Democrats buried mortgage scandal under the rug five years ago! »
Posted By RedRiverJ 8 months, 3 weeks ago in NewsFrom New York Times September 11, 2003 By Stephen Labaton
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
Read Full Story at canadafreepress.com »
4350 Views Share Story 259 Comments Report
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 254 of 259 Comments (view all)
-
57%
RedRiverJ8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In 2003 Bush administration recommended a huge regulatory overhaul for the housing finance industry.
Reply
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''-
62%
RedRiverJ8 months, 3 weeks ago
-
64%
UnusualSuspect8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You must be drinking water from that red river, J...it's affecting you...(radioactive, maybe?)...
Reply
The year...2003...and Barney Frank was quoted as saying...
‘’These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis,’’
At that time those two entities were fine...it wasn't until 2006 that the seams started showing sighs of real stress...and even if Frank was slacking and mouthing off (and I don't doubt he was), you still have Congress (Republican-controlled) and a President who were the shepherds leading this country...
I'll bet if you really did your homework, and went back to look for articles from the mid 90's, you'd find more to post... -
-
40%
mesodude8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bah! Who in the sam hill cares what them dang foreigner Canadians think of what the New York Times thinks of what Bernie Frankkss (sp?) thought of or did more than 10 years ago? They don't vote in our elections!!! And Berney Frink (sp) is one of them gol dang homos and I heard he once ran a worldwide GAY prostitution ring from his garage and when he was found not guilty by a bi-partisan Congressional ethics panel he was given a standing ovation by House Democrats plus the keys to DC (and Massachussetts).
Reply -
63%
alykatma8 months, 3 weeks ago
-
58%
spkguy8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just who runs and authors many articles on the canadafreepress.com web site?
Reply
Well...We know her very well up her in Canada, non other than Judi McLeod.
Red, I hate to attack the messenger, but in this case i'll let another CONSERVATIVE do it for me.
"Conservative writer Kevin Michael Grace has described McLeod's writing as that of an "emotionally incontinent 9th grader," [9] while Toronto Star columnist Antonia Zerbisias describes her as "eccentric" and the Canada Free Press as a "whacko news site."
You just might want to re-evaluate where you get your information to support your ideology.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Judi-McLe... -
75%
donald518 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What BS Red! The repugs controlled Congress then too, and you want us to believe more of these right wing revisionist lies? You folks are so un-American you no longer know truth when you see it!
Reply
Bushies always wanted government to fail... as every facet under Dumya has shown us in blatant terms! All those bankers cleaning up under Dumya and they got the bailout money for bonuses too! Give me a break with your absolute lies and deceptions! Un-American, greedy fool! -
60%
Klarissa8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bush's big mistake? he should have immediately stopped Freddie and Fanny from lobbying with money or gifts.
Reply
The corruption of Congress was the real basis for the monstrous payments to the upper employees of Freddie and Fanny and their give-away loans.
-
-
44%
Wolfie20078 months, 3 weeks ago
-
45%
RedRiverJ8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Glad you liked it Wolfie.
Reply
This article is from the liberal bible the New York Times, so it has to be gospel. Take off the glasses of hatred and read/watch the facts Bush haters. If Bush is to share the blame it is in that he did not yell LOUD enough over the democrats screaming their BS and claiming anything other than their sociopolitical programs are racists. -
-
-
52%
Klarissa8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
IN 1993, (and who got ooddles of lobby money from Freddie and Fanny)
Reply
‘’These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis,’’ said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ‘’The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.’’ -
100%
slate8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's a good point, How about finding a way to limit the power of lobbyists? I know the Lobbying was to enable the common folks to gain access to DC but the process has been bastardized to the point where no common folks can get in to see those in DC because they don't come in with buckets of money for that errrr 'privilege'.
Reply -
95%
TheRealizer8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In more than fifty years of voting, I have never voted for an incumbent for ANY office. The Founding Fathers did not plan on there being an imbedded political Elite. The economic problems this nation now faces is the result of CAREER POLITICIANS!!!!
Reply-
67%
RedRiverJ8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you said it Realizer. T-E-R-M-L-I-M-I-T-S, BUT we know that will not happen.
Reply
These jokers are in office so long they begin to think they are Gods, they can do not wrong and even if the do they are above the law. BOTH SIDES.
After 8 years they just get to comfortable and their heads get too big, they need to be kicked out. -
-
-
64%
lovemylibs8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm sure many of you have seen this article by now, but here's an article from 1999 that says a little about what helped cause the mortgage scandal:
Reply
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0... -
56%
BB648 months, 3 weeks ago
-
64%
nostalgia8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is the original NYT story that the article references
Reply
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0... -
60%
nostalgia8 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
-
-
41%
Wolfie20078 months, 3 weeks ago
-
64%
MonkeyBiz8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I smelled the BS as soon as I read the first sentence. "...the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."
Reply
The most significant legislation was a 1999 Phil Gramm sponsored dismantling of the Glass-Steagal Act that allowed commercial banks to deal in mortgage backed securities. The securitization of mortgages lead DIRECTLY to lenders not caring whether a mortgage could be repaid or not. It was no longer their concern. All they had to do to make money is sign people up and sell the paper to investors like lehman brothers or Goldman Sacks. Fannie mae and Freddie mac also bought these securities at the insistence of a presidential directive issued by George W. Bush in 2004.
From a White House News Release: "Today, President Bush announced a new goal to help increase the number of minority
homeowners by at least 5.5 million before the end of the decade. The President's aggressive housing agenda will help dismantle the barriers to homeownership by providing down payment assistance, increasing the supply of affordable homes,
increasing support for self-help homeownership programs, and simplifying the home buying process & increasing education. The President also issued "America's Homeownership Challenge" to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to join in his effort to increase the number of minority homeowners by taking concrete steps to tear down the barriers to homeownership that face minority families."
Here's the fun part from the same directive: "# Substantially increase by at least $440 billion, the financial commitment made by the government sponsored enterprises involved in the secondary mortgage market, specifically targeted toward the minority market;"
"Government sponsored enterprises" means fannie mae and freddie mac. BUSH AND THE REPUGS pushed hard for deregulating the secondary mortgage market. They got their way, and if you haven't noticed yet, the secondary mortgage market is ground zero for our country's financial woes.
It's simple, NO mortgage backed securities, NO mortgage problems.-
75%
beavith18 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
there's nothing wrong with using mortgage backed securities as an investment. its no different than any other debt instrument.
Reply
where it flew off the rails was when the geniuses at certain banks came up with a way to make money from it with no regulatory oversight.
and that's got nothing to do with politics. its got everything to do with the slowness of gov't to realize a problem exists and come up with a solution.
this article suggests that Frank and Dodd ran interference and slowed down implementation of means of control until it was too late.
Sununu tried to fix it in 2004. McCain and Sununu tried again in 2005.
and here we are. -
-
-
38%
galletta61218 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
YOU LEAVE OUT SOME PRETTY IMPORTANT INFORMATION. THIS WAS UNDER SOME VERY STRICT GUIDELINES THAT THE DEMOCRATS, THE CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS IN PARTICULAR, FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL TO EASE UP ON. FOR INSTANCE, THEY WERE PUSHING FOR LOWERING THE QUALIFICATION STANDARDS PERTAINING TO A PERSONS CREDIT, MAKING LOANS MORE ACCESSIBLE FOR THE VERY POOR. ETC. ETC.
Reply
THEY WANTED ALL THE RULES BENT SO THAT EVEN SOMEONE WHO WOULD DISQUALIFY UNDER THAT BILL, WOULD GET THEIR LOANS. WHEN 2006 ROLLED AROUND, AND THE DEMOCRATS TOOK BACK THE HOUSE AND SENATE, THEY SAW TO IT THAT THIS WOULD BE A REALITY.
STOP TWISTING YOUR STORY TO JUSTIFY THE IRRESPONSIBILITY OF THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS. THEY COULD CARE LESS ABOUT YOU, AND A FINANCIAL MELT DOWN, AND ACTUALLY WELCOME THE FALL OF CAPITALISM. AFTER ALL, THIS IS THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE NOW DOING, PUSHING SOCIALISM ON US ALL, AND DOING IT AT AN ALARMING RATE, BEFORE SOMEONE MIGHT NOTICE THEIR BENT LIBERAL AGENDA.
-
-
-
-
36%
Commodore18 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And the NY Times has reported this. Wow! Well I certainly believe it. W/incompetents like Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi it doesn't surprise me one bit. I've always suspected the nazi liberals were doing everthing they could to undermine Bush and GOP. OK nazi liberals, let's hear your spin on it. Hee! Hee! Of course everyone knows it was the liberals who started the whole thing anyway then they had to try and cover it up.
Reply-
73%
jovial8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The main thing that seemed relevant was the argument that the Community Reinvestment Act, originally designed to address redlining, required unwise lending. This appears to be the legislation you refer to as amended in about 2001.
Reply
Here is a debunking of that criticism. (I think the most telling statement,from House hearings on the subject, was that only about 1 in 4 of the sub-prime loans were made by institutions covered by this legislation. Also very telling is the professor who says that as far as Fannie and Freddie were concerned, the Bush administration allowed them to satisfy their affordable housing goals, not technically part of the CRA, with sub-prime mortgage backed securities.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/... :
“However, others dispute the involvement of the CRA in the crisis. In a Bank for International Settlements (”BIS”) working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that “there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust.”[55] Ellen Seidman, former director of the US Office of Thrift Supervision during the Clinton administration, who works at the New America Foundation,[56] has stated that the CRA did not have an effect on the United States housing bubble.[57][58][unreliable source?] more.. -
70%
jovial8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some commentators note that CRA regulated loans tended to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[59][31] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA. Another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. He stated that institutions fully regulated by CRA made “perhaps” one in four sub-prime loans.
Reply
Referring to CRA and abuses in the subprime market, Michael Barr stated that in his judgment “the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight”. [60] According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made “high-priced loans” at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[61] A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.[62] Assistant Professor of Law Alan M. White[63] notes that some abuses blamed on CRA actually occurred under the George W. Bush administration, because the Housing and Urban Development and Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to fulfill their affordable housing goals – which are not technically part of the CRA – by buying subprime mortgage-backed securities.[64]”
-For 6 of the last 8 years we have had a Republican White House and Congress, and in the last 2 years we have had a divided government. If the Republicans had wanted to change things, they have had the chance. -
70%
jovial8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It looks to me like the failure to regulate credit swaps had a great deal to do with the meltdown. For this we can thank McCain’s advisor, Phil Gramm. (He stepped down as co-chair of McCain’s campaign in May, after he was quoted as saying that we were a nation of whiners, and that the country was simply suffering from a mental recession, not any real problems). He has been talked about as possible head of Treasury under McCain.
Reply
A special shout out to the author that goes by the handle Efishant.
-
-
79%
djn3nunez38 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's the original article. Hope it works. nope try this one it's to a seach page that brings up a link to the original.
Reply
http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=N...
I always find that those who cherry pick info from old new articles usually are following a not so truthfull agenda.
Like he omitts the fact that the Republicans had the majority in both the house and senate in 2003. They had the chairmanship on this committee, but yet it is the Democrats who stopped them from creating this oversight agency?
Or how about this: Fannie and Freddie were not active in the subprime market in 2003.
On Barney: As chair of the committee, his spearheading legislation in 2007 to strengthen oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Nor is there mention of his support in 2005 of simular legisation.
Face it, it is the partisan 2 party system that created the cracks that the crooks used to bilk us. Maybe it's time for a third or forth party.-
-
71%
UnusualSuspect8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
While I agree with most of what you say, djn, I don't think we'll ever see more than the two parties we have, mainly because most people want simplicity in the process of electing government officials.
Reply
Its great to have a wide variety of choices in cars, homes, movies, books, and music, but most people could care less when it comes to politics and will take the easiest route to elect someone they feel will do the job. If that elected official does an OK job, that will suffice for most people. If the person does a great job, that's better still. And if that person does a lackluster job, then we got what we deserved, and will make it right next time (we hope). -
70%
not2needy8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
djn said:
Reply
Like he omitts the fact that the Republicans had the majority in both the house and senate in 2003.
That's been my point all along, republicans have had control 20 of the last 28 years, except for 6 years that Clinton had a Liberal Congress, but these people are trying to put the blame for the housing crisis on one man.
Our economic collapse isn't the result of any ONE thing, it's a combination of many things, but these people grasp at every straw they can to blame everything on Liberals, completely overlooking their parties control for 20 of the last 28 years. -
-
-
80%
stephen-johnson8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Again, It wasn't Fannie or Freddie that was the main problem"
Reply
I beg to differ. Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers and other Wall Street firms failed because thye were over-leveraged with toxic mortgage backed deriviities that were based on subprime mortgages that they got from Fannie and Freddie. That's what led to the collapse of Wall Street, and the reason why lenders are sitting on their cash - they don't know true asset bases of potential borrowers with so much toxic paper on the borrowers books.
Giving mortgages to people who can't pay them back is a bad business practice, period. Financial companies leveraging themselves 30-1 with these types of debt instruments is an even worse practice, which is why they went bankrupt. In a real estate bubble, bad loans can be handled. But when the bubble busts, they can't.
Your attempt to turn things into the usual political pabulum is why I'm pessimistic going forward. Political types who have no clue about economics are driving the bus. -
88%
stephen-johnson8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
With the de facto nationalization of the major banks in this country, look for future bank lending to be based on political pandering rather than business or financial reasons. And when that set of loans goes bust, the same cast of characters who ignored the Fanny and Freddie time bombs five years ago will call for more government "regulation" and "oversight"
Reply
The mortgage time bomb will continue to tick even after the economy recovers this time.-
67%
jovial8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Again, It wasn't Fannie or Freddie that was the main problem. It's an incessant attempt to vilify the government to satisfy a warped ideology that seems to be the mantra from the Republican Party. People are becoming more aware of it and that's why support for them is dwindling. The idea goes like this..Elect Republican officials that have a general disdain for anything government. Then make sure they are totally inept to carry out the duties therein. As the government and our country deteriorates, blame the government for all the countries ills. Then scream low taxes, smaller government! See I told you!
Reply
-
-
60%
pc258 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
this oldie but goodie
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs -
60%
pc258 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/10/06/demo...
Reply
Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has cooperated only once. In spring 2007, as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank likes to point out, the House did pass a bill in response. The Senate did not act until 2008; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd spent most of 2007 camped out in Iowa running for president. The legislation passed by Congress in 2008 enabled Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to put Fannie and Freddie into federal conservatorship this summer when they failed. But it didn't prevent them from spewing a huge amount of toxic waste, in the form of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, into our financial institutions from 2004 to 2007. As Stephen Spruiell points out in The Corner on National Review Online, Fannie and Freddie spewed out $1 trillion worth (face value) of subprime mortgages between 2005 and 2007. That's a whole lot of toxic waste. For more detail, consult the items referred to in my previous blogpost on this subject (most of the comments seem to have been disputes about the plot line of the movie It's a Wonderful Life, which I should think could be settled by consulting a reference work). -
56%
pc258 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg
Reply -
67%
THOMNH628 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
nice try, this has been all over you tube with Maxine Waters, Barney Fwank and Dodd being questioned and actually suggesting they had better things to do besides answer questions about Fannie and Freddie. This was the beginning of the economic disaster and the left will never admit to this even when it is posted on tape, remember your dealing with Libscape morons who think the worlds problems were created by Bush and can be solved by Barry, even though the dow has continued to nose dive under this administrations first 60 days. Thanks guys for electing a socialist disaster, my grandkids thank you for the debt.
Reply -
50%
decipher8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you are saying that congress was unresponsive to the bush administration's attempts to reign in fannie mae and freddie mac. you blame democrats yet fail to mention that republicans were firmly in control of both the house and senate in 2003 and 2006 when then sec of treas john snow urged action. seems to me that if anyone had the power to "sweep" at that time , it was the republicans.
Reply -
67%
NoWayMan8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
to try and lay the blame for the freddie/fannie debacle solely in the lap of the dems is just as stupid as trying to lay the blame for the debacle solely in the lap of the GOP.
Reply
there's more than enough blame to go around DC for the fannie/freddie mess. but to only point the finger at the minority party during that period, the party that had no control over the senate, the house, or the presidency at that time, is simply disingenuous. -
-
-
-
89%
icono18 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I love this bipartisan finger pointing.
Reply
Democracy at its best.
yet the fact of the matter is; the deal has already gone down and it is too late to cry over spilled milk or is that lost millions and lost jobs and the death of the Republic.
but even as the stock market inches down toward the 7000 mark the CreditCrats are optimistic that by spending a trillion or two of other peoples money the new American LimoCrat Collective will rebound in better shape than ever. -
67%
4cprocess8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Truth of the matter is simply this.
Reply
If you could overlay a chart that represents the increase in home ownership and overlaid another representing the rise of this current meldown you would see that the increase started during the Clinton presidency. This increase continued during the Bush presidency. The charts would also show that the beginning of the meltdown coincided with the increase (Congressional elections of 2006) and eventual dominance of the Democrats in Congress. By January 2009 with the total control of both the Congress and the White House by Democrats the charts representing this current meltdown (banks, housing and the market) today would be at it's peak with God knows how much farther to go. -
63%
THOMNH628 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
lets see the video was not from fox news it was from the floor of the house banking committee and given the fact that FOX news beats all the cable networks in the ratings by more than 2 to one I would be afraid that a revolution is coming, Barry will be a one term president.
Reply
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.