Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not at all. And as I said, very little in the way of actual credentials would be needed to debunk the stuff and nonsense that some have posted here.
And by the way, the Bush administration had no interest in the GSE's beyond cutting them off at the knees and turning the mission over to Wall Street -- you know, the guys who ACTUALLY DID cause the Great Recession. That's why they tried to create an all-powerful GSE-czar, and that's why they later tried to cap GSE portfolio holdings. Meanwhile, when Congress actually came up with sensible bills to reform the GSE's as they were, the Bush people simply shot them down.
Not at all. And as I said, very little in the way of actual credentials would be needed to debunk the stuff and nonsense that some have posted here.
And by the way, the Bush administration had no interest in the GSE's beyond cutting them off at the knees and turning the mission over to Wall Street -- you know, the guys who ACTUALLY DID cause the Great Recession. That's why they tried to create an all-powerful GSE-czar, and that's why they later tried to cap GSE portfolio holdings. Meanwhile, when Congress actually came up with sensible bills to reform the GSE's as they were, the Bush people simply shot them down.
You have no credentials. That's painfully obvious, despite your dash to whatever media shill you choose for your misinformation.
I did not vote for Bush in either 2000 or 2004. And I typically don't vote Republican. But the Bush administration did indeed try half-hearted reforms in underwriting before the entire thing melted down. Here's a pretty good list of efforts. I remember all these going on. I also remember attending a lot of panel discussions at American Banking Association meetings on the subject in the late 90s and early 00s that anticipation of the crisis.
2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)
2002
May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
September: Then-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.
September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)
October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
November: Then-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 calls 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: Then-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)
April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls 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: Then-Secretary 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)
July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)
2007
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)
2008
February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)
I plan on reading the article later and then responding. So many times now we find ourselves responding without having read the article the OP is discussing. It makes us be a lot of loud mouth bores who like our own voices. No one learns by responding without learning first. It is like we all want to take the literature test without reading the book.
You would badly lose a battle of credentials, but it is facts that actually matter here, and you have few enough of those as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
I did not vote for Bush in either 2000 or 2004. And I typically don't vote Republican.
Why would anyone care? Why are you going to such efforts to paint yourself as something other than a programmed right-wing hack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
But the Bush administration did indeed try half-hearted reforms in underwriting before the entire thing melted down.
As noted above, the only interest Bush had in the GSE's was to carve them up into pieces that could be passed off to Wall Street. The administration did not propose any sort of actual safety-and-soundess-related reforms, though all agreed at the time that something of the sort was needed. Congress did develop such proposals, but the White House serially shot them down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
Here's a pretty good list of efforts
Yeah, I've seen that list dozens of times before. It's copied-and-pasted from a beyond lame White House PR attempt from October of 2008 ginned up in a last-ditch effort to explain away Bush culpability in allowing and in fact promoting the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.
The problem with Pikety's beliefs are manifold. He ignores that the people with high wealth today, people such as Gates, Bezos, and Buffett, earned every dime of their wealth. What's more...
So if we are living in an age of inequality, then why is it that extreme poverty rates have dropped from roughly 44% to less than 10% in the course of a generation?
It would do you well to ponder the concept of "earning" and how the game is rigged. Gates is a good example of someone who used every illegal trick in the book to bankrupt competition. But he got away with it, so that makes him a hero?
And I'll tell you precisely how extreme poverty rates declined so much. The oligarchs used globalization and finance to drain wealth and pile on debt for the middle class in developed countries. An incidental byproduct of this was development of some poor countries, but most of it ended up in the pockets of the mega rich. That's how the top .01% experienced ~10x increase in real income over the last 40 years, while the median has been flat.
In actual history, GDP tripled between 1999 and 2013, as the Bolivarian Revolution threw off the shackles of long decades of brutal rule and exploitation by the few families of the Venezuelan oligarchy. The election of Hugo Chavez was indeed a huge victory for the people of that nation. Sadly, when Chavez died at age 58, there was no one actually qualified to be his successor.
It should be further noted that while Hugo Chavez adored Simon Bolivar, Karl Marx dismissed him. Treating Chavez as a Marxist is worse than being merely simplistic.
Chavez admitted to being a Marxist. Didn't they discuss that in the Chairman's dining room?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
