PDA

View Full Version : Conservative Origins Of The SubPrime Mortg. Crisis



Gayle in MD
08-23-2010, 09:25 PM
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_conservative_origins_of_the_s ubprime_mortgage_crisis

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Conservative Origins Of The Sub Prime Mortgage Crises



Bush, who once touted his administration's goal as creating an "ownership society," may now go down in history as the president on whose watch ownership declined. The nation's homeownership rate has fallen during the last two years and will plummet further next year. Moreover, Bush's unwillingness to take bold steps to regulate lenders, brokers, and investors will guarantee that the next president will inherit a much bigger mortgage mess.
</div></div>

LWW
08-24-2010, 02:51 AM
You have now stooped to blaming Bush for the failure of a program that began under James Earl Carter?

Doesn't your internet use the google?

LWW

Sev
08-24-2010, 06:41 AM
HAHHAHHAHHAAHAAHHAAHAHHA!!!!

Gayle in MD
08-24-2010, 12:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And It All Started with Deregulation

There was a time, not too long ago, when Washington did regulate banks. The Depression triggered the creation of government bank regulations and agencies, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Bank System, Homeowners Loan Corporation, Fannie Mae, and the Federal Housing Administration, to protect consumers and expand homeownership. After World War II, until the late 1970s, the system work. The savings-and-loan industry was highly regulated by the federal government, with a mission to take people's deposits and then provide loans for the sole purpose of helping people buy homes to live in. Washington insured those loans through the FDIC, provided mortgage discounts through FHA and the Veterans Administration, created a secondary mortgage market to guarantee a steady flow of capital, and required S&Ls to make predictable 30-year fixed loans. The result was a steady increase in homeownership and few foreclosures.

In the 1970s, when community groups discovered that lenders and the FHA were engaged in systematic racial discrimination against minority consumers and neighborhoods -- a practice called "redlining" -- they mobilized and got Congress, led by Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire, to adopt the Community Reinvestment Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, which together have significantly reduced racial disparities in lending.

But by the early 1980s, the lending industry used its political clout to push back against government regulation. In 1980, Congress adopted the Depository Institutions Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act, which eliminated interest-rate caps and made sub-prime lending more feasible for lenders. The S&Ls balked at constraints on their ability to compete with conventional banks engaged in commercial lending. They got Congress -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- to change the rules, allowing S&Ls to begin a decade-long orgy of real estate speculation, mismanagement, and fraud. The poster child for this era was Charles Keating, who used his political connections and donations to turn a small Arizona S&L into a major real estate speculator, snaring five Senators (the so-called "Keating Five," including John McCain) into his web of corruption.

The deregulation of banking led to merger mania, with banks and S&Ls gobbling each other up and making loans to finance shopping malls, golf courses, office buildings, and condo projects that had no financial logic other than a quick-buck profit. When the dust settled in the late 1980s, hundreds of S&Ls and banks had gone under, billions of dollars of commercial loans were useless, and the federal government was left to bail out the depositors whose money the speculators had put at risk.

The stable neighborhood S&L soon became a thing of the past. Banks, insurance companies, credit card firms and other money-lenders were now part of a giant "financial services" industry, while Washington walked away from its responsibility to protect consumers with rules, regulations, and enforcement. Meanwhile, starting with Reagan, the federal government slashed funding for low-income housing, and allowed the FHA, once a key player helping working-class families purchase a home, to drift into irrelevancy.

Into this vacuum stepped banks, mortgage lenders, and scam artists, looking for ways to make big profits from consumers desperate for the American Dream of homeownership. They invented new "loan products" that put borrowers at risk. Thus was born the sub-prime market.

At the heart of the crisis are the conservative free market ideologists whose views increasingly influenced American politics since the 1980s, and who still dominate the Bush administration. They believe that government is always the problem, never the solution, and that regulation of private business is always bad. Lenders and brokers who fell outside of federal regulations made most of the sub-prime and predatory loans.

In 2000, Edward M. Gramlich, a Federal Reserve Board member, repeatedly warned about sub-prime mortgages and predatory lending, which he said "jeopardize the twin American dreams of owning a home and building wealth." He tried to get chairman Alan Greenspan to crack down on irrational sub-prime lending by increasing oversight, but his warnings fell on deaf ears, including those in Congress.

As Rep. Barney Frank wrote recently in The Boston Globe, the surge of sub-prime lending was a sort of "natural experiment" testing the theories of those who favor radical deregulation of financial markets. And the lessons, Frank said, are clear: "To the extent that the system did work, it is because of prudential regulation and oversight. Where it was absent, the result was tragedy."

Some political observers believe that the American mood is shifting, finally recognizing that the frenzy of deregulation that began in the 1980s has triggered economic chaos and declining living standards. If they needed proof, the foreclosure crisis is exhibit number one.

Those who profited handsomely from the sub-prime market and predatory lending, the mortgage bankers and brokers, are working overtime to protect their profits by lobbying in state capitals and in Washington, DC to keep government off their backs. The banking industry, of course, has repeatedly warned that any restrictions on their behavior will close needy people out of the home-buying market. Its lobbyists insisted that the Bush plan be completely voluntary.

This isn't surprising, considering who was at the negotiating table when the Bush administration, led by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, forged the plan. The key players were the mortgage service companies (who collect the homeowner's monthly payments, or foreclose when they fall behind) and groups representing investors holding the mortgages, dominated by Wall Street banks. The Bush plan reflected both groups' calculation that -- for some loans -- they would do better temporarily freezing interest rates than foreclosing. Groups who represent consumers -- ACORN, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, the Greenlining Institute, Neighborhood Housing Services, and the Center for Responsible Lending -- were not invited to the negotiation.

The best hope for real reform rests with a Democratic Party victory in November. And after an electoral win, it will require that Democrats make sure that these consumer groups are key participants in shaping legislation..

And wouldn't it be nice to hear the next president tell the American people that, "the era of unregulated so-called free-market banking greed and sleaze is over"?








John Atlas is president of the National Housing Institute (NHI), a nonprofit research and policy center that sponsors Shelterforce magazine.

</div></div>

Chopstick
08-24-2010, 12:44 PM
Quit being silly. You know better than that.

pooltchr
08-24-2010, 12:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Quit being silly. You know better than that. </div></div>

Sadly, I don't think she does.

Steve

Gayle in MD
08-24-2010, 01:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Quit being silly. You know better than that. </div></div>

I didn't write the artical, Chop, however, if you'd like to debate any of his major points, you're welcome to do so, that is, if you can do so without getting personal about it.

G.

eg8r
08-24-2010, 01:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I didn't write the artical, Chop, however, if you'd like to debate any of his major points, you're welcome to do so, that is, if you can do so without getting personal about it.
</div></div>I guess the time off didn't do anything to clear your nasty head. In the "GDP still growing" thread he did exactly what you asked here and what did you do, you absolutely refused to actually debate anything.

Make up your mind flip flop.

Also, as far as you not writing the article, no kidding Sherlock. What does that have to do with the price of wheat. No one said you wrote it, however since you posted it and did not state you were in disagreement one is lead to believe you did agree with it. I am with Chop, you can't be serious...

eg8r

Chopstick
08-24-2010, 02:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Quit being silly. You know better than that. </div></div>

I didn't write the artical, Chop, however, if you'd like to debate any of his major points, you're welcome to do so, that is, if you can do so without getting personal about it.

G. </div></div>

I will take you up on that but on another subject. This is all old news and a worn out subject that has been discussed in detail before.

LWW
08-24-2010, 04:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Quit being silly. You know better than that. </div></div>

I didn't write the artical, Chop, however, if you'd like to debate any of his major points, you're welcome to do so, that is, if you can do so without getting personal about it.

G. </div></div>

See ... don't you feel better after confessing what we all have known for so long?

LWW

bobroberts
08-24-2010, 04:42 PM
Gayle if you keep copying and pasting articles that are ridiculous,then maybe you should be banned permanently.
Every one knows that because of Barney Frank funding Franny and Freddie without any collateral it was destined to failure.

Gayle in MD
08-24-2010, 08:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Quit being silly. You know better than that. </div></div>

I didn't write the artical, Chop, however, if you'd like to debate any of his major points, you're welcome to do so, that is, if you can do so without getting personal about it.

G. </div></div>

I will take you up on that but on another subject. This is all old news and a worn out subject that has been discussed in detail before. </div></div>

Well, it may be old news to you, but the facts regarding the sub-prime mortgage crises are currently still being denied, the history rewritten, daily, by the Republican Leaders. Hence, IMO, worth some review.

G.

hondo
08-24-2010, 08:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bobroberts</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle if you keep copying and pasting articles that are ridiculous,then maybe you should be banned permanently.
</div></div>

Sweet Jesus! What a piece of work you are!
What about those Right Wing blogs Dick keeps posting?
Should he be banned permanently?

Are you and Wilson going to get together and decide what's ridiculous? What's your criteria?

LWW
08-25-2010, 01:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bobroberts</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle if you keep copying and pasting articles that are ridiculous,then maybe you should be banned permanently.
</div></div>

Sweet Jesus! What a piece of work you are!
What about those Right Wing blogs Dick keeps posting?
Should he be banned permanently?

Are you and Wilson going to get together and decide what's ridiculous? What's your criteria?

</div></div>

Like the New York Times?

LWW

Qtec
08-25-2010, 03:50 AM
You have never participated in a real debate in your entire life.

Q

LWW
08-25-2010, 04:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You have never participated in a real debate in your entire life.

Q </div></div>

http://reason.com/assets/mc/mwelch/2009_11/clinton_laughing.jpg
<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Q, you're funnier than watchin a turtle chase a rabbit.</span>

LWW

eg8r
08-25-2010, 12:05 PM
LOL, how would you know and what does that have to do with the hypocrisy of gayle's mean-spirited post?

eg8r

Qtec
08-25-2010, 07:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, how would you know and what does that have to do with the hypocrisy of gayle's mean-spirited post?

eg8r </div></div>

How many times do I have to tell you that <u>YOUR fantasies are not reality.</u> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Just because you THINK something doesn't make it real.</span>

In short, G's post was <u>neither hypocritical or mean spirited,</u> its all in YOUR imagination.

Q

eg8r
08-26-2010, 08:06 AM
LOL, well I guess considering you are a terrorist appeaser I am sure she did not seem mean spirited at all.

eg8r