Economic Crisis. Who is at fault? Read the Truth.

REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR MORE REGULATION, DEMOCRATS DENIED THERE WAS A PROBLEM…..SENATOR OBAMA NEVER SAID A WORD. HOWEVER, JOHN MCCAIN DID!


PREFACE: please note, I understand that this is a complex issue. There is plenty of blame to go around in both parties, across wall street, and main street. But as we examine the primary political players who are involved-the Democrats, more than the Republicans, were on the wrong side of the issue.

BELOW IS A SUMMATION OF THE TIME LINE OUTLINED IN THE ABOVE VIDEO

-April 2001 the Bush Administration warned of red flags regarding Fannie And Freddie (beginning of video)

-2002 Budget request warned that the size of Fannie and Freddie is a “potential problem” (0:28)

-2003 the white house warning was upgraded to a systemic risk that could extend beyond the housing market (0:40)

- Fall 2003 the Bush administration pushed congress hard for an agency that would regulate and supervise Fannie and Freddie (0:49)

- Then ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, pushed back, stating-“we are not in a crisis”.. and…“the federal government should be doing more to get low income families into houses”…and…“too many people had a sky is falling mentality”(1:15)

-In 2005, Alan Greenspan stated: “Enabling these institutions to increase in size-and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes-we are placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk” (2:08)

-As a counter to Greenspan, NY Senator Charles Schumer stated: “I think Fannie and Freddie over the years have done a incredibly good job and are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world…if you look over the last 20 or whatever years, they’ve done a very, very, good job”(2:38)

-IN 2006 SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN CO-SPONSORED LEGISLATION FOR MORE REGULATION, ON THE FLOOR OF THE US SENATE, HE STATED: “FOR YEARS I HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT THE REGULATORY STRUCTURE THAT GOVERNS FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC…AND THE SHEER MAGNITUDE OF THESE COMPANIES AND THE ROLE THEY PLAY IN THE HOUSING MARKET….THE GSE’S NEED TO BE REFORMED WITHOUT DELAY”(3:10)

-McCain’s bill made it out of the Senate banking committee with a party-line vote, all democrats voting against it.

-SENATOR OBAMA NEVER WEIGHED IN ON THE BILL

——————————————————————————————————-

So…as you listen to Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer bloviate…keep in mind…they, along with many others on the left, are the ones who wanted less regulation….

John McCain Was right on this issue all along…….

Senator Obama didn’t even know there was an issue……

In fact, I still don’t think he knows there is an issue, as he continues to bask in the Florida sunshine, pretend he’s president, and learn how to not stutter during debates…..

This entry was posted on September 25, 2008 at 3:23 pm and is filed under obama with tags chicago against obama, mccain fanny mae freddie mac, mccain financial crisis, obama fanny mae freddie mac, obama financial crisis, obama mccain debates. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

14 Responses to “FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC: REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR MORE REGULATION, DEMOCRATS DENIED THERE WAS A PROBLEM…..SENATOR OBAMA NEVER SAID A WORD”
George Says:

September 25, 2008 at 5:22 pm
The Honorable Sen. Barrack Obama and Fannie Mae CEO at The Black Caucusus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0

Republicans Get It Right. SoetorObama Says Nothing. « HillBuzz Says:

September 25, 2008 at 6:43 pm
[...] FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC: REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR MORE REGULATION, DEMOCRATS DENIED THERE WAS A PROB… [...]

McCain Had it Right in ‘06, Obama Still Clueless « Heroes for Hillary Says:

September 25, 2008 at 7:03 pm
[...] Via Chicagoans Against Obama with a h/t to [...]

FembotsForObama Says:

September 25, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Unfortunately, Dems denied there was a problem because they were too much into the pockets of Fannie and Freddie (especially Obama who in 4 years of being a US Senator was the #2 donor recipient).

One of the things that bugs me about Obama is why not jump to DC to gain control of this issue? Because after all, he is trying to now focus his campaign on the economy, playing moderate with middle class tax cuts emphasis. So why not look the hero to the American public by giving more public attention to this “crisis” with his presence?

Because then he would have also called attention to his campaign finance manager, Penny Pritzker, her role in the failed Superior Bank, her role as a predatory lender who owes 1/2 billion dollars to the US taxpayers, as well as the fact that her family was instrumental in getting subprime lending as a form of securities.

Guess that wouldn’t look too good to the American public? I know it didn’t look good to me.

George Says:

September 26, 2008 at 12:17 pm
After This I will Lighten up on Bill Clinton, after all Bill Clinton passed the contract for America and went against the Dem congress on it . I agree that he did try to do what was right and best for America, however…….
…………………………………..!

Atleast he is sorta sabotaging Obama which is good in my opinion and best for American ; NObama!

Minorities’ Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites’
By Ronald Brownstein
May 31, 1999 in print edition A-5

It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites.

These numbers are dramatic enough to deserve more detail. When President Clinton took office in 1993, 42% of African Americans and 39% of Latinos owned their own home. By this spring, those figures had jumped to 46.9% of blacks and 46.2% of Latinos.

That’s a lot of new picket fences. Since 1994, when the numbers really took off, the number of black and Latino homeowners has increased by 2 million. In all, the minority homeownership rate is on track to increase more in the 1990s than in any decade this century except the 1940s, when minorities joined in the wartime surge out of the Depression.

This trend is good news on many fronts. Homeownership stabilizes neighborhoods and even families. Housing scholar William C. Apgar, now an assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development, says that research shows homeowners are more likely than renters to participate in their community. The children of homeowners even tend to perform better in school. Most significantly, increased homeownership allows minority families, who have accumulated far less wealth than whites, to amass assets and transmit them to future generations.

What explains the surge? The answer starts with the economy. Historically low rates of minority unemployment have created a larger pool of qualified buyers. And the lowest interest rates in years have made homes more affordable for white and minority buyers alike.

But the economy isn’t the whole story. As HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo says: “There have been points in the past when the economy has done well but minority homeownership has not increased proportionally.” Case in point: Despite generally good times in the 1980s, homeownership among blacks and Latinos actually declined slightly, while rising slightly among whites.

All of this suggests that Clinton’s efforts to increase minority access to loans and capital also have spurred this decade’s gains. Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat “redlining” by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.

Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more.

In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains. It has aimed extensive advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these markets. Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments–or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer’s income. That’s made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected.

But for all that progress, the black and Latino homeownership rates, at about 46%, still significantly trail the white rate, which is nearing 73%. Much of that difference represents structural social disparities–in education levels, wealth and the percentage of single-parent families–that will only change slowly. Still, Apgar says, HUD’s analysis suggests there are enough qualified buyers to move the minority homeownership rate into the mid-50% range.

The market itself will probably produce some of that progress. For many builders and lenders, serving minority buyers is now less a social obligation than a business opportunity. Because blacks and Latinos, as groups, are younger than whites, many experts believe they will continue to lead the housing market for years.

But with discrimination in the banking system not yet eradicated, maintaining the momentum of the 1990s will also require a continuing nudge from Washington. One key is to defend the Community Reinvestment Act, which the Senate shortsightedly voted to retrench recently. Clinton has threatened a veto if the House concurs.

The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer. Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers. HUD says Fannie Mae is resisting more low-income loans because they are less profitable.

Barry Zigas, who heads Fannie Mae’s low-income efforts, is undoubtedly correct when he argues, “There is obviously a limit beyond which [we] can’t push [the banks] to produce.” But with the housing market still sizzling, minority unemployment down and Fannie Mae enjoying record profits (over $3.4 billion last year), it doesn’t appear that the limit has been reached.

All signs point toward a high-velocity collision this summer between two strong-willed protagonists: HUD’s Cuomo and Fannie Mae CEO Franklin D. Raines, the first African American to hold the post. Better they reach a reasonable agreement that provides more fuel for the extraordinary boom transforming millions of minority families from renters into owners.

George Says:

September 26, 2008 at 1:59 pm
The Trojan Canadate from NoQuater

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/23/the-trojan-candidate/

All you need to know

ChicagoBlood Says:

September 27, 2008 at 6:42 am
This is so surreal, Barney Frank is upset about McCain taking time out from his campaign to do the job he was elected to do?
INJECTING POLITICS?
Preventing this economic catastrophe was the job that Mr. Frank himself was elected to do and failed miserably at in light of the Fannie/Freddie fiasco. Is he upset that McCain is coming to town to help clean up the train wreck he (Mr. Frank and others) allowed to happen?

I can see why.

McCain and Bush’s efforts years earlier in trying to head off this catastrophe and McCains’ presence in DC UNDERSCORES THE INCOMPETENCE AND OR CORRUPTION OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MESS.

The whole furor about McCain leaving the debate to attend to the problem at hand is laughable. It’s like finding out the debate hall is on fire and filled with smoke.
What are you going to do?
Tough, question; Do we debate or do we locate and put out the damn fire (or try to at this point)?
Well, it would seem to make sense to suspend the debate to put out the fire.
But that’s being rational. This clearly does not apply to a great many persons involved in this spectacle. Reason and common sense is absent as evidenced by the train-wreck that the New York Times has ironically and inadvertantly indicted Barney Frank and Democrat cohorts responsibility for ALLOWING.

Barney Frank and the rest of the numbskulls responsible for allowing this mess need to be shown the door.

yallmakemelaugh Says:

October 1, 2008 at 2:10 am
Obama never said a word.


ChicagoBlood Says:

October 1, 2008 at 8:21 pm
yallmakemelaugh,

Obama never said a word, he just hired on Franklin Raines as his economic advisor.

You do know who Franklin Raines is don’t you?

ChicagoBlood Says:

October 3, 2008 at 12:16 am
I think we’re getting to the root of the problem here. But don’t take my word for it, read this September 30, 1999 edition of THE NEW YORK TIMES.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

ChicagoBlood Says:

October 3, 2008 at 12:20 am
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

I think we’re getting to the root of the problem here but don’t take my word for it, read this 09-30-1999 edition of the NEW YORK TIMES.

Craig Says:

October 3, 2008 at 12:31 am
I’m confused. If all this regulation was requested by the Republican party before the year 2006 how come it never passed a House and Senate dominated by the Republicans?

Ray Says:

October 3, 2008 at 12:35 am
craig,

did you read the preface?

there is plenty of blame to go around (in both parties, wall street, and main street). make an honest assessment, not a partisan one.

ChicagoBlood Says:

October 3, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I watched O’Reilly annihilate Barney Frank last night and I am just stupified.

What sort of fantasy world is Barney Frank in that he cannot concede and take responsibility for his own statements that were played back to him complete and unedited? And to attack O’Reilly for being “boorish” and “ranting” after his own performance on the House floor a few days ago?

This man is having difficulty acknowledging his own culpibility in allowing the Fannie-Freddie train-wreck to happen.

There appears to be much credence to the ages old observation that if someone makes a practice out of lying, they soon begin to believe their own fabrications to the point where they don’t recognize the truth anymore when confronted with it.