The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 94

Thread: Revisionism ala Ronald Reagan

  1. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    4,325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    A nice rhetorical; argument, but completely meaningless with respect to what happened. The mortgages that caused the failures were issued long after Clinton left office (2002-2005) and were underwritten by commercial instruments unrelated to FNMA. Even in 2006, Bush was taking credit for the massive expansion in our "ownership society" that happened on his watch.
    Thanks, Roger!!!!!!!!!!
    __________________________

    Marvin S

    Everyone's friend is No One's friend

    Someday your life will flash before your eyes. It's your responsibility to make sure it's worth watching!

  2. #82
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marvin S View Post
    Thanks, Roger!!!!!!!!!!
    Why is it, that every time your ilk is confronted with facts that are contrary to what you want to believe, all you can do is call names and completely divert away from the issues?

    Let's hear some good debate! If you don't believe the comments about mortgage failures and Bush's role in that matter, present some data!

    (another rhetorical question)
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  3. #83
    Senior Member Steve Hester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    1,659

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    A nice rhetorical; argument, but completely meaningless with respect to what happened. The mortgages that caused the failures were issued long after Clinton left office (2002-2005) and were underwritten by commercial instruments unrelated to FNMA. Even in 2006, Bush was taking credit for the massive expansion in our "ownership society" that happened on his watch.
    NO, it's not meaningless. This was the beginning of the policies that caused the collapse of the real estate market. And if you think that there were not tons of foreclosures on mortgages underwritten by FNMA and issued during Clinton's watch, your are dead wrong. Did Bush do anything to change those policies? No, he didn't, and perhaps he should have. But the point is Clinton, the libs hero, started those policies.
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

  4. #84
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Hester View Post
    NO, it's not meaningless. This was the beginning of the policies that caused the collapse of the real estate market. And if you think that there were not tons of foreclosures on mortgages underwritten by FNMA and issued during Clinton's watch, your are dead wrong. Did Bush do anything to change those policies? No, he didn't, and perhaps he should have. But the point is Clinton, the libs hero, started those policies.
    The Clinton administration absolutely supports and embraced policies to expand opportunities for home ownership to more minority and lower income borrowers. That resulted in some expansion of the pool of mortgages that Fanny Mae would repurchase from lenders. The impact was an increase in the percentage of sub-prime mortgages by tens of billions. As those policies were maintained, and the Bush administration pushed hard for unrealistically low interest rates and massive tax cuts even after the economy had begun to grow at a healthy rate, there was an unprecedented relaxation of lending standards at all loan levels between 2002 and 2006. The number of sub-prime mortgages being issued each year beginning in 2002 exceeded the value of all sub-prime mortgages issued in the entire history of the US real estate market before Bush became President. The interest differential between sub-prime mortgages and prime mortgages declined to the point that there was almost no risk premium to reflect the higher risk of default. This resulted not from government policies but from reliance on unprecedented, and illusory, increases in real estate prices as too much cash in the pocket encountered too little scrutiny of credit. The mortgage crisis did not result from bad loans made to poor people. It resulted from bad loans made to relatively affluent who were aught in an impossible trap when the value of their homes declined by 40%. None of this would have been possible without the derivatives market, created to absorb financing volumes beyond anything ever contemplated by Fanny or Freddie, artificially low interest rates, excess cash from unwarranted tax cuts and massive deficits in an economy that needed neither, and a relaxation of all regulatory oversight by an administration convinced that the free market could price and adsorb the risk appropriately. This is very similar to the stupidity that led to the S&L and pension crises under Reagan.

    EDIT:

    If you look at http://research.stlouisfed.org/publi...mPennCross.pdf as an example, you will see that the number of sub-prime mortgage in 2002 was twice the volume as 2000 and that the volume in 2003 was three times the volume in 2000. That difference continued to grow until the collapse in 2005/2006. The biggest sources of increased risk was not from mortgages issued to sub-prime borrowers to increase home ownership. By 2003 the number of cash out refinancing transactions -- often converting prime loans into sub-prime loans -- increased from almost nothing to be almost equal to the total number of mortgages issued for home purchases. Stated another way, as people used equity in their homes that resulted from an artificial inflation in home prices to finance current consumption, they assumed a level of credit risk that could not survive any market downturn. At the same time, the derivatives market reduced the interest premium for these higher risk loans to less than 2% even though default rates were six times higher despite growing housing values. None of that was stimulated by Fanie or Freddie. It was stimulated by a desire to cash in on extraordinary short term profits without regard to long term consequences (i.e. wild west mentality meets "free market" stupidity).
    Last edited by YardleyLabs; 02-11-2011 at 08:10 PM.

  5. #85
    Senior Member Steve Hester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    1,659

    Default

    Yardley,
    I'm not going to aruge this with you anymore. I have been in various Real Estate industries for 39 years. I am currently a Real Estate Appraiser. You can rest assured, there are many more foreclosures out there on properties where the buyer was a low income, poor credit risk buyer than number of foreclosures of the "relatively affluent". When buyers who made $40,000 annually and had relatively poor credit to boot were given home loans of $300,000 at a rapid pace, this caused run away inflationary prices in real estate. These price levels were artificial, and there was no way the market could sustain them. When the low income, poor credit risk loans began defaulting at an alarming rate (which was inevitable), causing all demand and prices for residential real estate to take a sharp decline. Building effectively stopped, and the house of cards fell. This drastic change then affected the entire economy, causing problems for even the "relatively affluent", resulting in larger dollar volume foreclosures. Most of the foreclosures of the "relatively affluent" were not a result of the mortgagors not having sufficient income and good credit at the time the loans were made, but a result of layoffs, salary reductions, etc. due to the collapse of the entire economy. The low income, poor credit loans were bad loans to begin with, and would have defaulted, regardless of the economy. The "relatively affluent" loans were good loans to begin with. Thank you for your debate.
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

  6. #86
    Senior Member Julie R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Orlean VA
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    I'll argue my point I brought up 2 years ago that Clinton is more to blame than Bush. The original thread started by R Little on 3/15/09 also has a very good article, do a search on Community Reinvestment Act, the little Carter legislation that Clinton beefed up. And actually there was talk of reining in the free for all on lending in the Bush admin. but let's get real, no politician is going to touch the hot potato that is the uncreditworthy, because they happen to be disadvantaged, largely minority and/or single parent households that live in blighted areas that banks are forced to loan to because of the CRA and its quotas.

    ...several key components came together to seed the perfect storm, including names we now see in the Oboma Admin.

    That brilliant social architect Jimmy Carter laid the groundwork with his Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) from the late 70s, but it was a little-used tool until Clinton and his Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac cronies beefed it up.

    excerpts from the New York Times, 1993
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...f-news/2095055/posts

    Quote:
    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 has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
    note: Raines departed Fannie Mae after authorizing the largest bonuses in its history and under a cloud of millions unaccounted for; he was Obama's chief financial advisor during the campaign and architect of some of Obamo's wealth redistribution projects.

    Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, was put under increased pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people (loans the banks would not make on their own).

    Then, **imagine this** Obama advisor Eric Holder, then U.S. Attorney, settled a landmark case in 1994 in which two D.C. area banks were accused of bias in not serving certain (blighted) areas of the District. Chevy Chase S&L denied the charges of bias, but did agree to make $140 million in subsidized or below-marketrate mortgage loans in to neighborhoods it was accused of discriminating against.

    Holder bragged that the settlement was unique because cash was funnelled directly to the community rather than to the government. The banks were also forced to fill quotas and open branches in underserved areas (ghettos) and all the employees had to take 'sensitivity training'.

    (National Review, 1993)
    Assault on the mortgage lenders continued in the name of racial justice as the Clintonites wanted the power to decide who got a home of his own with imposition of regulations on banks to make loans even if applicants are not creditworthy:

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...s_/ai_14779796

    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...f-news/2088728/posts

    Quote:
    QUIETLY, behind the scenes, the Clinton Administration is preparing for the biggest regulatory crackdown of recent years. Attorney General Janet Reno is linking up with banking regulators and with HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to end the supposed epidemic of discrimination against minorities in making home loans. The implications for society at large are ominous.

    Here, as in affirmative-action efforts in hiring, college admissions, and the drawing of voting districts, the Washington establishment is obsessed with "disparate impact," which it equates with racism. In the mortgage-lending area, there is ample evidence of disparate impact to feed this obsession. Data collected by the Federal Government revealed that in 1992, while 16 per cent of white applicants for mortgage loans were rejected, 36 per cent of black applicants were rejected.

    But does disparate impact indicate racism? According to Lawrence Lindsey, the Federal Reserve governor who oversaw the collection of mortgage lending data, even the celebrated Boston Fed study that inspired this crusade found that factors other than race--such as one's credit record and whether one has sufficient income to meet the payments--are enough to account for nearly all the difference in rejection rates.

    In short, the banking and housing crisis was created by the Democrats' grandiose plans to share the wealth even with those unable and unwilling to repay loans.

    Note: Much of this is from an article I saved from the Richmond Times Dispatch Jan. 18th about banking deregulation. It was written by Walter Williams, a college professor for the Ricmond Times Dispatch; I can't find it on the Times-Dispatch website or I'd link to it.
    Last edited by Julie R.; 02-12-2011 at 10:25 PM.
    Julie R., Hope Springs Farm
    Chesapeake Bay Retrievers since 1981

  7. #87
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Julie R. View Post
    I'll argue my point I brought up 2 years ago that Clinton is more to blame than Bush. The original thread started by R Little on 3/15/09 also has a very good article, do a search on Community Reinvestment Act, the little Carter legislation that Clinton beefed up. And actually there was talk of reining in the free for all on lending in the Bush admin. but let's get real, no politician is going to touch the hot potato that is the uncreditworthy, because they happen to be disadvantaged, largely minority and/or single parent households that live in blighted areas that banks are forced to loan to because of the CRA and its quotas.
    The point that is being lost is very simple -- timing. When were the mortgages that have ended in default issued? The answer is simple: 2002-2006. The wave of cash out refinancings dwarfed the entire volume of low income mortgages issued under the Clinton policies to expand home ownership (for which the Bush administration subsequently claimed as its own). If 100% of all sub-prime mortgages issued while Clinton was President had defaulted (which they did not), the impact on the real estate market would have been trivial.

  8. #88
    Senior Member Julie R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Orlean VA
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    The point that is being lost is very simple -- timing. When were the mortgages that have ended in default issued? The answer is simple: 2002-2006. The wave of cash out refinancings dwarfed the entire volume of low income mortgages issued under the Clinton policies to expand home ownership (for which the Bush administration subsequently claimed as its own). If 100% of all sub-prime mortgages issued while Clinton was President had defaulted (which they did not), the impact on the real estate market would have been trivial.
    And the point that is being lost with this assumption is that the policies that enabled all these borrowers to obtain their subprime loans including cashing out on refinances were put in place by the CRA well before Bush took office. I don't believe he ever crowed about the massive wave of refinance which by definition did not increase home ownership. And as I mentioned earlier you surely do not think any politician would commit political suicide by attempting to dismantle policies put in place to make it easier for minorities and disadvantaged to borrow? Remember--banks were punished if they did not meet their CRA quotas.
    Julie R., Hope Springs Farm
    Chesapeake Bay Retrievers since 1981

  9. #89
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    Why is it, that every time your ilk is confronted with facts that are contrary to what you want to believe, all you can do is call names and completely divert away from the issues?

    Let's hear some good debate! If you don't believe the comments about mortgage failures and Bush's role in that matter, present some data!

    (another rhetorical question)
    That's because you wouldn't recognize "FACTS" IF THEY SLAPPED YOU IN THE FACE!

    Bush asked to have Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac investigated and revised a dozen times, but your assorted froot loops, liberals, and socialists claimed they were doing just fine, and since they had the purse strings, voila.

    If you had just a small tinge of decency, you would acknowlege the role played by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the Houston loudmouth, Shiela Jackson Lee in their complete fawning over that corrupt head of Fanny Mae that ripped off that agency for multi millions.

    You don't want good debate. You want Obama sycophants and Roger-type toadys to confirm your misguided belief system. We all know your views of how badly you pathetic so-called Americans view Bush. Most of the conservatives I know have the same view of Carter/Clinton. But we don't continue to harp about how much damage they did to this nation and the office of the President of The US.

    But the main reason most of us don't want to even reply to your inane comments, is because we have come to the realization we shouldn't argue with idiots, because you will just drag us down to your level and beat us with experience. You understand, DNF, if I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

    UB
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  10. #90
    Senior Member sandyg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Lapeer, MI
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Bill View Post
    That's because you wouldn't recognize "FACTS" IF THEY SLAPPED YOU IN THE FACE!

    Bush asked to have Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac investigated and revised a dozen times, but your assorted froot loops, liberals, and socialists claimed they were doing just fine, and since they had the purse strings, voila.

    If you had just a small tinge of decency, you would acknowlege the role played by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the Houston loudmouth, Shiela Jackson Lee in their complete fawning over that corrupt head of Fanny Mae that ripped off that agency for multi millions.

    You don't want good debate. You want Obama sycophants and Roger-type toadys to confirm your misguided belief system. We all know your views of how badly you pathetic so-called Americans view Bush. Most of the conservatives I know have the same view of Carter/Clinton. But we don't continue to harp about how much damage they did to this nation and the office of the President of The US.

    But the main reason most of us don't want to even reply to your inane comments, is because we have come to the realization we shouldn't argue with idiots, because you will just drag us down to your level and beat us with experience. You understand, DNF, if I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

    UB
    Right on the money!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •