lockedaway
Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
quote:
ORIGINAL: lockedaway
quote:
ORIGINAL: cloudboy
Republicans love to play hot potato. I agree with you, the graph in lock's post shows when the lending sky rocketed.
The truth is, not everyone is cut out to own a home. A down payment is a wonderful screening device. If a person cannot save up X% to buy a home, then maybe he's not really ready to assume that kind of commitment and responsibility.
Excuse me. Perhaps you would like to tell me the year in which Glass Steagall was repealed and how much time Clinton had left to his presidency? Perhaps then you would like to explain how the chart would not have skyrocketed under ANYONE'S presidency other than Clinton's.
The part in bold is VERY accurate.
Post #106 your boy W.
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. And one way to address that is to have the federal government participate.
thats the bolded part problem, and if you cant poney up the cash.......
check 2003 and on in your chart and see if you cant use that 'legal' mind of yours and sort of look into the past a little.
pathetically defending the lost cause with graphics that slay you is not the mark of the even way below average jurisprudent, because people actually tend to believe their lyin eyes.......
and you take a picture of the smoking gun in their hand and say, see?
and btw, if cloud had posted on this thread earlier than post #125 I need to revise and extend my remarks, cuz I believe he is a throat.
The graphics don't slay me, knottedhead. Clinton signed a disastrous repeal as he left town. There was no subprime market prior to his doing that. So your fool of a president paved the way for a phenomenal melt down. Tell me how many Fannie Mae backed loans were written under the Bush Era? Who was in charge? What role did Andrew Cuomo play knottedhead?
You are pretty stupid after all of this time to think I am a Bush supporter. I am more passionate about laying blame for the crisis where it belongs than supporting a president that was only a hair more conservative than John McCain who is about as conservative as Hillary Fucking Clinton. So thank you for your .....what? Asswipe post. Here's another article for you and your dimwitted tribe:
Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie How the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history gave birth to the mortgage crisis A A A Comments (33) By Wayne Barrett Tuesday, Aug 5 2008 There are as many starting points for the mortgage meltdown as there are fears about how far it has yet to go, but one decisive point of departure is the final years of the Clinton administration, when a kid from Queens without any real banking or real-estate experience was the only man in Washington with the power to regulate the giants of home finance, the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), better known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Photograph by Staci Schwartz. Baby Models: Pescha and Sophia Samiljan Details Research assistance by Samuel Breidbart, Brian Colgan, Tatyana Gulko, Sarah Lavery, and Amanda Stutt Related Content More About Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded "kickbacks" to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why. What he did is important—not just because of what it tells us about how we got in this hole, but because of what it says about New York's attorney general, who has been trying for months to don a white hat in the subprime scandal, pursuing cases against banks, appraisers, brokers, rating agencies, and multitrillion-dollar, quasi-public Fannie and Freddie. It all starts, as the headlines of recent weeks do, with these two giant banks. But in the hubbub about their bailout, few have noticed that the only federal agency with the power to regulate what Cuomo has called "the gods of Washington" was HUD. Congress granted that power in 1992, so there were only four pre-crisis secretaries at the notoriously political agency that had the ability to rein in Fannie and Freddie: ex–Texas mayor Henry Cisneros and Bush confidante Alfonso Jackson, who were driven from office by criminal investigations; Mel Martinez, who left to chase a U.S. Senate seat in Florida; and Cuomo, who used the agency as a launching pad for his disastrous 2002 gubernatorial candidacy. With that many pols at the helm, it's no wonder that most analysts have portrayed Fannie and Freddie as if they were unregulated renegades, and rarely mentioned HUD in the ongoing finger-pointing exercise that has ranged, appropriately enough, from Wall Street to Alan Greenspan. But the near-collapse of these dual pillars in recent weeks is rooted in the HUD junkyard, where every Cuomo decision discussed here was later ratified by his Bush successors. And that's not an accident: Perhaps the only domestic issue George Bush and Bill Clinton were in complete agreement about was maximizing home ownership, each trying to lay claim to a record percentage of homeowners, and both describing their efforts as a boon to blacks and Hispanics. HUD, Fannie, and Freddie were their instruments, and, as is now apparent, the more unsavory the means, the greater the growth. But, as Paul Krugman noted in the Times recently, "homeownership isn't for everyone," adding that as many as 10 million of the new buyers are stuck now with negative home equity—meaning that with falling house prices, their mortgages exceed the value of their homes. So many others have gone through foreclosure that there's been a net loss in home ownership since 1998. It is also worth remembering that the motive for this bipartisan ownership expansion probably had more to do with the legion of lobbyists working for lenders, brokers, and Wall Street than an effort to walk in MLK's footsteps. Each mortgage was a commodity that could be sold again and again—from the brokers to the bankers to the securities market. If, at the bottom of this pyramid, the borrower collapsed under the weight of his mortgage's impossible terms, the home could be repackaged a second or a third time and either refinanced or dumped on a new victim. Those are the interests that surrounded Cuomo, who did more to set these forces of unregulated expansion in motion than any other secretary and then boasted about it, presenting his initiatives as crusades for racial and social justice. Cuomo was shrewd enough at the age of 24 to manage his father's successful 1982 gubernatorial campaign, and to help run his government. The only statewide campaign his father ever lost was in 1994—when Andrew was at HUD as an assistant secretary and couldn't manage it. He is as quick and as silver-tongued as the elder Cuomo he sounds so much like, but HUD was a test of his depth, so he found himself balancing competing forces and making deals on a grander scale than he was used to in Albany. We now know that he was also making history. In 2000, Cuomo required a quantum leap in the number of affordable, low-to-moderate-income loans that the two mortgage banks—known collectively as Government Sponsored Enterprises—would have to buy. The GSEs don't actually sell mortgages to borrowers. They buy them from banks and mortgage companies, allowing lenders to replenish their capital and make more loans. They also purchase mortgage-backed securities, which are pools of mortgages regularly acquired by the GSEs from investment firms. The government chartered these banks to pump money into the mortgage market and, while they did it, to make a strong enough profit to attract shareholders. That created a tug-of-war between their efforts to maximize shareholder value, which drove them toward high-end mortgages, and their congressionally mandated obligation to finance loans for those who needed help. The 1992 law required HUD's secretary to make sure housing goals were being met and, every four years, set new goals for Fannie and Freddie.
|
RE: Almost everyone lost on the budget deal. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread