President Bush's Home Ownership Challenge is to blame for the current economic mess

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:45 am

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 809-9.html

This is where he directed Fannie and Freddie to put up $440 Billion for folks with bad credit.

[YOUTUBE]kNqQx7sjoS8[/YOUTUBE]

Any questions? Please look here first.

And some of you are supporting McCain having to leave his campaign idle in order to deal with this issue.....LMFAO!!!!!

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:37 am

ughhh

David · Post by **David** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:30 pm

Was it the fault of Bush that middle class folk were huckstered risk laden loans?

CiscoKid · Post by **CiscoKid** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:39 pm

Where ever there's a program to help somebody, there's someone just as willing to take advantage of that program to get something for nothing. Having worked with mostly sub-prime clients trying to buy homes, it often wasn't in their best interest to buy because of either a fixed, limited income or poor credit. MAN MANY sub-prime lmortgage brokers would convince the client to get the loan by tricky accounting...

100% financing at 70/30 promising the seller 20% down then using the extra 10 to off debt, the purchase price was usually often 10% over asking to do it...

In theory it works but not when numbers are crunched and in three years the loan adjusts giving them a payment over a grand higher then they started with. This is where many of my loans fell flat. Poor income or poor credit, my usual advice to these clients was to keep renting knowing they could afford 250 extra each month and settling with debt collectors to save their credit and within a few years buy. This was done on the recommendation of the Loan Manager

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:41 pm

Someone call JC, STAT.

David · Post by **David** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:38 pm

CiscoKid,

True enough. Moreover, it was real estate agents selling folks homes they could not afford with loans brokered by mortgage people who manipulated the numbers. Add to the mix inspectors who overvalued the homes and banks who packaged the loans as securities and passing them off to the Wall street types.

Prey521 · Post by **Prey521** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:56 pm

Is it really ENTIRELY his fault? Bubba may have something to say about that.

September 30, 1999

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES

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.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''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.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

CiscoKid · Post by **CiscoKid** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:57 pm

David wrote:CiscoKid,

True enough. Moreover, it was real estate agents selling folks homes they could not afford with loans brokered by mortgage people who manipulated the numbers. Add to the mix inspectors who overvalued the homes and banks who packaged the loans as securities and passing them off to the Wall street types.

Personally, I think those loan agents and Realtors should be brought up on charges

frostybear · Post by **frostybear** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:18 pm

Not to mention the deregulation in the 80s.I would say even the politicians havd had a hand in this since awhile back.

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:23 pm

frostybear wrote:Not to mention the deregulation in the 80s.I would say even the politicians havd had a hand in this since awhile back.

Thats what many can't understand... If often takes "years" to realize the true outcome...

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:26 pm

Ken wrote:Thats what many can't understand... If often takes "years" to realize the true outcome...

Then man up and tell that to JC.

frostybear · Post by **frostybear** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:34 pm

Ken wrote:Thats what many can't understand... If often takes "years" to realize the true outcome...

I know, really sad that people will not take a few min to think about stuff like this among other legislation because they feel it is the only thing that will save them that very second...short-sighted..sigh

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:02 pm

UOD wrote:Then man up and tell that to JC.

Yeah, let me do that,...for all of those in the know...

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig& ... gle+Search

Before you blame Bush, start reading through those links...

Be greatful that the internet wasn't as prominent in the years before 2000...

This is from Nov 1994...

In an effort to reinvigorate African-American homeowners' hopes, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) announced that it is providing $1 trillion in financing to assist approximately 10 million low- to moderate-income families purchasing homes by the year 2000. ...blah blah... Last year, pressure from President Clinton's administration caused Fannie Mae to initiate mortgage loans to two previously neglected groups: inner-city residents and low- to moderate-income home buyers.

I'm not going to waste any more time on this though. Both sides are corrupt. The playing field merely needs to be leveled out on occassion...

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:11 pm

Ken wrote:Yeah, let me do that,...for all of those in the know...

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig& ... gle+Search

Before you blame Bush, start reading through those links... Be greatful that the internet wasn't as prominent in the years before 2000...

This is from Nov 1994...

I'm not going to waste any more time on this though. Both sides are corrupt. The playing field merely needs to be leveled out on occassion...

LOL...oh so now all of a sudden both sides are corrupt...which includes your own.

So who you voting for again?

Do you provide the same lovely advice to JC? Do you tell him that before he starts blaming the Dems for all evildoings that he should search the net for supporting links?

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

CiscoKid wrote:Where ever there's a program to help somebody, there's someone just as willing to take advantage of that program to get something for nothing. Having worked with mostly sub-prime clients trying to buy homes, it often wasn't in their best interest to buy because of either a fixed, limited income or poor credit. MAN MANY sub-prime lmortgage brokers would convince the client to get the loan by tricky accounting...

100% financing at 70/30 promising the seller 20% down then using the extra 10 to off debt, the purchase price was usually often 10% over asking to do it...

In theory it works but not when numbers are crunched and in three years the loan adjusts giving them a payment over a grand higher then they started with. This is where many of my loans fell flat. Poor income or poor credit, my usual advice to these clients was to keep renting knowing they could afford 250 extra each month and settling with debt collectors to save their credit and within a few years buy. This was done on the recommendation of the Loan Manager

Well said.

In the area I live in it was ridiculous, so many people went out and got interest only loans on houses they knew they could not afford, people earning $50-70K buying $500,000 plus houses. Everyone with any common sense saw this coming years ago. Buyers were stupid, mortgage brokers were qualifying people they shouldn't have been and real estate agents were making a killing pushing over expensive houses on people. They should ALL be locked up, now us, the average Joe hardworking taxpayer is footing the bill.

I'm so sick of hearing about all this sh*t i can't stand it. Stop trying to add politics into all this BS, it has nothing to do with it..... it's called GREED and STUPIDITY!

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:26 pm

UOD wrote:LOL...oh so now all of a sudden both sides are corrupt...which includes your own.

So who you voting for again?

Do you provide the same lovely advice to JC? Do you tell him that before he starts blaming the Dems for all evildoings that he should search the net for supporting links?

JC has nothing to do with this... You were the one that posted it was all Bush's fault... The truth is, the foundation was way before Bush...

As I said, I am merely leveling the playing field and making a point. Point being, it often takes "years" to realize the true effects and results. Presidents have always inherited the problems and often the blame from decisions made before they were involved. This is a classic case. People are blaming Bush, when Clinton laid the foundation for this. And, of course, you can blame the banks, however, I tend to blame the dumb-asses that sign contracts that they are not capable of understanding. Classic American mentality, there must be someone else to blame it on as we can't seem to accept responsibility for ourselves and our actions...

Once again, if you really want to do something positive, why don't you crusade to teach the poor the importance of education. What they take for granted and many die daily trying to get into this country to have an opportunity to have... School is not merely a free baby-sitter...
Educated = money, uneducated = poor... That is pretty much reality... It is yours from here, I have other things to do.

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:30 pm

Ken wrote:JC has nothing to do with this... You were the one that posted it was all Bush's fault... The truth is, the foundation was way before Bush...

As I said, I am merely leveling the playing field and making a point. Point being, it often takes "years" to realize the true effects and results. Presidents have always inherited the problems and often the blame from decisions made before they were involved. This is a classic case. People are blaming Bush, when Clinton laid the foundation for this. And, of course, you can blame the banks, however, I tend to blame the dumb-asses that sign contracts that they are not capable of understanding. Classic American mentality, there must be someone else to blame it on as we can't seem to accept responsibility for ourselves and our actions...

Once again, if you really want to do something positive, why don't you crusade to teach the poor the importance of education. What they take for granted and many die daily trying to get into this country to have an opportunity to have... School is not merely a free baby-sitter...
Educated = money, uneducated = poor... That is pretty much reality... It is yours from here, I have other things to do.

Who controlled Congress in '94? Um, yeah. Nice try, though.

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:33 pm

Izzo wrote:Who controlled Congress in '94? Um, yeah. Nice try, though.

You know, if you actually did what you blamed others for not doing, such as provide valid input instead of merely trying to make yourself feel better than someone else, you may actually feel better about yourself. Oh yeah, how about reading those links...

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:35 pm

Ken wrote:You know, if you actually did what you blamed others for not doing, such as provide valid input instead of merely trying to make yourself feel better than someone else, you may actually feel better about yourself. Oh yeah, how about reading those links...

If anyone needs to do any reading it's you, bud. Are you denying the republicans controlled congress in '94? You do know how the whole bill becomes law thingy works, right?

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:35 pm

Izzo wrote:Who controlled Congress in '94? Um, yeah. Nice try, though.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/histor ... rtydiv.htm

Oh, ...here you go, brains...

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:36 pm

Izzo wrote:If anyone needs to do any reading it's you, bud. Are you denying the republicans controlled congress in '94? You do know how the whole bill becomes law thingy works, right?

Yeah, you may want to quit posting and read before you eat more crap...

103rd Congress (1993-1995)

Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (43 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: Party division changed to 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans after the June 5, 1993 election of Kay B. Hutchison (R-TX).

David · Post by **David** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:41 pm

frostybear wrote:I know, really sad that people will not take a few min to think about stuff like this among other legislation because they feel it is the only thing that will save them that very second...short-sighted..sigh

Consider though, it is a rather anti-Libertarian notion to place greater restrictions. It is one of those political paradoxes. In addition, permitting corporations to get so large, that their demise would have global catastrophic effects should have been staunched.

If the purchasers of the homes and mortgages use their heads for more than hat racks, they might have better realized the chances they were taking. I do not blame them, as they were conned.

Betcha Ron Paul can't wait to get a hold of Bernanke's ear.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:43 pm

Foundation? True, it was there, Ken. The difference being was that oversights were removed later.

David · Post by **David** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:47 pm

Ken wrote:Yeah, you may want to quit posting and read before you eat more crap...

The Republicans were elected in November 1994, and yes... took over in 1995.... The contract with America.

You are correct, the corruption is on both sides.

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:55 pm

Ken wrote:http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/histor ... rtydiv.htm

Oh, ...here you go, brains...

Ken, I realize you and Stonecat like to set aside logic for the sake of party unity but please try and be objective. You're right, they gained control in '94 and it's been their problem since and they did nothing to fix despite the fact everyone saw it coming. The quote from the article you posted....you read it but didn't really understand it, did you?

A 1992 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston concluded that Fannie Mae's underwriting guidelines, which defines credit qualification on the basis of income and debt, was skewed to benefit whites over blacks.

So, the Fed does a study and determines that minorities are being left out in the cold...literally and figuratively....and you blame Clinton

Here, this one is a little more recent... only by 10 years

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/17/real_es ... /index.htm

Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan
Groups ask HUD to rethink plan that would increase financing of homes to low-income people.
June 17, 2004: 12:24 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

The National Association of Home Builders, along with the National Association of Realtors and the Mortgage Bankers Association, are drafting a letter to Alphonso Jackson, secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), arguing that middle-income home buyers are the ones that will get hurt by the proposed plan, the NAHB told CNN/Money

The points being raised by the groups have also mirrored objections raised by Fannie (FNM: Research, Estimates) and Freddie (FRE: Research, Estimates). Both GSEs said they favor more efforts to promote affordable housing, but say HUD has made some unrealistic assumptions about how much more the GSEs can do over the next few years, the Journal said.

It appears, pretty much, that you don't like black people.

Have a nice day

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:56 pm

Ken wrote:Yeah, you may want to quit posting and read before you eat more crap...

Oh, I beg to differ, sir, as it's not my breath that reeks of poo.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:59 pm

Ken wrote:Yeah, you may want to quit posting and read before you eat more crap...

QFT post of the year award!

frostybear · Post by **frostybear** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:22 pm

David wrote:Consider though, it is a rather anti-Libertarian notion to place greater restrictions. It is one of those political paradoxes. In addition, permitting corporations to get so large, that their demise would have global catastrophic effects should have been staunched.

If the purchasers of the homes and mortgages use their heads for more than hat racks, they might have better realized the chances they were taking. I do not blame them, as they were conned.

Betcha Ron Paul can't wait to get a hold of Bernanke's ear.

One thing to also think about is that almost all these politicians get large of amounts of cash from all these institutions not excluding the energy companies, oil, etc.. to pass legislation that helps out the corporations as opposed to what is best for the people, and add to that that the politicians have stock in these companies (Not all politicians) so it is only fattening up their wallets more. Then when things get bad, we the tax payer, have to get ripped off again by the same people who put us here and bail them-out with no return. When you have both the democrats & republicans look the other way while getting campaign contributions (Putting their eggs in every basket as to insure a win no matter who gets in office) there is something very wrong. Restrictions are one thing but deregulating and giving them basically free reign is disasterous. For RP being the crazy guy everyone says he is has been calling this for a long time now...among other things.. by the way is the pond almost done

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:07 pm

If you're going to bring up evidence of something that doesn't exist plese try and make something from this century .....mmmmkay?

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:20 pm

Speaking of "evidence"....or proof..lets review the above burning again....

Izzo wrote:Who controlled Congress in '94? Um, yeah. Nice try, though.

Izzo wrote:If anyone needs to do any reading it's you, bud. Are you denying the republicans controlled congress in '94?

Ken wrote:http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/histor ... rtydiv.htm
[ 103rd Congress (1993-1995)

Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (43 seats)]

Oh, ...here you go, brains...

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:28 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote:Speaking of "evidence"....or proof..lets review the above burning again....

Nice attempt to deflect and I corrected myself with regard to the date the neo tards took control of congress but I find it rather convenient that you disregarded the article I posted about Bush and Fannie and Freddie..... Typical republican logic......none. To think that the actions Clinton took almost 15 years ago somehow contributed to this as opposed to legislation only 4 years borders on mental illness.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:33 pm

Oh there's no deflection...it's a pure case of me putting the spotlight on the spill, of hitting rewind, of capturing that moment for future amusement..that's right...amusement.

Here..take a truckload of towels to wipe all that egg off of your face.

Yeah..Pelosi for Prez right?

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:36 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote:Oh there's no deflection...it's a pure case of me putting the spotlight on the spill, of hitting rewind, of capturing that moment for future amusement..that's right...amusement.

Here..take a truckload of towels to wipe all that egg off of your face.

Yeah..Pelosi for Prez right?

You better just stick to networking....critical thinking and logic ain't your thing.

edit> Oh, are you going to acknowledge the Bush legislation for the poor or does it just go in one and out the other, too?

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 8:21 pm

Ken wrote:JC has nothing to do with this... You were the one that posted it was all Bush's fault... The truth is, the foundation was way before Bush...

Ken, JC has everything to do with this based on this statement made by him which you conveniently ignore:

JC wrote:The dems, yes the dems killed reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie May. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Senator Mccain sponsored that bill.

The dems DEMANDING banks give loans to people who were unquallifed caused most of this.

So back to my question which you continue to avoid....are you going to level the same logic AGAINST JC or not?

so if you are going to selectively render judgment on my posts and level the playing field as you said, then all that is accomplished is a hostile battlefield.

So again, are you going to say something publicly to JC or not?

David · Post by **David** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:29 am

FrostyBear,

I have this nagging sensation that somehow those aligned with the President are making a fortune. Our government is brokering deals with JPMorgan Chase, ingesting major financial institutions for pennies on the dollar. Odd, the AIG boondoggle elaborated the danger of any such corporation getting too large...

The pond is coming along slowly at this point. The three children are keeping me rather occupied

.

vc_wannabe · Post by **vc_wannabe** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:50 pm

Or the dems who passed laws to make banks give people loans even if the bank KNEW they could not pay them back. Then when the people couldnt pay they blocked the banks from being able to collect on their loans...

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:16 pm

vc_wannabe wrote:Or the dems who passed laws to make banks give people loans even if the bank KNEW they could not pay them back. Then when the people couldnt pay they blocked the banks from being able to collect on their loans...

Well now...there's the rub. Once more, we get to see a drive by post.

Show us the beef.

tr87526 · Post by **tr87526** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:29 pm

UOD wrote:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 809-9.html

This is where he directed Fannie and Freddie to put up $440 Billion for folks with bad credit.

And some of you are supporting McCain having to leave his campaign idle in order to deal with this issue.....LMFAO!!!!!

And? Good plan that was abused and mis-managed. Your posts are as misleading as media headlines.

Izzo · Post by **Izzo** » Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:37 pm

vc_wannabe wrote:Or the dems who passed laws to make banks give people loans even if the bank KNEW they could not pay them back. Then when the people couldnt pay they blocked the banks from being able to collect on their loans...

Explain to me how these banks were "made" to give people bad loans? There's underwriting for a reason. And it wasn't the Dems....

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:23 am

tr87526 wrote:And? Good plan that was abused and mis-managed. Your posts are as misleading as media headlines.

A good plan constitutes giving away $440 Billion to folks with bad credit?