How Obama improved the economy and saved us from a depression

[Martinghoul]

Quote from rew:
Republicans wanted to impose stronger lending standards on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages. The Democrats were adamantly against it. It was the ability of banks to offload their subprime mortgages onto Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that was a major factor in creating the mortgage crisis. So don't give me crap about how responsible the Democrats are.

This is factually incorrect. See my post in another thread.

 

[rew]

Quote from Free Thinker:

they relaxed standards because they were losing market share to the wall street bundlers but they never took no doc liar loans of the type that caused so many forclosures.
f&f loans always had to be conforming loans.
wall street invented ways to bypass f&f.

Conforming loan From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search In the United States, a conforming loan is a mortgage loan that conforms to GSE guidelines.[1]

In general, any loan which does not meet guidelines is a non-conforming loan. A loan which does not meet guidelines specifically because the loan amount exceeds the guideline limits is known as a jumbo loan.[1]
CriteriaThe Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) set the criteria on what constitutes a conforming loan limit that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can buy. Criteria include debt-to-income ratio limits and documentation requirements. The maximum loan amount is set based on the October-to-October changes in median home price, above which a mortgage is considered a jumbo loan, and typically has higher rates associated with it. This is because both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac only buy loans that are conforming, to repackage into the secondary market, making the demand for a non-conforming loan much less. By virtue of the laws of supply and demand, then, it is harder for lenders to sell the loans, thus it would cost more to the consumers (typically 1/4 to 1/2 of a percent.)

Not all subprime loans were "liar loans". A loan could meet Fannie Mae's lowered standards and still be a crappy loan. And Freddie Mae was run by that damn fool who said that 3% reserves were more than enough. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were so well run, why did they have to be bailed out with tax payer's dollars?

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from rew:

Not all subprime loans were "liar loans". A loan could meet Fannie Mae's lowered standards and still be a crappy loan. And Freddie Mae was run by that damn fool who said that 3% reserves were more than enough. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were so well run, why did they have to be bailed out with tax payer's dollars?

never said they were well run. i only said they were not the cause of the crash. they were caught up in it just like everyone else.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Martinghoul:

This is factually incorrect. See my post in another thread.

Interesting, both sides claim they have the "facts". But those "facts" don't agree.
I'm guessing at least one side is wrong about their "facts".

 

[rew]

Quote from Free Thinker:

never said they were well run. i only said they were not the cause of the crash. they were caught up in it just like everyone else.

The GSEs were by no means the sole cause of the crash but they did contribute to it. Both the management of those organizations and their bond investors were willing to take on excessively risky loans because of the moral hazard created by our government. Although the bonds weren't supposed to be government guaranteed everybody knew with a nod and a wink that the government would bail them out if necessary, and indeed, it did.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from rew:

The GSEs were by no means the sole cause of the crash but they did contribute to it. Both the management of those organizations and their bond investors were willing to take on excessively risky loans because of the moral hazard created by our government. Although the bonds weren't supposed to be government guaranteed everybody knew with a nod and a wink that the government would bail them out if necessary, and indeed, it did.

it is documented fact that gse loans failed at a much lower rate than wall street loan concotions.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from Lucrum:

Interesting, both sides claim they have the "facts". But those "facts" don't agree.
I'm guessing at least one side is wrong about their "facts".

Yeah, no kidding.

This kind of thing is what makes me distrust history books. When you live through something then see people try to tell you it was the opposite, you develop a healthy skepticism.

Barney Frank's boyfriend was on FNM's payroll. Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know really? No one in the media will touch it because of the gay angle. If he was republican and it was some woman being paid by an oil company, they would call it a major scandal.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Yeah, no kidding.

This kind of thing is what makes me distrust history books. When you live through something then see people try to tell you it was the opposite, you develop a healthy skepticism.

We all lived through it, so your "argument from proximity" is useless.

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from Lucrum:
Interesting, both sides claim they have the "facts". But those "facts" don't agree.
I'm guessing at least one side is wrong about their "facts".

Well, I am referring to smth that is a matter of historical record. Both Democrats and Republicans attempted GSE regulator reform (in 2003 and 2005). In fact, during 2003, when the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the White House (if I am not mistaken), H.R. 2575, H.R. 2803, S. 1508, S.1656 were introduced (by a mix of Republicans and Democrats), but got nowhere. In 2005, H.R. 1461 was approved by the House, but not by the Republican Senate. All this is documented in THOMAS and publicly accessible. As I mentioned in the other thread, there's absolutely no reason to believe that either party actually has a better record w/regards to the GSEs than the other.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Barney Frank's boyfriend was on FNM's payroll. Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know really? No one in the media will touch it because of the gay angle. If he was republican and it was some woman being paid by an oil company, they would call it a major scandal.

You're being disingenuous again. I have mentioned it in the other thread, but former Chiefs of Staff for Reagan and Gingrich were on the GSE payrolls. What's that supposed to be telling you?

Yet again, to suggest that the Republican party, in general, has been a paragon of financial discipline and prudence is beyond naive. That said, specific Republicans, like Chuck Hagel, certainly deserve to be singled out for trying to do the right thing during a time when it was extremely unpopular.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Lucrum:

Interesting, both sides claim they have the "facts". But those "facts" don't agree.
I'm guessing at least one side is wrong about their "facts".

Well one could look at what the multiple studies - non-partisan and bi-partisan have said about it. They say the govt supported loans were not responsible in any significant way for the housing crisis and subsequent financial meltdown.

.....Or one could keep repeating the right-wing meme.