PDA

View Full Version : US Congress: Frank, Clinton, Dodd, and Macs responsible for housing collapse.


Garcia Bronco
07-09-2009, 11:59 AM
Federal Government Was Culprit in Housing and Economic Crisis, Says Congressional Report
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer




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 the report 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.

Consequently, under both the Clinton and Bush administrations, HUD dramatically increased these quotas, which reached their zenith when the Bush administration raised them to 56 percent, 27 percent and 39 percent, respectively.”

“As home prices continued their dizzying rise, many people decided to cash in by buying a house with an adjustable rate mortgage featuring a low introductory teaser rate set to increase after a few years,” the report continues.

“These borrowers, confident in the oft-cited assertion that U.S. home values had never before fallen in the aggregate, planned to sell or refinance their investment before the mortgage rate adjusted upward, pocketing the difference between the initial purchase price and the subsequent appreciation in value,” says the report. “However, buyers failed to grasp the effect of a government policy that had quietly eroded the prudential limits on mortgage leverage, creating a dangerous speculative bubble.”

The report also talks about how the two GSEs became a powerful lobby. Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson opened up “partnership offices” in congressional districts, hired relatives of members of Congress, and GSE employees contributed $15 million to federal campaigns from 1998 to 2008. Throughout that time, all attempted reforms in Congress were blocked.

Also, in 1995, “Johnson seeded the Fannie Mae Foundation with $350 million of Fannie stock. The company used this foundation to spread millions of dollars around to politically connected organizations like the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute,” states the report.

Fannie and Freddie were not subject to regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, while executives were paid well. Former Fannie CEO Franklin Raines earned more than $50 million in compensation during his six-years at the helm, the report says. Fannie and Freddie paid billions more to shareholders. “Thus, the government subsidizations of GSE operations amounted to little more than corporate welfare,” the report says.

The report cites Frank’s accusations that to blame Fannie and Freddie is to blame only the lender and not the borrower.

“This misses the mark entirely. In fact, responsibility for the erosion of mortgage lending standards, which began with government affordable housing policy, rests squarely on the policy makers who advocated these ill-conceived policies in the first place,” the report says. “Borrowers quite naturally responded to the incentives they were given, irrespective of their socioeconomic status, and risky lending spread to the wider mortgage market.”




http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/...sis-report.pdf
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=50680

Rohirrim
07-09-2009, 12:40 PM
Hmmm, from the Heritage Foundation. Well, at least we know they're non-partisan.

Garcia Bronco
07-09-2009, 12:47 PM
There is no bias in the article and I highly recommend read the actual 25 page report.

Rohirrim
07-09-2009, 01:05 PM
I just find it strange that they didn't mention Phil Gramm spearheading the dismantling of Glass-Steagle, as that had a little bit of an impact as well. In fact, it allowed the creation of the entire derivatives debacle. I'm sure there is no bias, but it just seems odd that they have zeroed in on all the Dems involved but couldn't seem to find any Republicans. Probably just an oversight.

Garcia Bronco
07-09-2009, 01:32 PM
I just find it strange that they didn't mention Phil Gramm spearheading the dismantling of Glass-Steagle, as that had a little bit of an impact as well. In fact, it allowed the creation of the entire derivatives debacle. I'm sure there is no bias, but it just seems odd that they have zeroed in on all the Dems involved but couldn't seem to find any Republicans. Probably just an oversight.

They mention GWB, but I agree that the GLB is part of the problem as well. I think it's more about GSE's than the banks. But both obviously did mortgage back securities, but I don't know if GS1933 even applied to the Macs

epicSocialism4tw
07-09-2009, 01:37 PM
Thats great. It took congress a year to figure out what everyone else did in a week.

watermock
07-09-2009, 03:44 PM
What?

News to me!~!

cutthemdown
07-09-2009, 04:10 PM
old news but it's not like Bush fought to have it changed, he's as much to blame as Clinton. Frank IMO is a joke of a politician, the sooner hes gone the better.

Fannie and Freddie made 54% so still there is another 46% of the blame to go around to other banks also.

TexanBob
07-09-2009, 04:22 PM
I'm surprised you can find any Democrat who would take even partial blame. Most can't argue beyond "all Bush's fault" on any subject.

footstepsfrom#27
07-09-2009, 06:08 PM
I'm surprised you can find any Democrat who would take even partial blame. Most can't argue beyond "all Bush's fault" on any subject.
I'm in the process of reading the actual report now, but in the meantime this caught my attention in the OP:
Consequently, under both the Clinton and Bush administrations, HUD dramatically increased these quotas, which reached their zenith when the Bush administration raised them to 56 percent, 27 percent and 39 percent, respectively.
Somehow this highly pertinent fact has been overlooked, so I figured I'd point it out. ;D

TexanBob
07-09-2009, 06:58 PM
You failed to mention what quotas this refers to. Without defining that, your point is worthless.

Spider
07-09-2009, 09:07 PM
I'm in the process of reading the actual report now, but in the meantime this caught my attention in the OP:

Somehow this highly pertinent fact has been overlooked, so I figured I'd point it out. ;D
;D it is getting to the point to where I just dismiss alot of these so called news stories as bedwetting morons .......Hell I jumped all over that Yellow cake story a while back , come to find out everyone but me knew it was there since 1991.......Reminds me of an old saying .........
How can you tell when a republican is lying ? His lips move .......

barryr
07-10-2009, 01:17 PM
The democrat supporters will find Bush the culprit on anything. It could be 2012 and they'd still be blaming Bush for something to excuse their heroes. Wait a minute, just as they complained about people bashing Clinton and how wrong that was to blame him of anything within months of leaving office. But we know, it's right when they do it.

footstepsfrom#27
07-10-2009, 03:58 PM
Federal Government Was Culprit in Housing and Economic Crisis, Says Congressional Report
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

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.
I'm only 1/3 of the way through this report and already I've found serious problems with the characterization of this as a problem primarily related to making loans people could not afford. First of all, the report itself includes pages and pages noting outrageous business practices that were deeply related to all kinds of other issues larger than this one, including an enormous advantage established for the GSR's (Freddie & Fanny), nepotism with friends and family of Congress and lack of government oversight by the SEC which was not tasked with overseeing these agencies in the first place. On top of that, I've also uncovered a highly misleading major flaw in the information provided in the report, which criticizes a 1992 study on discriminatory housing practices by the Boston Federal Reserve Bank as invalid do to data handling errors. What the study doesn't mention, is that not only was the BFRB only reporting on the Boston area market instead of the national mortgage market, but on top of that the 1995 research study questioning the Boston data is ALSO disputed, AND it expressly stated that their study did NOT prove that housing discrimination did not exist and they expressly cautioned against making that assumption. These same researchers also expressly stated that federal housing guidelines related to mortgage lending discrimination should NOT be changed.

These facts were omitted by the Congressional study, which simply states that the data is flawed, and makes the ludicrous assumption that no blatant discrimination in the housing market exists in the US market. Here is a discussion on this: http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/cityscpe/vol2num1/guest.html

The legislative basis for Fanny and Freddie was created in 1968 by LBJ. Forty years of presidential administrations, 20 by the Republicans...aided the downfall of the US housing market. Characterizing the global economic mess as merely a subprime lending issue to poor/minority borrowers is outrageous. The seeds of destruction were planted decades ago, nurtured throughout every US presidency and in fact, exponentially accelerated in the Bush administration.

READ...don't react...READ.

Rigs11
07-12-2009, 02:08 PM
The democrat supporters will find Bush the culprit on anything. It could be 2012 and they'd still be blaming Bush for something to excuse their heroes. Wait a minute, just as they complained about people bashing Clinton and how wrong that was to blame him of anything within months of leaving office. But we know, it's right when they do it.

America’s Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making
Article Tools Sponsored By
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: June 9, 2009

There are two basic truths about the enormous deficits that the federal government will run in the coming years.

The first is that President Obama’s agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying. The second is that Mr. Obama does not have a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit, despite what his advisers have suggested.

The New York Times analyzed Congressional Budget Office reports going back almost a decade, with the aim of understanding how the federal government came to be far deeper in debt than it has been since the years just after World War II. This debt will constrain the country’s choices for years and could end up doing serious economic damage if foreign lenders become unwilling to finance it.

Mr. Obama — responding to recent signs of skittishness among those lenders — met with 40 members of Congress at the White House on Tuesday and called for the re-enactment of pay-as-you-go rules, requiring Congress to pay for any new programs it passes.

The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.

You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.

The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.

How can that be? Some of his proposals, like a plan to put a price on carbon emissions, don’t cost the government any money. Others would be partly offset by proposed tax increases on the affluent and spending cuts. Congressional and White House aides agree that no large new programs, like an expansion of health insurance, are likely to pass unless they are paid for.

Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and an author of a widely cited study on the dangers of the current deficits, describes the situation like so: “Bush behaved incredibly irresponsibly for eight years. On the one hand, it might seem unfair for people to blame Obama for not fixing it. On the other hand, he’s not fixing it.”

“And,” he added, “not fixing it is, in a sense, making it worse.”

When challenged about the deficit, Mr. Obama and his advisers generally start talking about health care. “There is no way you can put the nation on a sound fiscal course without wringing inefficiencies out of health care,” Peter Orszag, the White House budget director, told me.

Outside economists agree. The Medicare budget really is the linchpin of deficit reduction. But there are two problems with leaving the discussion there.

First, even if a health overhaul does pass, it may not include the tough measures needed to bring down spending. Ultimately, the only way to do so is to take money from doctors, drug makers and insurers, and it isn’t clear whether Mr. Obama and Congress have the stomach for that fight. So far, they have focused on ideas like preventive care that would do little to cut costs.

Second, even serious health care reform won’t be enough. Obama advisers acknowledge as much. They say that changes to the system would probably have a big effect on health spending starting in five or 10 years. The national debt, however, will grow dangerously large much sooner.

Mr. Orszag says the president is committed to a deficit equal to no more than 3 percent of gross domestic product within five to 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit of at least 4 percent for most of the next decade. Even that may turn out to be optimistic, since the government usually ends up spending more than it says it will. So Mr. Obama isn’t on course to meet his target.

But Congressional Republicans aren’t, either. Judd Gregg recently held up a chart on the Senate floor showing that Mr. Obama would increase the deficit — but failed to mention that much of the increase stemmed from extending Bush policies. In fact, unlike Mr. Obama, Republicans favor extending all the Bush tax cuts, which will send the deficit higher.

Republican leaders in the House, meanwhile, announced a plan last week to cut spending by $75 billion a year. But they made specific suggestions adding up to meager $5 billion. The remaining $70 billion was left vague. “The G.O.P. is not serious about cutting down spending,” the conservative Cato Institute concluded.

What, then, will happen?

“Things will get worse gradually,” Mr. Auerbach predicts, “unless they get worse quickly.” Either a solution will be put off, or foreign lenders, spooked by the rising debt, will send interest rates higher and create a crisis.

The solution, though, is no mystery. It will involve some combination of tax increases and spending cuts. And it won’t be limited to pay-as-you-go rules, tax increases on somebody else, or a crackdown on waste, fraud and abuse. Your taxes will probably go up, and some government programs you favor will become less generous.

That is the legacy of our trillion-dollar deficits. Erasing them will be one of the great political issues of the coming decade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-16-2009, 03:14 AM
Hmmm, from the Heritage Foundation. Well, at least we know they're non-partisan.

ROFL! Ha!

File it under "repeat a lie often enough..."

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-16-2009, 03:17 AM
The democrat supporters will find Bush the culprit on anything.

Yeah - Bush was so spotless and squeaky clean that his opponents had to "find" dirt on him.

That's the ticket, Kool-Aid Boy. :giggle: :mullet2:

Garcia Bronco
07-16-2009, 07:54 AM
I'm only 1/3 of the way through this report and already I've found serious problems with the characterization of this as a problem primarily related to making loans people could not afford. First of all, the report itself includes pages and pages noting outrageous business practices that were deeply related to all kinds of other issues larger than this one, including an enormous advantage established for the GSR's (Freddie & Fanny), nepotism with friends and family of Congress and lack of government oversight by the SEC which was not tasked with overseeing these agencies in the first place. On top of that, I've also uncovered a highly misleading major flaw in the information provided in the report, which criticizes a 1992 study on discriminatory housing practices by the Boston Federal Reserve Bank as invalid do to data handling errors. What the study doesn't mention, is that not only was the BFRB only reporting on the Boston area market instead of the national mortgage market, but on top of that the 1995 research study questioning the Boston data is ALSO disputed, AND it expressly stated that their study did NOT prove that housing discrimination did not exist and they expressly cautioned against making that assumption. These same researchers also expressly stated that federal housing guidelines related to mortgage lending discrimination should NOT be changed.

These facts were omitted by the Congressional study, which simply states that the data is flawed, and makes the ludicrous assumption that no blatant discrimination in the housing market exists in the US market. Here is a discussion on this: http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/cityscpe/vol2num1/guest.html

The legislative basis for Fanny and Freddie was created in 1968 by LBJ. Forty years of presidential administrations, 20 by the Republicans...aided the downfall of the US housing market. Characterizing the global economic mess as merely a subprime lending issue to poor/minority borrowers is outrageous. The seeds of destruction were planted decades ago, nurtured throughout every US presidency and in fact, exponentially accelerated in the Bush administration.

READ...don't react...READ.

You can't get around that the Macs are financial institutions not subject to financial laws like regular banks. No SOX for their financial statements. And the big kicker...no glass stegall for any of them. On the consumer side it was people getting loans they couldn't afford and it doesn't matter what their socio-economic postion is. It's all about debt/income ratio. The Macs under Clinton and especially Bush were enablers to the housing mess we are experiencing today.

ghwk
07-16-2009, 12:16 PM
I'm surprised you can find any Democrat who would take even partial blame. Most can't argue beyond "all Bush's fault" on any subject.

Criminy at least man up about it and follow with "and Repubs are no different"

There was a line in Bonfire of the Vanities about "keeping everyone in the tent pissing out" it's rule number 1 for both parties and we are all the worse for it.

ghwk
07-16-2009, 12:17 PM
The democrat supporters will find Bush the culprit on anything. It could be 2012 and they'd still be blaming Bush for something to excuse their heroes. Wait a minute, just as they complained about people bashing Clinton and how wrong that was to blame him of anything within months of leaving office. But we know, it's right when they do it.

See my comment to Texan Bob.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
07-17-2009, 03:35 PM
Criminy at least man up about it and follow with "and Repubs are no different"


:laugh:

You're talking to a guy who still can't even admit that supporting Bush was a big mistake.