened the loophole, it looks like it was Bush who exploited it and certainly played a major role in the housing debacle:

# Expanding Homeownership. The President believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America’s vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security. In June 2002, President Bush issued America’s Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. Under his leadership, the overall U.S. homeownership rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51 percent in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. President Bush’s initiative to dismantle the barriers to homeownership includes:

* American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides down payment assistance to approximately 40,000 low-income families;
* Affordable Housing. The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which would increase the supply of affordable homes;
* Helping Families Help Themselves. The President has proposed increasing support for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunities Program; and
* Simplifying Homebuying and Increasing Education. The President and HUD want to empower homebuyers by simplifying the home buying process so consumers can better understand and benefit from cost savings. The President also wants to expand financial education efforts so that families can understand what they need to do to become homeowners.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040809-9.html

It’s interesting that the housing bubble started at about the same time that Bush issued his America’s Homeownership Challenge. I suppose that is just a coincidence?

[TheBreeze]

So tell me again how the Republicans weren’t able to stop the housing bubble?

I’ll answer my own question. It looks like both Obama and McCain blame a 1999 bill that was signed by Bill Clinton as the reason for the current economic debacle:

John McCain and Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns are pointing fingers at each other’s political camps over who were the architects of a 1999 banking deregulation bill many cite as reasons for the current financial and mortgage lending mess on Wall Street.

The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act broke down barriers between banks, securities firms, mortgage lenders and insurance companies. That deregulation repealed Great Depression-era bank regulations with the approval of former president Bill Clinton.

The Gramm bill encouraged lending during the strong housing market but has put banks, investment houses and insurance companies in peril since the housing bust which started two years ago. The measure allowed those lending money to sell off those loan portfolios to other companies, thus disconnecting the lending risk.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/09/15/daily81.html

If you read the article, it looks like both parties had members who supported the bill.

However, while the bill above may have opened the loophole, it looks like it was Bush who exploited it and certainly played a major role in the housing debacle:

# Expanding Homeownership. The President believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America’s vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security. In June 2002, President Bush issued America’s Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. Under his leadership, the overall U.S. homeownership rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51 percent in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. President Bush’s initiative to dismantle the barriers to homeownership includes:

* American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides down payment assistance to approximately 40,000 low-income families;
* Affordable Housing. The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which would increase the supply of affordable homes;
* Helping Families Help Themselves. The President has proposed increasing support for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunities Program; and
* Simplifying Homebuying and Increasing Education. The President and HUD want to empower homebuyers by simplifying the home buying process so consumers can better understand and benefit from cost savings. The President also wants to expand financial education efforts so that families can understand what they need to do to become homeowners.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040809-9.html

It’s interesting that the housing bubble started at about the same time that Bush issued his America’s Homeownership Challenge. I suppose that is just a coincidence?

[TheBreeze]

So tell me again how the Republicans weren’t able to stop the housing bubble?

I’ll answer my own question. It looks like both Obama and McCain blame a 1999 bill that was signed by Bill Clinton as the reason for the current economic debacle:

John McCain and Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns are pointing fingers at each other’s political camps over who were the architects of a 1999 banking deregulation bill many cite as reasons for the current financial and mortgage lending mess on Wall Street.

The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act broke down barriers between banks, securities firms, mortgage lenders and insurance companies. That deregulation repealed Great Depression-era bank regulations with the approval of former president Bill Clinton.

The Gramm bill encouraged lending during the strong housing market but has put banks, investment houses and insurance companies in peril since the housing bust which started two years ago. The measure allowed those lending money to sell off those loan portfolios to other companies, thus disconnecting the lending risk.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/09/15/daily81.html

If you read the article, it looks like both parties had members who supported the bill.

However, while the bill above may have opened the loophole, it looks like it was Bush who exploited it and certainly played a major role in the housing debacle:

# Expanding Homeownership. The President believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America’s vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security. In June 2002, President Bush issued America’s Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. Under his leadership, the overall U.S. homeownership rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51 percent in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. President Bush’s initiative to dismantle the barriers to homeownership includes:

* American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides down payment assistance to approximately 40,000 low-income families;
* Affordable Housing. The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which would increase the supply of affordable homes;
* Helping Families Help Themselves. The President has proposed increasing support for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunities Program; and
* Simplifying Homebuying and Increasing Education. The President and HUD want to empower homebuyers by simplifying the home buying process so consumers can better understand and benefit from cost savings. The President also wants to expand financial education efforts so that families can understand what they need to do to become homeowners.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040809-9.html

It’s interesting that the housing bubble started at about the same time that Bush issued his America’s Homeownership Challenge. I suppose that is just a coincidence?

[TheBreeze]

So tell me again how the Republicans weren’t able to stop the housing bubble?

I’ll answer my own question. It looks like both Obama and McCain blame a 1999 bill that was signed by Bill Clinton as the reason for the current economic debacle:

John McCain and Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns are pointing fingers at each other’s political camps over who were the architects of a 1999 banking deregulation bill many cite as reasons for the current financial and mortgage lending mess on Wall Street.

The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act broke down barriers between banks, securities firms, mortgage lenders and insurance companies. That deregulation repealed Great Depression-era bank regulations with the approval of former president Bill Clinton.

The Gramm bill encouraged lending during the strong housing market but has put banks, investment houses and insurance companies in peril since the housing bust which started two years ago. The measure allowed those lending money to sell off those loan portfolios to other companies, thus disconnecting the lending risk.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/09/15/daily81.html

If you read the article, it looks like both parties had members who supported the bill.

However, while the bill above may have opened the loophole, it looks like it was Bush who exploited it and certainly played a major role in the housing debacle:

# Expanding Homeownership. The President believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America’s vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security. In June 2002, President Bush issued America’s Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. Under his leadership, the overall U.S. homeownership rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51 percent in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. President Bush’s initiative to dismantle the barriers to homeownership includes:

* American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides down payment assistance to approximately 40,000 low-income families;
* Affordable Housing. The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which would increase the supply of affordable homes;
* Helping Families Help Themselves. The President has proposed increasing support for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunities Program; and
* Simplifying Homebuying and Increasing Education. The President and HUD want to empower homebuyers by simplifying the home buying process so consumers can better understand and benefit from cost savings. The President also wants to expand financial education efforts so that families can understand what they need to do to become homeowners.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040809-9.html

It’s interesting that the housing bubble started at about the same time that Bush issued his America’s Homeownership Challenge. I suppose that is just a coincidence?

[TheBreeze]

So tell me again how the Republicans weren’t able to stop the housing bubble?

I’ll answer my own question. It looks like both Obama and McCain blame a 1999 bill that was signed by Bill Clinton as the reason for the current economic debacle:

John McCain and Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns are pointing fingers at each other’s political camps over who were the architects of a 1999 banking deregulation bill many cite as reasons for the current financial and mortgage lending mess on Wall Street.

The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act broke down barriers between banks, securities firms, mortgage lenders and insurance companies. That deregulation repealed Great Depression-era bank regulations with the approval of former president Bill Clinton.

The Gramm bill encouraged lending during the strong housing market but has put banks, investment houses and insurance companies in peril since the housing bust which started two years ago. The measure allowed those lending money to sell off those loan portfolios to other companies, thus disconnecting the lending risk.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/09/15/daily81.html

If you read the article, it looks like both parties had members who supported the bill.

However, while the bill above may have opened the loophole, it looks like it was Bush who exploited it and certainly played a major role in the housing debacle:

# Expanding Homeownership. The President believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America’s vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security. In June 2002, President Bush issued America’s Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. Under his leadership, the overall U.S. homeownership rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51 percent in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. President Bush’s initiative to dismantle the barriers to homeownership includes:

* American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides down payment assistance to approximately 40,000 low-income families;
* Affordable Housing. The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which would increase the supply of affordable homes;
* Helping Families Help Themselves. The President has proposed increasing support for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunities Program; and
* Simplifying Homebuying and Increasing Education. The President and HUD want to empower homebuyers by simplifying the home buying process so consumers can better understand and benefit from cost savings. The President also wants to expand financial education efforts so that families can understand what they need to do to become homeowners.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040809-9.html

It’s interesting that the housing bubble started at about the same time that Bush issued his America’s Homeownership Challenge. I suppose that is just a coincidence?

[SD Realtor]

Please take a look at the items that you were very specific on mentioning. In any of those items does it imply that Bush was urging lenders to lend to people who could not qualify? I would agree that yes, a tax credit and down payment assistance is nothing that can help someone who cannot afford a home, yet I do not seriously believe that he did nearly as much damage as the other cast of characters I mentioned. You seem to conveniently omit them 100%. Furthermore you seem to conveniently NOT acknowledge the efforts made by Bush to implement reform on the GSEs.

Did that never happen. Did you see ANY of the people I mentioned above EVER try to implement reform in the GSEs or is that conveniently lost in your argument.

Sorry but to pin this one 100% on Bush is wrong, dead wrong. Blame him for Iraq, blame him for failed foreign policy, for chronyism, for many other things.

Just try to be objective here and include many many other long time chronies. At least acknowledge these other people.

If you really believe that the Bush America’s Homeownership Challenge fueled the bubble then that is your prerogative. Yes it is a component but I don’t believe it is a significant component. From your own quote, the minority home ownership went up a little over 2% in 2004 from the previous year. Do you really think because Bush made an “official challenge” that these lenders suddenly decided, “Oh we better lend to minorities!” I tend to think it pretty much would have happened anyway. Do you think these lower income minorities speculated? Were they brokers? Did these guys resell the loans? Were these low income people the same ones who ran FNMA or FMAC?

I am just not sure you are considering the larger components of this problem with your argument.

[SD Realtor]

Please take a look at the items that you were very specific on mentioning. In any of those items does it imply that Bush was urging lenders to lend to people who could not qualify? I would agree that yes, a tax credit and down payment assistance is nothing that can help someone who cannot afford a home, yet I do not seriously believe that he did nearly as much damage as the other cast of characters I mentioned. You seem to conveniently omit them 100%. Furthermore you seem to conveniently NOT acknowledge the efforts made by Bush to implement reform on the GSEs.

Did that never happen. Did you see ANY of the people I mentioned above EVER try to implement reform in the GSEs or is that conveniently lost in your argument.

Sorry but to pin this one 100% on Bush is wrong, dead wrong. Blame him for Iraq, blame him for failed foreign policy, for chronyism, for many other things.

Just try to be objective here and include many many other long time chronies. At least acknowledge these other people.

If you really believe that the Bush America’s Homeownership Challenge fueled the bubble then that is your prerogative. Yes it is a component but I don’t believe it is a significant component. From your own quote, the minority home ownership went up a little over 2% in 2004 from the previous year. Do you really think because Bush made an “official challenge” that these lenders suddenly decided, “Oh we better lend to minorities!” I tend to think it pretty much would have happened anyway. Do you think these lower income minorities speculated? Were they brokers? Did these guys resell the loans? Were these low income people the same ones who ran FNMA or FMAC?

I am just not sure you are considering the larger components of this problem with your argument.

[SD Realtor]

Please take a look at the items that you were very specific on mentioning. In any of those items does it imply that Bush was urging lenders to lend to people who could not qualify? I would agree that yes, a tax credit and down payment assistance is nothing that can help someone who cannot afford a home, yet I do not seriously believe that he did nearly as much damage as the other cast of characters I mentioned. You seem to conveniently omit them 100%. Furthermore you seem to conveniently NOT acknowledge the efforts made by Bush to implement reform on the GSEs.

Did that never happen. Did you see ANY of the people I mentioned above EVER try to implement reform in the GSEs or is that conveniently lost in your argument.

Sorry but to pin this one 100% on Bush is wrong, dead wrong. Blame him for Iraq, blame him for failed foreign policy, for chronyism, for many other things.

Just try to be objective here and include many many other long time chronies. At least acknowledge these other people.

If you really believe that the Bush America’s Homeownership Challenge fueled the bubble then that is your prerogative. Yes it is a component but I don’t believe it is a significant component. From your own quote, the minority home ownership went up a little over 2% in 2004 from the previous year. Do you really think because Bush made an “official challenge” that these lenders suddenly decided, “Oh we better lend to minorities!” I tend to think it pretty much would have happened anyway. Do you think these lower income minorities speculated? Were they brokers? Did these guys resell the loans? Were these low income people the same ones who ran FNMA or FMAC?

I am just not sure you are considering the larger components of this problem with your argument.

[SD Realtor]

Please take a look at the items that you were very specific on mentioning. In any of those items does it imply that Bush was urging lenders to lend to people who could not qualify? I would agree that yes, a tax credit and down payment assistance is nothing that can help someone who cannot afford a home, yet I do not seriously believe that he did nearly as much damage as the other cast of characters I mentioned. You seem to conveniently omit them 100%. Furthermore you seem to conveniently NOT acknowledge the efforts made by Bush to implement reform on the GSEs.

Did that never happen. Did you see ANY of the people I mentioned above EVER try to implement reform in the GSEs or is that conveniently lost in your argument.

Sorry but to pin this one 100% on Bush is wrong, dead wrong. Blame him for Iraq, blame him for failed foreign policy, for chronyism, for many other things.

Just try to be objective here and include many many other long time chronies. At least acknowledge these other people.

If you really believe that the Bush America’s Homeownership Challenge fueled the bubble then that is your prerogative. Yes it is a component but I don’t believe it is a significant component. From your own quote, the minority home ownership went up a little over 2% in 2004 from the previous year. Do you really think because Bush made an “official challenge” that these lenders suddenly decided, “Oh we better lend to minorities!” I tend to think it pretty much would have happened anyway. Do you think these lower income minorities speculated? Were they brokers? Did these guys resell the loans? Were these low income people the same ones who ran FNMA or FMAC?

I am just not sure you are considering the larger components of this problem with your argument.

[Author]

Posts