Democrats Opposed
Published on September 21, 2008 By Island Dog In Politics

I found this article today, and please take note of the date.

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring. Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

Very interesting, right?

Now let's look at a bill that Bush and republicans tried to pass back in 2003.

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.

Wow, sounds like it might have helped....

But democrats said....

''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.''

And they (democrats) eventually killed the proposal.  This is what you will see with an Obama administration.

 

 


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Oct 05, 2008

Ouch!

on Oct 05, 2008

If the GSE regulators were forced to scrutinize the worthiness of those packages coming through them, it would have had an negative impact on the lenders who were used to cranking out those mortgages without regard to worthiness since 'the Government will back them; We're covered and besides, We're making a ton of money!'.

The problem was the lobbies. The banks didn't want HUD/FHA to be making subprime fixed rate loans available because they were making tons offering all kinds of subprime crap loans(ARM NINJA NODOC) through their mortgage subsidiaries and passing off the bad paper to the GSA's. The reason Greenspan didn't like the bill was because it would have made things worse. He testified to such in a committe hearing that is probably archived on the CSpan website.  The bill was written with the help of the bank lobby. This is the problem with congress. Some of them actually have good intentions but they don't know enough about the issue and they let lobbyists write legislation. Thats probably one of my biggest problems with McCain. He really has no clue on economic issues so he surrounds himself with lobbyists because they have convinced him that they are brilliant and on the side of the public.

The negative impact is not that it would have dried up loans to minorities....It would have dried up fixed rate mortgages in which the GSE's actually sat on the mortgage and allowed unregulated mortgage companies to fill in the gap with crap mortgages and then pass off bad paper to the GSA's while they still sat on the actual mortgages.

on Oct 05, 2008

What it boils down to is that neither party was competent enough to correct the problems that led to the current situation.

The Democrats didn't believe a problem even existed and the Republicans couldn't come up with (much less pass) a plan solve those problems. Now those same brainiacs have just passed a huge bill to 'fix' (wink, wink, nod) this mess. Which leads one to believe that Government really ought to stay out of the private sector; they are such horrible businessmen.

We are so fucked!

 

Here's a bit of irony. During that time, the Republicans were calling for more regulations and the Democrats were essentially saying let the free market work it out. Ha! Talk about what should be up is down and what should be down is up. I also have it on good authority that Catholic schoolgirls were threatening to throw away their mascara!

on Oct 05, 2008

We are so fucked!

Succint, thy name is Picto.

on Oct 05, 2008

The Democrats didn't believe a problem

Not really....Certain people didn't want to create a "panic" about the GSE's in hopes that it would keep the stock price from diving and continue to have new stock/bond offerings if necessary. This includes members of certain committees and the Bush Admin. Look what happened when a letter Shumer wrote to the OTC and FDIC about IndyMac surfaced. It caused a run on that bank and it went under practically overnight.

on Oct 05, 2008

Not really....Certain people didn't want to create a "panic" about the GSE's in hopes that it would keep the stock price from diving and continue to have new stock/bond offerings if necessary. This includes members of certain committees and the Bush Admin. Look what happened when a letter Shumer wrote to the OTC and FDIC about IndyMac surfaced. It caused a run on that bank and it went under practically overnight.

The Congressional Record and video documentation don't much support the notion that the Dems were worried about inadvertently creating a panic, as opposed to believing, with conviction, that there was no problem.

There is something troublesome to me about giving them a pass in such circumstances, on the assumption they were trying to 'help' us, since opacity and paternalism in such matters only end up compounding the problem, a fact for which there is ample recent evidence.  The taxpayer should be treated as an adult.

on Oct 05, 2008

There is something troublesome to me about giving them a pass in such circumstances, on the assumption they were trying to 'help' us, since opacity and paternalism in such matters only end up compounding the problem, a fact for which there is ample recent evidence.

Trying to prevent anyone from correcting the impending fallout by claiming 'All is well' to 'prevent a panic' really didn't work out so well.

And frankly, I don't buy that as a motive, at least in the Democrats I've seen records of testifying for how well the GSEs were doing. I believe their proclaimed motives (continuing the good work of getting minorities into homes) were their actual motives.

Whether that motive was to be altruistic or merely pandering for votes, is another matter.

on Oct 06, 2008

Trying to prevent anyone from correcting the impending fallout by claiming 'All is well' to 'prevent a panic' really didn't work out so well.

And frankly, I don't buy that as a motive, at least in the Democrats I've seen records of testifying for how well the GSEs were doing.

Exactly.  Nail, meet again.

on Oct 06, 2008

There is something troublesome to me about giving them a pass in such circumstances

I don't give them a pass. I blame politicians on both sides of the fence for the problem. I think both parties are to blame for taking the US to the point it is at. Unfortunaltely too many people believe it is one or the other without realizing it is both.

Trying to prevent anyone from correcting the impending fallout

It was already to late and as I've said before the bills that were proposed did nothing to correct the problem.They did not add any oversight they simply moved the oversight from one dept to another. In reality it was just renaming a dept. Hard to say that was an attempt to fix the problem when there were already laws on the books that got at the root of the problem and they were not being enforced. Where are the politicians on either side that actually tried to address the problem? That actually tried to stop the banking, credit, and mortgage industries from driving the public into further debt? Where are the politicians on either side of the fence that actually tried to stop the corporations from cooking their books so that they couldn't keep driving the public further into debt? Proposing a bill that does nothing to correct a problem but claiming that it does is not fixing a problem.

on Oct 06, 2008

Where are the politicians on either side

 

As I said,

What it boils down to is that neither party was competent enough to correct the problems that led to the current situation.

There's no doubt it was starting to rain shit several years ago and, in the time frame relevant to this article, at least some Republicans were looking up realizing that wasn't sunshine falling out of the sky (not that they actually did anything to stop it) while the Democrats who testified were singing about what a nice sunny day it was.

Point being, if both parties would have at least recognized the problems, possibly a solution could have been found to avert the situation in which we now find ourselves ... knee deep in shit.

on Oct 06, 2008

It was already to late and as I've said before the bills that were proposed did nothing to correct the problem.They did not add any oversight they simply moved the oversight from one dept to another.

Enough! There was oversight, the people who did the oversight reported to the Congress and on the record, instead of arresting the people involved the democrats attacked the oversight! They screamed how wonderful it was all working, disputed the reports of corruption, and blamed the republicans for being racist in believing the reports from the oversight. It was not both sides to blame it was one side that started with the Carter Administration and it got worse from there. Any and every attempt to control the mess was argued to be racism. The press complied with this and should also be punished. The only difference between this and Enron is that Enron was a private sector greed that was able to correct itself and the GSE’s are created by congress and they refuse to admit fault or that anything was wrong until it reached a point of destroying our economy. Just like voting against Senator Obama is somehow racist. Ignore the fact that he is an empty suit with no real ideas on how to “change” things because he does not know how anything works. Voting against Senator Clinton is misogynist, ignore the fact that what she wants to do it just as bad as Senator Obama yet when a woman is brought up on the republican side all the misogynic crap came out in force and no one on the left had a single complaint. Senator Clinton was experience because she was married to a president but never had and executive position. Governor Palin was a mayor and now a governor but some how she has no qualifications, and is a bad mother for working outside the home.

 

Admit the truth and the few points you make will have some validity.

on Oct 06, 2008

if both parties would have at least recognized the problems

They did. But they both decided to hide it in their own ways.

singing about what a nice sunny day it was

Thats what the stock market is all about.

 

Neither party is on the publics side. One day a lot of people will wake up and realize this.

on Oct 06, 2008

Neither party is on the publics side.

 

And on that we can agree.

2 Pages1 2