Barney Frank
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
Catatonic
Nine Lives
That's too funny ... my exact thought that I was about to reply.
NOBODY is saying Clinton didnt want more home ownership, cause like I said, EVERY PRESIDENT from 1900 till today runs on that premise. The difference is, only BUSH went the extra mile to make changes that eventually collapsed the housing market.
Of all the failed mortgages since 2007, ALL OF THEM were written after 2002 and ALL OF THEM were written using the "new" guidelines for home loans created after 2002.
As I said before, the worst isnt over yet, as the 10 and 15 year interest only loans are yet to mature and those homes average OVER 500K each. Another misconception is that loans are failing because of unemployment, and thats not the case.
The largest percentage of foreclosures are persons who have jobs but cant afford the reset mortgage payments. Let me give you some personal history as a guide. In my gated community of homes built in 2004, the first phase sold for 189K. They sold out before the foundations were layed down. ( that means concrete moreluck) The second phase was 225K. The third 275K and the final phase 339K. In a matter of 2 years, my home almost doubled in value. In 2007, the area was selling close to 700K.
These prices were ridiculous, but realtors and mortgage writers were making loans in days to people who couldnt afford them. ALL the loans were some type of interest only loan and today, half my neighborhood is vacant. Of all the homes lost, everyone of them had jobs, the same jobs they started out with when they bought the home.
If came down to the balloon payment and the adjustment.
Today, our values are down to 335K and everyone who bought a home here after 2006 is screwed. Most cant refi, most cant ask for a modification because they make too much money, Most cant sell because they owe 600K+ for a home valued in the mid 300's.
What are these people to do? When the loans were written, nobody thought about the market crashing, and in addition, a majority of them took out equity loans against the homes and put themselves deeper in debt.
None of this happened under bill clintons watch. All the rhetoric in the world wont help to convince anyone of that. BUSH's vision of home ownership was taken a step too far. It wasnt all his fault. Builders, wall street, banks, appraisers, realtors, lenders and cities were all in on the scam. Once BUSH gave the green light, the "FREE MARKET" took over and ruined a good idea.
While I believe home ownership should be a part of america, I dont believe that people who couldnt otherwise buy a home be given a "cheat sheet" to home ownership at the expense of the american taxpayer. BUSH felt otherwise, using section 8 money for poor, low income, bad credit risk americans to own homes. All to the tune of 2.5 million. All those 2.5 million are now on the foreclosure list.
It was a big mistake. De regulation and greed took over. Now the rest of us pay the price for it. Its that simple.
Peace.
Of all the failed mortgages since 2007, ALL OF THEM were written after 2002 and ALL OF THEM were written using the "new" guidelines for home loans created after 2002.
As I said before, the worst isnt over yet, as the 10 and 15 year interest only loans are yet to mature and those homes average OVER 500K each. Another misconception is that loans are failing because of unemployment, and thats not the case.
The largest percentage of foreclosures are persons who have jobs but cant afford the reset mortgage payments. Let me give you some personal history as a guide. In my gated community of homes built in 2004, the first phase sold for 189K. They sold out before the foundations were layed down. ( that means concrete moreluck) The second phase was 225K. The third 275K and the final phase 339K. In a matter of 2 years, my home almost doubled in value. In 2007, the area was selling close to 700K.
These prices were ridiculous, but realtors and mortgage writers were making loans in days to people who couldnt afford them. ALL the loans were some type of interest only loan and today, half my neighborhood is vacant. Of all the homes lost, everyone of them had jobs, the same jobs they started out with when they bought the home.
If came down to the balloon payment and the adjustment.
Today, our values are down to 335K and everyone who bought a home here after 2006 is screwed. Most cant refi, most cant ask for a modification because they make too much money, Most cant sell because they owe 600K+ for a home valued in the mid 300's.
What are these people to do? When the loans were written, nobody thought about the market crashing, and in addition, a majority of them took out equity loans against the homes and put themselves deeper in debt.
None of this happened under bill clintons watch. All the rhetoric in the world wont help to convince anyone of that. BUSH's vision of home ownership was taken a step too far. It wasnt all his fault. Builders, wall street, banks, appraisers, realtors, lenders and cities were all in on the scam. Once BUSH gave the green light, the "FREE MARKET" took over and ruined a good idea.
While I believe home ownership should be a part of america, I dont believe that people who couldnt otherwise buy a home be given a "cheat sheet" to home ownership at the expense of the american taxpayer. BUSH felt otherwise, using section 8 money for poor, low income, bad credit risk americans to own homes. All to the tune of 2.5 million. All those 2.5 million are now on the foreclosure list.
It was a big mistake. De regulation and greed took over. Now the rest of us pay the price for it. Its that simple.
Peace.
What was I suppose to hear? I listened to the president very clearly and NOT ONCE did he mention low income, bad credit risks, zero downpayments, Taxpayer downpayments, section 8 mortgage payments or interest only loans.
In fact, if you really listened to it YOURSELF, at the 640 mark, president CLINTON says clearly that he wants the private sector to provide the solution to home ownership and NOT THE GOVERMENT.
Listen again. Maybe youll learn something.
ON another note. FAIL.
Peace.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Typical view of a state worshiper. It is simple to ignore the fact that every time one regulation was repealed it was replaced by two more.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n2/cj30n2-12.pdf
"At around the same time in the early 1990s, the regulations underthe Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) were amended to increasetheir influence on bank mortgage lending. The CRA had beenadopted in 1977, and initially required that banks make efforts toincrease mortgage lending in all the communities they serve, not justthe communities where middle income or well-to-do families lived.The enforcement mechanism was the withholding of regulatoryapproval for mergers, expansions, or other matters if a bank had notshown that it was working to achieve the CRA’s goals. In 1995, how-ever, the rules were tightened, so that banks had to show that theyhad actually made the required loans, not that they were simply try-ing to do so. The change had a profound effect. Under the initialrule, banks could turn down applicants who did not have the neces-sary credit resources—such as a significant downpayment or a job—but under the new regulations the onus was put on the banks to finda way to make the loan, even if it did not meet their lending stan-dards. The phrase in the CRA regulations was that banks had to be“flexible or innovative” in their underwriting. From the point of viewof the banks, their lending standards had to be loosened. They hadto show that the mortgages were being made."
"Accordingly, a strong argument can be made that the financial cri-sis was not caused by unregulated mortgage brokers, or by the ratingagencies, the Wall Street investment banks, or the commercial banksthat eventually had to be rescued with taxpayer funds. The responsi-ble parties were those who made and sustained government policiesthat distorted the housing finance market—resulting in the creationof an unprecedented number of high-risk mortgages. Fault also restswith the management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who failedto disclose that they were complying with government requirementsby acquiring and securitizing vast numbers of high-risk mortgages. "
"At around the same time in the early 1990s, the regulations underthe Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) were amended to increasetheir influence on bank mortgage lending. The CRA had beenadopted in 1977, and initially required that banks make efforts toincrease mortgage lending in all the communities they serve, not justthe communities where middle income or well-to-do families lived.The enforcement mechanism was the withholding of regulatoryapproval for mergers, expansions, or other matters if a bank had notshown that it was working to achieve the CRA’s goals. In 1995, how-ever, the rules were tightened, so that banks had to show that theyhad actually made the required loans, not that they were simply try-ing to do so. The change had a profound effect. Under the initialrule, banks could turn down applicants who did not have the neces-sary credit resources—such as a significant downpayment or a job—but under the new regulations the onus was put on the banks to finda way to make the loan, even if it did not meet their lending stan-dards. The phrase in the CRA regulations was that banks had to be“flexible or innovative” in their underwriting. From the point of viewof the banks, their lending standards had to be loosened. They hadto show that the mortgages were being made."
"Accordingly, a strong argument can be made that the financial cri-sis was not caused by unregulated mortgage brokers, or by the ratingagencies, the Wall Street investment banks, or the commercial banksthat eventually had to be rescued with taxpayer funds. The responsi-ble parties were those who made and sustained government policiesthat distorted the housing finance market—resulting in the creationof an unprecedented number of high-risk mortgages. Fault also restswith the management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who failedto disclose that they were complying with government requirementsby acquiring and securitizing vast numbers of high-risk mortgages. "
Last edited:
moreluck
golden ticket member
He said he wanted the highest percentage of home ownership ever by the end of the century!! You insinuated that Clinton didn't say anything about home ownership and he was driven to have the most "home owners". Clinton was very much into having home ownership rise to new heights. You acted like he never said anything about it. Well he did.....and a few before him too. You stopped right at Bush instead of seeking the source.
Last edited:
Can you support that or is it just your opinion?
moreluck
golden ticket member
Obama made 4200 new regulations in August, maybe you could back into it and figure it out.
We're talking specifically about banking deregulation.
moreluck
golden ticket member
Here's Obama's proposal (banking)
Obama Proposes New Bank Regulations - WSJ.com
Obama Proposes New Bank Regulations - WSJ.com
wkmac
Well-Known Member
In the case of Moreluck, I'd just default to what Dave said!
BTW: No argument that various gov't officials of both parties and both branches of gov't enabled the whole mortgage mess from beginning to end but I also agree with you Jones that IMO the Congress or the Executive branch doesn't go
without first getting permission from those who've been footing the election bill for a very long time. I agree many regulations have been written but with regulatory capture, those regs. are designed to limit competition by invoking barriers to competitive upstarts while allowing the existing players to enjoy a cartelized monopoly. It's ashame some people can't understand that big business loves big gov't and has been the enabler of it for a very longtime. To continue to blindly defend big business seems counterproductive to real freedom and true free markets. They'd do well regardless of party or administration to look at the executive branch agency heads and cabinet level officials and just where they come from. The Federal Reserve bank is a private entity granted a public monopoly by gov't and under Title 12 is one of the oversite agencies in regards to the CRA. This may also explain the Wall Street banking revolving door at Treasury but then let's not persecute the poor downtrodden Corporation who only wants to operate in a true free market......oopppps, not so fast, a controlled market environment designed to assure outcomes while absorbing the risks on the backs of taxpayers.
The blame squarely falls equally on gov't and certain private business interests alike!
Second time around: FAIL.
I said very clearly from the outset, ALL PRESIDENTS, including Clinton wanted home ownership increases. I defined the difference between where Clinton and Bush separate on how to get there. BUSH went the extra mile to make it easier for bad people to have bad loans that they eventually couldnt pay for.
Thats a huge difference. CLINTON specifically says he wants the private sector to provide the solutions and not the goverment whereas, BUSH wanted the GOVERMENT to provide the solutions.
Big fundamental difference Moreluck.
Peace.
Moreluck,
maybe FDR is responsible for the housing crisis, he wanted more home sales as well.
Home ownership was not common at the turn of the 20th century. Lizabeth Cohen, author of A Consumer's Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America, says even upper middle-class people rented: "They didn't think they needed to buy a home to establish themselves."
To own a house back then, people normally had to save up virtually all the money they needed to buy it. If they got a mortgage it was for a short period of time and usually required at least half the purchase price. If a family did buy a home, it was often later in life. It was not a rite of passage into adulthood.
The New Deal began to change all that. "The Roosevelt administration saw home construction, and home ownership, and the buying of appliances and furniture for those homes as an important part of generating economic recovery," says Claude Fischer, co-author of Century of Difference: How America Changed in the Last One Hundred Years. So the government started to insure mortgages and encouraged stretching them over a longer period so the payments were more affordable. Likewise, the government expanded sewer systems, paved roads and in other ways created the infrastructure to support new housing.
Peace.
maybe FDR is responsible for the housing crisis, he wanted more home sales as well.
Home ownership was not common at the turn of the 20th century. Lizabeth Cohen, author of A Consumer's Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America, says even upper middle-class people rented: "They didn't think they needed to buy a home to establish themselves."
To own a house back then, people normally had to save up virtually all the money they needed to buy it. If they got a mortgage it was for a short period of time and usually required at least half the purchase price. If a family did buy a home, it was often later in life. It was not a rite of passage into adulthood.
The New Deal began to change all that. "The Roosevelt administration saw home construction, and home ownership, and the buying of appliances and furniture for those homes as an important part of generating economic recovery," says Claude Fischer, co-author of Century of Difference: How America Changed in the Last One Hundred Years. So the government started to insure mortgages and encouraged stretching them over a longer period so the payments were more affordable. Likewise, the government expanded sewer systems, paved roads and in other ways created the infrastructure to support new housing.
Peace.
How about Eisenhower?
The development of conditions under which every American family can obtain good housing is a
major objective of national policy. … A high level of housing construction and vigorous community
development are essential to the economic and social well being of our country. It is, therefore,
properly a concern of this government to insure that opportunities are provided every American
family to acquire a good home.
— President Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 1954
The development of conditions under which every American family can obtain good housing is a
major objective of national policy. … A high level of housing construction and vigorous community
development are essential to the economic and social well being of our country. It is, therefore,
properly a concern of this government to insure that opportunities are provided every American
family to acquire a good home.
— President Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 1954
What about President Truman?
He created the FHA to insure more loans to more people including the poor through mortgage insurance. In 1937 the FHA was created and within a year was insuring 40% of the loans in the country. The goal? Increased home buying. Lower downpayments, longer terms, lower payments.
Maybe its his fault more?
Peace.
He created the FHA to insure more loans to more people including the poor through mortgage insurance. In 1937 the FHA was created and within a year was insuring 40% of the loans in the country. The goal? Increased home buying. Lower downpayments, longer terms, lower payments.
Maybe its his fault more?
Peace.
moreluck
golden ticket member
Well, at least I'm not stupid enough to think it's just one person's fault like you do !!! If you think it's just Bush, then go on being delusional and dumb!
