Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-08-2009, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,642 posts, read 26,378,527 times
Reputation: 12648

Advertisements

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the chief culprits in the housing crisis because they encouraged people who could not afford payments to borrow money, according to a congressional report released Tuesday.

The claims in the report have long been advanced by conservatives, who argue that the Community Reinvestment Act and other federal programs fed the housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to the economic downfall in 2008.

But thereport explains in detail how Fannie and Freddie -- government sponsored enterprises (GSE) that were not subject to the same oversight as other publicly traded firms -- “privatized their profits but socialized their risks.”

“In the short run, this government intervention was successful in its stated goal – raising the national homeownership rate,” says the report, the result of an investigation launched last fall by Republican members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

“However, the ultimate effect was to create a mortgage tsunami that wrought devastation on the American people and economy,” says the report. “While government intervention was not the sole cause of the financial crisis, its role was significant and has received too little attention.”

The report talks about the Clinton administration’s National Homeownership Strategy, citing President Clinton’s directive to “lift America’s homeownership rate to an all-time high by the end of the century.”

The Clinton strategy further said that Freddie and Fannie should reduce down-payment requirements and, according to the report, “called for increased use of ‘flexible underwriting criteria,’ which it said could be achieved in concert with ‘liberalized affordable housing underwriting criteria.’”

“That is the perfect smoking gun that tells how Barney Frank [D-Mass.], the Clinton administration and others would do it in those days,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee, said Tuesday in a speech at the Heritage Foundation.

“The seeds of the meltdown began with the well-intentioned goal that everyone have a home even if they can’t afford it,” he said. “It led to one of the biggest ponzi schemes ever.”

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made 54 percent of the “subprime” mortgage loans from 2002 to 2007, or about $1.9 trillion in mortgage loans to borrowers with credit scores lower than 660.

The report comes after Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) – who fought against regulation of the two quasi-public mortgage giants -- and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) wrote a letter in June to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac calling on the GSEs to lower lending standards on condo buyers.

The report argues that lowered lending standards were the cause of the housing crisis and did not exempt the Republicans or the Bush administration from blame. It said placing certain lending quotas for under-served populations allowed “both Democratic and Republican administrations to consistently make campaign promises to boost homeownership through government intervention in the market.

CNSNews.com - Federal Government Was Culprit in Housing and Economic Crisis, Says Congressional Report (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50680 - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-08-2009, 12:28 PM
 
9,763 posts, read 10,527,281 times
Reputation: 2052
Clue for the clueless:

2001 to 2007: There didn't exist a single Democrat with an ounce of power in any branch of the federal government.

I love Issa telling us how Clinton would do it in "those days." LMAO. What happened to the Republicans? They had power of the whole government for six years. What about THOSE DAYS? They did nothing. Republicans truly are the "do nothing" party, even when they're in power. What a joke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 12:43 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,642 posts, read 26,378,527 times
Reputation: 12648
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
Clue for the clueless:

2001 to 2007: There didn't exist a single Democrat with an ounce of power in any branch of the federal government.

I love Issa telling us how Clinton would do it in "those days." LMAO. What happened to the Republicans? They had power of the whole government for six years. What about THOSE DAYS? They did nothing. Republicans truly are the "do nothing" party, even when they're in power. What a joke.
The report came out yesterday. You can't say Republicans are rewriting history. Democrats controlled the Senate in 2001 and 2002, and they controlled The entire Congress in 2007. The rest of the time they threatened filibuster. Do nothing? The new Congress is doing plenty. They're just not reading the things they pass.

Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008

So no defense for Clinton? How about Frank?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 12:47 PM
 
10,545 posts, read 13,585,253 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
So no defense for Clinton? How about Frank?
Don't worry, Saganista will be on soon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 12:51 PM
 
9,763 posts, read 10,527,281 times
Reputation: 2052
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
The report came out yesterday. You can't say Republicans are rewriting history. Democrats controlled the Senate in 2001 and 2002, and they controlled The entire Congress in 2007. The rest of the time they threatened filibuster. Do nothing? The new Congress is doing plenty. They're just not reading the things they pass.

Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008

So no defense for Clinton? How about Frank?
I'm not defending anybody.

Laying the blame on Clinton and Frank, without taking responsibility for the years of complete Republican control of government, is intellectually dishonest. Are you intellectually dishonest, mo?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 12:52 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,862 posts, read 24,111,507 times
Reputation: 15135
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
...argue that the Community Reinvestment Act and other federal programs fed the housing bubble that burst in 2007...
I remember when I was a bank teller back in the mid 90's, there were a lot of "rules" that we (the tellers) had to tiptoe around because of the CRA. I also remember there being an air of concern over the act, as if it was going to break the bank or something.

Hmm....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 12:54 PM
 
12,669 posts, read 20,447,035 times
Reputation: 3050
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
I'm not defending anybody.

Laying the blame on Clinton and Frank, without taking responsibility for the years of complete Republican control of government, is intellectually dishonest. Are you intellectually dishonest, mo?
Clinton in 1999 put the ball in motion by de-regulating Glass-Steagall! Look it up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 12:56 PM
 
9,763 posts, read 10,527,281 times
Reputation: 2052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miborn View Post
Clinton in 1999 put the ball in motion by de-regulating Glass-Steagall! Look it up.
Hey dude, read my post again.

I'M NOT DEFENDING ANYBODY. Look it up.

Clinton put the ball in motion, and Bush rolled it down the hill. Are you going to defend Bush on this? The Republican House and Senate?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 12:59 PM
 
12,669 posts, read 20,447,035 times
Reputation: 3050
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
Hey dude, read my post again.

I'M NOT DEFENDING ANYBODY. Look it up.

Clinton put the ball in motion, and Bush rolled it down the hill. Are you going to defend Bush on this? The Republican House and Senate?
In 2001 President Bush called attention to it all and Frank and others said there is NO problem bla bla bla

And I am a dudette............
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 01:02 PM
 
9,763 posts, read 10,527,281 times
Reputation: 2052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miborn View Post
In 2001 President Bush called attention to it all and Frank and others said there is NO problem bla bla bla
In 2001, Republicans controlled the House. Try again.

Frank was more powerful than Bush in 2001? Are you really gonna go there?

Oh...nevermind. You'd defend Satan if he joined the Republican Party.

Quote:
And I am a dudette............
I'll remember that next time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top