You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Study: Housing Collapse Steeper than during the Great Depression.
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Quote from Free Thinker:
fanny never took the liar loans that caused this mess. that was a wall street invention.
to blame this all on fanny and cra you have to explain why las vegas and orange county california have so many bad loans
I believe this is dead wrong. I recall Franklin Gray, the democrat hack who was CEO of FNM, saying how much he wanted to take on even more subprime. It was considered the most lucrative segment of the market, don't forget, and the democrat pols who ran FNM into the ground were all about padding their pockets with huge option grants and bonuses.
Quote from Max E. Pad:
We are on the hook for a couple hundred billion dollars due to them, the top mortgage company (country wide) was only responsible for 98 billion in subprime loans, how could anyone say they were not a huge part of the problem?
It's a lot more than a "couple hundred billion" dollars when you add up just those 25 largely private concerns. And remember, we ended up bailing many of them out. This crisis belongs to the private sector.
Quote from trendlover:
I have said repeatedly on this thread that i think Republican are equally responsible for the mess, what more do you want? If im attacking dems it is because of the fact that people on this thread are making it out as though the republicans were completely responsible for the mess when both parties were fucking idiots, and both parties were equal culprits.
Quote from Ricter:
It's a lot more than a "couple hundred billion" dollars when you add up just those 25 largely private concerns. And remember, we ended up bailing many of them out. This crisis belongs to the private sector.
Yeah but they are ranking the privately held concerns 1 by 1 in terms of who did the most damage, Fannie, and Freddie each did as much damage as anyone in that list. The two of them may not have combined for as much as the private sector did combined, but each of them caused just as much damage individually as any other private company did individually, thus they should be on the list.
Quote from Ricter:
The "Subprime 25":
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/economic_meltdown/the_subprime_25/
Edit: full list:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/economic_meltdown/the_subprime_25/full_list/
Do you understand that FNM and FRE do not make actual loans but securitize mortgages? Of course they're not on that list. Neither is Lehman or Goldman.
The taxpayers will end up pissing away several trillion bucks on FNM/FRE. Of course, FNM did manage to provide a cushy job for Barney Frank's "boyfriend, " so it's not like all the money was just wasted.
Quote from Free Thinker:
there is a reason its called the GrammâLeachâBliley bill. dems were involved and it was a mistake for clinton to sign it but it was a republican creation.
Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), the co-sponsors of the GrammâLeachâBliley Act.
do the research -- it was weil and robert rubin, citibank, wall street creation. No question wall street buys off congress but it was rubin who was pushing this and Clinton was his "boss".
so robert rubin, who was a democrat, forced three republicans to create a bill that was designed to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act? funny how there are no democrats who would sign their name to sponsor the bill. i have no doubt rubin was in favor of it but it was a republican creation.Quote from jem:
do the research -- it was a robert rubin, citibank, wall street creation. No question wall street buys off congress but it was rubin who was pushing this and Clinton was his "boss".
The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54â44 vote in the Senate[19] and by a bi-partisan 343â86 vote in the House of Representatives.[20] After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90â8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362â57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[21]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1984 and 1988, the Senate passes bills that would lift major restrictions under Glass-Steagall, but in each case the House blocks passage. In 1991, the Bush administration puts forward a repeal proposal, winning support of both the House and Senate Banking Committees, but the House again defeats the bill in a full vote. And in 1995, the House and Senate Banking Committees approve separate versions of legislation to get rid of Glass-Steagall, but conference negotiations on a compromise fall apart.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote from Free Thinker:
fanny never took the liar loans that caused this mess. that was a wall street invention.
to blame this all on fanny and cra you have to explain why las vegas and orange county california have so many bad loans
"The Commission also probed the performance of the loans purchased or guaranteed
by Fannie and Freddie. While they generated substantial losses, delinquency
rates for GSE loans were substantially lower than loans securitized by other financial
firms. For example, data compiled by the Commission for a subset of borrowers with
similar credit scores¡Xscores below ÂuÂuÂo¡Xshow that by the end of ÂqÂoÂoÂw, GSE mortgages
were far less likely to be seriously delinquent than were non-GSE securitized
mortgages: Âu.ÂqÂn versus ÂqÂw.ÂrÂn."
(SNIP)
"In conducting our inquiry, we took a careful look at HUD¡¦s affordable housing
goals, as noted above, and the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The CRA was
enacted in ÂpÂxÂvÂv to combat ¡§redlining¡¨ by banks¡Xthe practice of denying credit to individuals
and businesses in certain neighborhoods without regard to their creditworthiness.
The CRA requires banks and savings and loans to lend, invest, and provide
services to the communities from which they take deposits, consistent with bank
safety and soundness.
The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending
or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates
only ÂuÂn of high-cost loans¡Xa proxy for subprime loans¡Xhad any connection to
the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they
were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same
neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law."
http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archiv...cecloud.com/fcic_final_report_conclusions.pdf