Dirty(DICK)Cheney on..... Obama's National Security selections .

[Knotbuyinit]

Otherwise that housing boom that Bush like to take the credit for was made up of folks who got their loans around 2003 (when Bush wasn't urging any kind of changes) and those loans readjusted in 2008. Seems like he should have shown a little more concern much sooner.

April 2001: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

May 2002: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

February 2003 : The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

September 2003: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

September 2003: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)

October 2003: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)

November 2003: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

February 2004: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February 2004: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

April 2004: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)

June 2004 : Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

April 2005: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

July 2005: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

 

[KCFlyer]

April 2001: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

May 2002: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

February 2003 : The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

September 2003: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

September 2003: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)

October 2003: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)

November 2003: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

February 2004: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February 2004: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

April 2004: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)

June 2004 : Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

April 2005: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

July 2005: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

AGain, I can't believe that are finding each and every one of these thru a google search...would you be so kind as to enlighten us and let us know where we can find them? Perhaps we'll be able to expand our minds. As I have shown in my other post, when I track down the citiations, what is said and what is implied in your citation are not quite the same. Are you afraid to post where you are getting them? Damn man...I even tried to find the transcript of the Cabinet meeting from the Commerce department website and the link there doesn't work. Help me prove to myself that what you say is the unbiased truth.

 

[KCFlyer]

February 2004: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

Found this one. And again I ask...why didn't the republican Congress at that time pursue this further? Barney Frank said "no" and they gave up the fight. When you are the majority and one person says no, do you typically give up? Damn man....I guess that's part of the reason the GOP got voted out in 2006.

Your second batch of citations goes way back before the democratic congress came into power. Why didn't the republicans ACT on these things, and why do they insist on laying the blame on the 2007 democrats? YOUR OWN CITATIONS prove that they had YEARS to do something about it...yet didn't. And because of all that you have cited...when democrats were NOT in control...we can only conclude that Bush and the republicans were indeed responsible for the economic meltdown of 2008.

 

[KCFlyer]

April 2001: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem,"

May 2002: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure

February 2003 : The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.

September 2003: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House

September 2003: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment,

October 2003: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

November 2003: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.

February 2004: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs

February 2004: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted.

April 2004: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue."

June 2004 : Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs

April 2005: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform,

July 2005: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs,

SO MUCH ADVANCE WARNING. Tell me again, what party had control of the presidency and both houses of Congress during that time? Very impressive list, but if anything it's damning the republicans more than the 2007 democrats.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

SO MUCH ADVANCE WARNING. Tell me again, what party had control of the presidency and both houses of Congress during that time? Very impressive list, but if anything it's damning the republicans more than the 2007 democrats.

Maybe you are due a lesson on how Finance Reform acts are created. Barney Frank was the leading Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee from 2003 to his retirement. Hard to sign a reform act when the reform act was never created. With everything Barney Frank knew about the crisis brewing within Freddie and Fannie before the Democrats took control of Congress, why did the Democrat wait almost two years before passing F & F reform? The answer is pretty easy: Doing nothing was a way to get Obama in office.

Don't whine to me because you can't find items on Google. It took me all of about 10 minutes to find what I was looking for. Everything I posted is found on Google and the link ends in .gov. It really doesn't matter if I reference a link or not, according to you and your low information friends the Democrats are not responsible for any of their actions. Period

Since you're in to playing games, I'll make sure I request links for the information you post on this site. Fair enough?

 

[delldude]

Wrong decade KC.....try the ninties when Clinton put the CRA on steroids, had Fannie and Freddie 'lean' on banks with threats from his Justice dept ran by Janet Reno and her assistant Ron Holder.

It all had to do with those dastardly racist white bankers redlining certain poor districts as risky lending areas due the clients ability to pay back the loan(which happened to be right on).So your Progressives fixed it real good. Even Obama got a piece of the action when he filed a lawsuit against Citbank in Chi-town.
http://dailycaller.c...ican-americans/

At President Clinton’s direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.
The threat was codified in a 20-page “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending” and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.
The edict — completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media — was signed by then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies. …
The unusual full-court press was predicated on a Boston Fed study showing mortgage lenders rejecting blacks and Hispanics in greater proportion than whites. The author of the 1992 study, hired by the Clinton White House, claimed it was racial “discrimination.” But it was simply good underwriting.
It took private analysts, as well as at least one FDIC economist, little time to determine the Boston Fed study was terminally flawed. In addition to finding embarrassing mistakes in the data, they concluded that more relevant measures of a borrower’s credit history — such as past delinquencies and whether the borrower met lenders credit standards — explained the gap in lending between whites and blacks, who on average had poorer credit and higher defaults.
The study did not take into account a host of other relevant data factoring into denials, including applicants’ net worth, debt burden and employment record. Other variables, such as the size of down payments and the amount of the loans sought to the value of the property being bought, also were left out of the analysis. It also failed to consider whether the borrower submitted information that could not be verified, the presence of a cosigner and even the loan amount.
When these missing data were factored in, it became clear that the rejection rates were based on legitimate business decisions, not racism.​

http://hotair.com/ar...-not-the-banks/

http://washingtonexa.../article/145413

And do you know what is even more frightening than all of this?

Obama is implementing the exact same policies today.

Despite new evidence the Community Reinvestment Act led to riskier lending and played a key role in the subprime mortgage crisis, the Obama administration is broadening the anti-redlining regulation's authority and scope, spooking bankers.
A recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the nation's pre-eminent economic research group, states that the CRA "clearly" had a major impact on the flood of subprime loans made in the late 1990s and 2000s, which directly led to the housing crisis.
By quietly expanding the regulation, analysts say President Obama is picking up where President Clinton left off in April 1995, when he rewrote rules for what had been a largely toothless law as first drafted in 1977.

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Read More At IBD: http://news.investor...m#ixzz2LMa7QjAl[/background]​

 

[KCFlyer]

Thanks for clearing that up dell. I was unaware that poor inner city black families had hundreds of billions of dollars in CRA loans out there that crashed the economy. CArter and Clinton should be smacked for that.

 

[KCFlyer]

Maybe you are due a lesson on how Finance Reform acts are created. Barney Frank was the leading Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee from 2003 to his retirement. Hard to sign a reform act when the reform act was never created. With everything Barney Frank knew about the crisis brewing within Freddie and Fannie before the Democrats took control of Congress, why did the Democrat wait almost two years before passing F & F reform? The answer is pretty easy: Doing nothing was a way to get Obama in office.

Don't whine to me because you can't find items on Google. It took me all of about 10 minutes to find what I was looking for. Everything I posted is found on Google and the link ends in .gov. It really doesn't matter if I reference a link or not, according to you and your low information friends the Democrats are not responsible for any of their actions. Period

Since you're in to playing games, I'll make sure I request links for the information you post on this site. Fair enough?

YOu are very very eloquent then....why your citations are so well put. It almost sounds like they all came from a website somewhere. And I DID find many of them...but as I said, the "warnings" didn't seem as urgent as you had made them out to be.

I didn't say taht the democrats weren't responsible for something, but y'all seem to want to put the near collapse of the economy on the backs of the 2007 democrats alone. Why even Bush in your citations was saying that the economic outlook was trending downward well before the 2007 democrats were sworn in. The repugs had nothing to do with it. When any one of "us" cites the bigger culprit - the Gramm Leach Bliley Act...the right comes back with "Oh yeah....well look who signed it".

 

[delldude]

Thanks for clearing that up dell. I was unaware that poor inner city black families had hundreds of billions of dollars in CRA loans out there that crashed the economy. CArter and Clinton should be smacked for that.

You asked for proof gov't pressured banks....you got it Pal.
You forgot Latinos and poor honks.

Kind of hard to totally stick it on Bush when Clinton had a big hand in its launch.

'Smatter....truth hurt the liberal narrative?

 

[southwind]

That's a person, not an action. Still waiting for what the 2007 democrats did to screw up the Bush economy.

If you had taken the time to read the article, it said problems with the economy "STARTED IN 2007", when the Demorats held the house and senate !

Not gonna do your homework for you !

 

[KCFlyer]

You asked for proof gov't pressured banks....you got it Pal.
You forgot Latinos and poor honks.

Kind of hard to totally stick it on Bush when Clinton had a big hand in its launch.

'Smatter....truth hurt the liberal narrative?

Clinton signed a bill that had been championed by repugs since the reign of St Ronnie of Redondo.

Let's include all those in poverty...utterly amazing that banks loaned out so much money to these dregs of the earth that it bankrupted a couple of instutions and brought the rest to their knees. And letting banks play "investor" didn't have a thing to do with it.

 

[KCFlyer]

If you had taken the time to read the article, it said problems with the economy "STARTED IN 2007", when the Demorats held the house and senate !

Not gonna do your homework for you !

No need to, quite capable of it myself, but you yourself haven't pointed out anything specifically they did that started the ball rolling. What a coinkydink that it all started right when those dems were sworn in.

The 'problems with the economy' started way back. I mean shoot...dell is pointing out that Jimmy Carter started it with the CRA and Bill Clinton made it worse by toughening it up. That little Gramm Leach Bliley bill didn't have anything to do with it. And it's funny...because the CRA gets so MUCH credit for it...these bad loans to poor people are blamed so much...that it's easy to forget that the CRA is 35 years old. Imagine those low life baztards who had a loan they couldn't afford for 29 years and THEN they defaulted on them. By the millions. This deregulation of the financial industry didn't play any role. \

The fact of the matter south is that most of this crap started to CULMINATE in 2007. The US Economy is a lot like an aircraft carrier...big, bulky...kind of tough to steer. Let's get the USS Ronnie Reagan up to about 20 knots and then turn that puppy around in a quarter mile. Can't be done...it's got to go a lot further to turn around. THAT is what you saw starting up in 2007.

 

[delldude]

Clinton signed a bill that had been championed by repugs since the reign of St Ronnie of Redondo.

Let's include all those in poverty...utterly amazing that banks loaned out so much money to these dregs of the earth that it bankrupted a couple of instutions and brought the rest to their knees. And letting banks play "investor" didn't have a thing to do with it.

Many banks balked at the idea and Clinton provided penalizing legislation. The foundation was laid by Carter and Clinton and 2 Bushes.....greatest damage was done under Clinton. It took many years for it to blossom.......and boy it did.

A Progressive Socialist experiment gone terribly wrong.....

 

[KCFlyer]

Many banks balked at the idea and Clinton provided penalizing legislation. The foundation was laid by Carter and Clinton and 2 Bushes.....greatest damage was done under Clinton. It took many years for it to blossom.......and boy it did.

A Progressive Socialist experiment gone terribly wrong.....

And that alone caused the collapse in 2008?

 

[delldude]

And that alone caused the collapse in 2008?

You cant fathom the amount of toxic loans that grew from the CRA initiative can you?
I remember the left narrative of 'certain' areas in cities where banks wouldn't give loans because they were poor and couldn't repay. Socialists believed everybody had a right to own a home and they got their way. Over the next 2 decades the program spiraled out of control and everybody got in on the boom. Was it right?? Started with gov't pressure for low income people, but how in the hell could those people afford and make payments over time? Like a lot of liberal unintended consequences, it got out of hand and people of modest income groups could get houses way out of their incomes....the housing boom was well under way.....and it grew and grew....so over the years failed mortgages happened and happened all the time......then it started to grow larger and larger until early in the 2000's it became pandemic and some in gov't saw the problem but were slapped down due to who was in charge. So all of this going on for twenty years, who ends up holding the bag when humpty dumpty falls off the wall?
Blame goes to both parties like with ANY issue in gov't these days.

Who was holding those toxic loans goes across the pond too.....Humpty Dumpty made some bad moves....