Republican Tax Cuts For The Rich And The Debt Crisis

[To @AARguy--LM] I don't think someone living with their parents, working and/or attending school, is "failing to launch."

 

Looks to me that Trump and Biden had no intention of keeping our promises to Afghans.

 

We must have different standards.

 

We KNOW that Biden had no INTENTION of keeping our promises to the Afghans... because he DIDN"T keep our promises to the Afghans. But what the hell leads you to believe Trump would do the same besides your out of control emotions and hostility for Trump? Trump had been OUT OF OFFICE FOR OVER SEVEN MONTHS. He was long gone... and did NOTHING ... NOTHING to indicate he planned to let down the Afghanis like Biden ACTUALLY DID.

 

Classic cya well after the fact...

 

What exactly do you want to say? That Biden literally waited 6 months as tanks amassed on the border without doing anything.

 

Note they are both NGOs over which Bush had zero control. And the Democrats in the Senate refused to enable such control ergo blaming Bush for that is like blaming dogs for fleas.

 

Can't help it if all the right ever has is propoganda!

 

Weird

F/F WERE PART OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight was an agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development of the United States of America

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) replaced the office following the passage of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/ofheo.asp


In 2005, we and every Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee voted with Republican Chairman Mike Oxley and all but five Republicans to create a regulator that would oversee the mortgage giants of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – government-sponsored entities, or GSEs.


Democrats knew then, as now, that GSEs need greater oversight. We were proud to vote with Republican colleagues for reform.

...Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 to 2006. They had every opportunity to pass essential GSE reform. But they failed to act.


That 2005 vote was their only vote on it. But the Bush administration opposed the bill and the Senate never acted. Bachus, unfortunately, overlooks his own party’s record of rhetoric without reform.
https://www.politico.com/story/2010/05/stop-the-bailouts-smokescreen-036694



The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.



Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration. Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.



REPU OXLEY ON DUBYA “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

https://www.ft.com/content/8780c35e-7e91-11dd-b1af-000077b07658

 

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble

...Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Bush chose to oversee them - an old school buddy - pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.

S...o Bush had to, in his words, "use the mighty muscle of the federal government" to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

https://archive.ph/8IMpU

Much also has been made about a 2003 comment by Rep. Frank that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't in that much trouble. But a glance at a Bloomberg News piece written on June 17, 2004, puts that quote in context.

The article quotes Rep. Frank opposing a push by President Bush to get Fannie and Freddie to devote 57 percent of their mortgage financing to lower-income buyers.

Rep. Frank, who thought some of the buyers were better off in rental housing, is quoted as saying the president wanted to set up for failure Fannie and Freddie — quasi-government lenders that the Republicans opposed philosophically.

The White House "could do some harm if you don't refine the goals" is his remark from the article titled "Fannie, Freddie to suffer under new rule."

...But again, unlike the Democrats, the Republicans were refusing to ban the predatory lenders that eventually enabled both Fannie and Freddie and the Wall Street houses to buy up the bad loans.

https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/news/2008/10/29/the-real-story-behind-credit/52214643007/

 

U.S. policymakers often treat market competition as a panacea. However, in the case of mortgage securitization, policymakers’ faith in competition is misplaced. Competitive mortgage securitization has been tried three times in U.S. history - during the 1880s, the 1920s, and the 2000s - and every time it has failed. Most recently, competition between mortgage securitizers led to a race to the bottom on mortgage underwriting standards that ended in the late 2000s financial crisis. This article provides original evidence that when competition was less intense and securitizers had more market power, securitizers acted to monitor mortgage originators and to maintain prudent underwriting. However, securitizers’ ability to monitor originators and maintain high standards was undermined as competition shifted market power away from securitizers and toward originators. Although standards declined across the market, the largest and most powerful of the mortgage securitizers, the Government Sponsored Enterprises (“GSEs”), remained more successful than other mortgage securitizers at maintaining prudent underwriting.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1924831

''until 2005, the homeownership goals for GSEs — 50% of mortgage purchases were to be made up of low- or moderate-income families — were so unchallenging as to be satisfied by the "normal course of business", although in 2005 the goal was raised and reached 55% in 2007''

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/historical/fct/fcic/fcic_reportdraft_20101223.pdf

 

He was a LONG standing member of Congress LONG before then and THE Fannie/Freddie expert and protector. Perhaps you forget there was a personal matter involved too.

 

if the young person is working and/or attending school and living with their parents, they're 'failing to launch?"

 

No you don't got it it was a fantastic economy and favorable tax structure.

Hint Frank had the MOST power when it came to Freddie and Fannie and was who both sides of the aisle turned to as the expert on the matter.

The subprime loans were forced onto the lenders to meet their low income quota's. Do you know how the mortgage industry even works? Mortgages are sold to investors in bundles, no one would buy the risky loans on their own so they had to be bundled with good loans. When the balances got out of hand and some started to collapse the derivatives fell accordingly. Bush's TARP stopped it and gave the banks and lenders a chance to shore up and they did and paid it all back with interest. It did not contribute to the debt which is what was your claim. All Obama and the Dems had to do was get the economy our of recession, a broad based one, and into a recovery and they totally failed driving up the deficits and debt to new heights. THAT is what this is about.

 

WEIRD, I THOUGHT SIMPLE MAJORITY RULED IN THE HOUSE?

If he was so powerdul, why didn't he get hisway with reforms he wanted in F/F?

...Even if Frank wanted to help out Fannie and Freddie, he wasn’t in a position to lead these efforts until 2007. (In 2005, when Frank helped sponsor a bipartisan House bill to create an independent regulator for Fannie and Freddie, it died in the Senate.)

''Frank returned to several times, is he and the Democrats did not have the power to call the shots since they were in the minority during most of the Clinton and Bush years. "Tom Delay was running the House of Representatives. So I take responsibility for what I do but I don't take responsibility for Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay’s policies," he protests. Making a broader point, he says, "if I really had the power to stop the Republicans from doing anything you know what I would have done first? I would have stopped the war in Iraq. I would have stopped the impeachment of Bill Clinton. I would have stopped tax breaks for people making millions of dollars a year."

Continuing along that line, when it comes to the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Frank not only denies it, he shifts the blame to the Bush administration. When it came to a Republican bill to reform Fannie and Freddie, President Bush gave his own party "the one finger salute," he colorfully says.

Second, Democrats not only did not cause the crisis, they were aginst subprime lending all together: "The Bush administration made a big mistake; they were the ones that pushed home ownership for very poor people. Liberals wanted rental housing, we thought that was more appropriate," he claims.

https://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-barney-frank-i-didnt-cause-the-housing-bubble-2009-7

 

And when the banks had to roll all those subprime loans in with the good loans and the government interference blew up the market....................

 

Do you even know that the minority party in the House has almost no power?

 

I meant exactly what I said

Conflating local, state and federal taxation is folly. Why do you do so? Are you an American citizen having studied US Civics?

Which it is not but if you believe your state and county and city taxes the lower incomes then cut YOUR taxes on them and tax everything from the higher earners I could care less what your state county and city does but I would heed you look at the states that have tried it.

 

ONCE MORE, BARNEY FRANK WAS MINORITY MEMBER OF THE GOP CONTROLLED HOUSE 1995-JAN 2007, HE COULD RUN AROUNF NEKKID AND ON FIRE AND NOT STOP A SINGLE GOP BILL IN THE HOUSE! Power? lol

Gov't backed loans performed 450%-600% better than private markets, which was WALL STREET DRIVEN

 

LMAOROG, YES ALL THOSE NINJAS, ADJUSTABLE RATES, ETC WERE 'FORCED' ON BANKSTERS WHICH IS WHY THE PAID OVER $150 BILLION IN FINES TO THE US GOV'T, LOL

 

Uh oh. Someone else figured out you don't understand what happened with the Bush housing mess.

 

LMAOROG, SURE IF YOU MEANT NO REGULATORS ON THE BEAT

...Most recently, competition between mortgage securitizers led to a race to the bottom on mortgage underwriting standards that ended in the late 2000s financial crisis. This article provides original evidence that when competition was less intense and securitizers had more market power, securitizers acted to monitor mortgage originators and to maintain prudent underwriting. However, securitizers’ ability to monitor originators and maintain high standards was undermined as competition shifted market power away from securitizers and toward originators. Although standards declined across the market, the largest and most powerful of the mortgage securitizers, the Government Sponsored Enterprises (“GSEs”), remained more successful than other mortgage securitizers at maintaining prudent underwriting.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1924831


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.


Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom. Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.

•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006


https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...sis-stack-up/2011/11/16/gIQA7G23cN_story.html

 

T**** had once said he'd leave there in December but was talked out of that as unworkable.ie he was prepared to give people even less time to evacuate. Biden at least had the decency to state in April that the US would leave August 15th. I have zero sympathy for anyone claiming they were in need of emergency evacuation after four months warning, they were warned and given a specific date. Darwin would have been better served if the planes on the 15th took only the final essential embassy personnel and the last of the military only. There was nothing precipitous in any of this.

 

You do realize they're run by crooks?

"Leaked documents appear to reveal the lavish spending of the National Rifle Association's chief executive Wayne LaPierre, who received luxury clothing and travel expenses paid for by the lobby group's longtime advertising firm Ackerman McQueen.

A memo from the firm claims it spent $542,000 (£415,000) of the NRA's money, which largely comes from contributions and membership fees, on expenses for Mr LaPierre over a 13-year period."
​

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...e-lapierre-suit-travel-expenses-a8910771.html