How Democrats destroyed the U.S. economy, and why Bush was unable to stop it.

Bama323

All-American
Feb 3, 2005
4,626
0
0
The conventional wisdom among many Americans, and especially those on the left, is that George W. Bush took a surplus and destroyed the economy in only eight short years. The following illustrated story shows just how he pulled off this difficult task.

In 1997 President Clinton's HUD secretary, a man named Andrew Cuomo, claimed Fannie Mae had exhibited "racial discrimination" and proposed that 50 percent of the GSEs' (Fannie and Freddie) mortgage loan portfolio be made up of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers by 2001.

In August of 2008, Wayne Barrett at the Village Voice wrote, "[Clinton appointee] Andrew Cuomo... made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001that gave birth to the country's current crisis. He took actions that... helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration...into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded 'kickbacks' to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans."

At the time, Cuomo said "GSE presence in the subprime market could be of significant benefit to lower-income families, minorities, and families living in underserved areas." As the housing market unravelled thanks to these policies, even The New York Times' Paul Krugman admitted that, "homeownership isn't for everyone," adding that "as many as 10 million of the new buyers are stuck now with negative home equity... So many others have gone through foreclosure that there's been a net loss in home ownership since 1998."

From 2001 to 2008, the Bush administration tried more than 18 times to bring Fannie and Freddie under heel. For example, Richard Banker opened testimony on October 6, 2004 in the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises with an almost unbelievable summary of a report entitled, "Allegations of accounting and Management Failure at Fannie Mae. "[This] is indeed a very troubling report... it is a report of extraordinary importance [to] the taxpayers of this country who would pay the cost of cleanup. ....[the report questions] the validity of previously reported financial results, the adequacy of regulatory capital, the quality of management supervision, and the overall safety and soundness of the Enterprise..."

"We all know that the Enterprise is very thinly capitalized, but the potential effect of requiring a responsible capital level would be to adversely affect earnings per share, and consequently make the payment of bonuses [to Fannie executives] much less likely...

...I also wish to inform members of the Committee of another troubling incident... About a year ago, I corresponded with the Director’s office making inquiry about the levels of executive compensation at the enterprise for the top twenty executives...

...Now I understand why the Enterprise [Fannie Mae] was so anxious not to have public disclosure of compensation of an entity that was created by the Congress, and supported by the taxpayer... As a direct result of abhorrent accounting practices, executives have been able to award themselves bonuses they did not earn and did not deserve."

In 2003, the effort to rein in Fannie began in earnest with a GOP bill ("H.R. 2575—THE SECONDARY MORTGAGE MARKET ENTERPRISES REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT ACT"). The bill would have strengthened an independent regulator that did not have to kowtow to the political establishment. Like most efforts aimed at reformation of Fannie, the committee votes were typically on the straight party line.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): "I think it is clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently secure so they are in no great danger... I don't think we face a crisis; I don't think that we have an impending disaster. ...Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): "I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. [sic] ...These GSEs have more than adequate capital for the business they are in: providing affordable housing. As I mentioned, we should not be making radical or fundamental change... If there is anything to fix or improve, it is the [regulators]."

Rep. David Scott (D-GA): "...affordable housing goals for both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae require that 50 percent of units should be built for low-and moderate-income home buyers, and 20 percent for very low-income families... Yet, from 1998 to 2002, African-American home ownership rates only rose from 45.6 percent to 47.3 percent, less than 2 percent compared with the white average increase from 72 percent to 74.5 percent, huge gap remains. Clearly, the mission of Freddie Mac, and especially Fannie Mae, is to close that gap..."

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY): "...I have to go to another hearing, I will try to be just real quick... I am just ....ed off at [the regulator] because if it wasn't for you I don't think that we would be here in the first place. ...we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you have given them an excuse to try to have this forum [to change the] mission of what the GSEs had, which they have done a tremendous job... There has been nothing that was indicated is wrong, you know, with Fannie Mae... The question that then presents is the competence that your agency has with reference to deciding and regulating these GSEs."

Franklin Raines, former Clinton official and then-Chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae: "...In 1994, we launched our trillion-dollar commitment, a pledge to provide $1 trillion in financing for 10 million underserved families before the decade was over... In 2000... we launched a redoubled new pledge... to provide $2 trillion for 18 million underserved families before this decade is over. ...we are one of the best capitalized financial institutions in the world, when compared to the risk of our business... ...these assets are so riskless that their capital for holding them should be under 2 percent."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): "I don't see any financial crisis."

Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL): "A concern that I have... is you are making very specific... broad and categorical judgment about the management of this institution, about the willfulness of practices that may or may not be in controversy. You have imputed various motives to the people running the organization... That sounds to me as if you have gone from being a dispassionate regulator to someone who is very much involved and has a stake in this controversy... And I will follow up on Ms. Waters's point because I think it is very well taken: Her observation is that the political context surrounding your investigation was that serious doubts were being raised about OFHEO... In fact, frankly, doubts were raised about your leadership of OFHEO. And all of a sudden, the response to that is to produce an enormously critical report."

Late in 2008, even ex-President Clinton admitted that the Democrats were guilty of destroying Fannie and Freddie... and responsible for the current crisis that has brought the entire U.S. economy to the brink of depression: "I think that the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by the Republicans and the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

And who were the top recipients of Fannie Mae's money-dispensing leaf-blower? The top three were Chris Dodd (D-CT), Barack Obama (D-IL) and John Kerry (D-MA).

And where are these Fannie Mae executives -- all former Clinton administration officials -- now? Are they serving time in prison as they likely deserve? No. They're enjoying their riches:

Franklin Raines ($90 million in compensation): Democrat adviser and one-time adviser to Barack Obama
Jamie Gorelick ($26 million): left-wing lawyer and Democrat fundraiser
James Johnson ($21 million): Democrat adviser and one-time adviser to Barack Obama
These Democrats greased each others' palms in a series of scandals, accounting frauds, and skulduggery that would make Bernie Madoff blush. When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed thanks to their actions, AIG and Lehman Brothers soon followed, their portfolios undergirded by investments in the "ultra-safe" GSEs.
 

disneybama

Suspended
Oct 7, 2010
1,738
0
0
There was a lot more involved that Fannie and Freddie. The primary culprit were financial derivatives.

Both parties have led us to this place.
 

Bama323

All-American
Feb 3, 2005
4,626
0
0
There was a lot more involved that Fannie and Freddie. The primary culprit were financial derivatives.

Both parties have led us to this place.
I agree, both parties share in the blame, because even some Republicans ended up voting against the bill that could have possibly reigned in Fannie and Freddie. But, it was mainly democratic policies that caused the problem with the failure of the GSE's, which is really the largest culprit of our economy being in the position it is today.
 

disneybama

Suspended
Oct 7, 2010
1,738
0
0
I agree, both parties share in the blame, because even some Republicans ended up voting against the bill that could have possibly reigned in Fannie and Freddie. But, it was mainly democratic policies that caused the problem with the failure of the GSE's, which is really the largest culprit of our economy being in the position it is today.
Some banks were hurt by the mortgage problem, but ALL banks were hurt by the derivatives problem. How many banks and investment companies went out of business? None of them went out of business because of Fannie/Freddie policy. They either went out of business because they wrote loans and held them, or because of their derivatives holdings that collapsed.

In short, Fannie and Freddie took on the risk of the loans that they are to be blamed for - so their failure didn't hurt the financial institutions. You can't blame Fannie/Freddie policy for the even riskier loans that banks offered - so risky that Fannie/Freddie could not take them.

You need to look deeper. There is a lot more there - and none of it is being addressed.
 

Bama323

All-American
Feb 3, 2005
4,626
0
0
Some banks were hurt by the mortgage problem, but ALL banks were hurt by the derivatives problem. How many banks and investment companies went out of business? None of them went out of business because of Fannie/Freddie policy. They either went out of business because they wrote loans and held them, or because of their derivatives holdings that collapsed.

In short, Fannie and Freddie took on the risk of the loans that they are to be blamed for - so their failure didn't hurt the financial institutions. You can't blame Fannie/Freddie policy for the even riskier loans that banks offered - so risky that Fannie/Freddie could not take them.

You need to look deeper. There is a lot more there - and none of it is being addressed.

Many of those derivatives were backed by sub-prime mortgages that failed. Fannie and Freddie had "quotas" to meet, and an unattainable goal of having their portfolios filled with 50% minority and low income loans. The government, in concert with Fannie and Freddie, put pressure on the banks to make these type of loans. The bank's couldn't and wouldn't have made the loans in the first place unless there was a willing buyer!
 

disneybama

Suspended
Oct 7, 2010
1,738
0
0
...The bank's couldn't and wouldn't have made the loans in the first place unless there was a willing buyer!
Ahhh, but that is my point. If Fannie/Freddie buy the loan, the bank loses nothing, so none of the loans backed up by Fannie/Freddie hurt banks. None. They hurt Fannie/Freddie.

Then there are the rest of the bad loans - so bad that not even Fannie/Freddie would touch them. They were so bad that the banks couldn't keep them on their books. So, how did they create buyers? Financial derivitives.

The banks were not hurt by Fannie/Freddie policy - they were hurt by their greed (among other things).
 

bamacon

Hall of Fame
Apr 11, 2008
17,186
4,366
187
College Football's Mecca, Tuscaloosa
This is really old news. I highlighted the 18 times (during the 2008 election) where the Republicans tried to address this problem during the Bush administration and it was killed EVERYTIME by Democrats. This has nothing to do with derivatives but has everything to do with LIBERALISM and WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION.

One question has to be asked before you just holler DERIVATIVES!!!

Why would a mortgage company give a loan to a customer who the KNEW could NOT pay it back?

When you answer that honestly you will get the genesis behind this crisis.
 

Bama323

All-American
Feb 3, 2005
4,626
0
0
Ahhh, but that is my point. If Fannie/Freddie buy the loan, the bank loses nothing, so none of the loans backed up by Fannie/Freddie hurt banks. None. They hurt Fannie/Freddie.

Then there are the rest of the bad loans - so bad that not even Fannie/Freddie would touch them. They were so bad that the banks couldn't keep them on their books. So, how did they create buyers? Financial derivitives.

The banks were not hurt by Fannie/Freddie policy - they were hurt by their greed (among other things).
Do you even understand how this works? The banks that sell their loans to the secondary market have to make sure that the loan is qualified to be bought on the secondary market. If a bank wishes to sell their loans on the secondary market, they are going to make dang sure that it meets the criteria set forth by the buyer. The taxpayers had to bail out Fannie and Freddie for a reason, and it wasn't because the banks and mortgage companies just took advantage of innocent Fannie and Freddie. It was Fannie and Freddie, along with the government, that wanted these types of loans to increase their profits and to increase home ownership to minorities and low incoming buyers. In fact, most banks don't even deal in derivatives. They just sell the loans on the secondary market, where they are then rolled into mortgage-backed securities. Again, the bank has to meet the mortgage buyer's criteria in order to be able to sell the mortgage. The tail can't wag the dog here.
 
Last edited:

disneybama

Suspended
Oct 7, 2010
1,738
0
0
...Why would a mortgage company give a loan to a customer who the KNEW could NOT pay it back?
Two very good reasons. In order to understand the first, you have to understand banking and the way that banks use debt to "create" money, which they issue as more debt, etc, etc. The more loans they offer, the more money they have to issue more loans. There are a few threads about this.

The second is financial derivatives. If you can gain the advantage of the first item, and you can bundle up the bad loan with good loans and other investment vehicles, then you are not forced to hold that loan that you know will end up in default.

In the end, the banks were gambling that the housing market would stay hot. They KNEW that is there was a large market correction, they would be exposed.

This is very much like what Madoff did. You get people to give you their money and you lie to them about earnings. Everything goes great for 30 years until too many people ask for their money at one time. Then you go to prison.

With the loans, there is no risk until the homes cannot be sold on foreclosure at equal or greater value than the purchase price. The only real difference - derivatives are legal, so the people to blame get to stay rich and don't go to prison.
 

Bama323

All-American
Feb 3, 2005
4,626
0
0
Two very good reasons. In order to understand the first, you have to understand banking and the way that banks use debt to "create" money, which they issue as more debt, etc, etc. The more loans they offer, the more money they have to issue more loans. There are a few threads about this.

The second is financial derivatives. If you can gain the advantage of the first item, and you can bundle up the bad loan with good loans and other investment vehicles, then you are not forced to hold that loan that you know will end up in default.

In the end, the banks were gambling that the housing market would stay hot. They KNEW that is there was a large market correction, they would be exposed.

This is very much like what Madoff did. You get people to give you their money and you lie to them about earnings. Everything goes great for 30 years until too many people ask for their money at one time. Then you go to prison.

With the loans, there is no risk until the homes cannot be sold on foreclosure at equal or greater value than the purchase price. The only real difference - derivatives are legal, so the people to blame get to stay rich and don't go to prison.
Who bought the mortgages from the banks and mortgage companies?
 

disneybama

Suspended
Oct 7, 2010
1,738
0
0
Do you even understand how this works?...
Yes, I do. You just can't accept that your attempt to blame the Democrats for "destroying the US economy" lacks depth.

Fannie and Freddie played a role, but they were not the primary culprit, nor can this be laid at the feet of Democrats.
 

Bama323

All-American
Feb 3, 2005
4,626
0
0
Yes, I do. You just can't accept that your attempt to blame the Democrats for "destroying the US economy" lacks depth.

Fannie and Freddie played a role, but they were not the primary culprit, nor can this be laid at the feet of Democrats.
Again, who bought the mortgages from the banks and mortgage companies?
 

disneybama

Suspended
Oct 7, 2010
1,738
0
0
Who bought the mortgages from the banks and mortgage companies?
Which ones? Is it your contention that Fannie/Freddie bought them all? Fannie/Freddie only bought the "best" of them. (Yeah, some of the best were a joke - I am well aware).

I'll turn that question on you - who bought the rest? Who bought the ones that stayed on the books of financial companies and led to their collapse?
 

disneybama

Suspended
Oct 7, 2010
1,738
0
0
I think a lot of it also had to do with the fact that investors felt that if F &F were truly threatened the govt. would bail them out. They were right.
So they did this because they thought the government would bail them out - not to make a profit?
 

disneybama

Suspended
Oct 7, 2010
1,738
0
0
If you think Fannie and Freddie only bought "good" mortgages, then I'm not sure how any explanation of mine is going to help.
You lose this argument if you do not answer the question, because the debate is not whether or not Fannie/Freddie had to be bailed out. The problem that stopped liquidity in the marketplace was the failure of financial institutions, Fannie/Freddie never failed. They continued to buy mortgages through the entire "event".

So, we are not talking about Fannie/Freddie. You are just not looking at this deeply enough. You stopped when it was convenient.
 

Latest threads