The Truth About the Financial Meltdown and Obama's "Grassroots" Role In It
Blood Of Housing Massacre On Obama's Hands
Posted 05/15/2012 06:57 PM ET
Subprime Scandal: Analysts now say the housing market is
so weak it may not rebound in our lifetimes. Yet the White House is
pursuing the same policies that put it on its back.
Worse, many of the officials it has put in charge of reviving the
housing market are the same ones who crafted the fatal policies before
the crisis. First, consider the latest data supporting a lost generation
in housing:
• The average homeowner today has 7% equity in his home vs. 45% in 1990.
• Home prices in 20 major markets plunged 3.5% from a year earlier; adjusted for inflation, they're back to 1998 levels.
• The U.S. homeownership rate fell to a 16-year low of 65.4% in the first quarter.
• Homeownership for blacks, now at 43.1%, is the worst since 1995,
when the government first launched its reckless housing policies in a
national campaign to boost minority homeownership.
It was then, roughly a decade before the mortgage meltdown, that the
Clinton administration declared traditional underwriting standards
racist.
And it forced lenders to comply with new minority-friendly rules by
threatening to charge them with lending discrimination. Or deny their
expansion plans.
At
the same time, federal regulators pressured government-sponsored Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, which control the secondary market for home loans,
to lower down payment and other requirements to meet the government's
increasing loan quotas for low-income minorities. By the eve of the
crisis, these easier credit standards had been adopted industrywide.
When HUD in 1996 required Fannie and Freddie — which set qualifying
rules for the entire mortgage industry — to meet new lending quotas for
credit-poor borrowers, they reduced down payments to 3%.
By 2000 — when HUD lifted those quotas to 50% of their business —
Fannie and Freddie bought loans from banks with no down payments at all.
Shaun Donovan and Bill Apgar implemented these pre-crisis policies at
the Department of Housing and Urban Development. They now run HUD for
Obama, still pressuring Fannie and Freddie to ease credit for low-income
minorities. Housing chief Donovan, moreover, has referred a raft of
bank discrimination cases to Attorney General Eric Holder for
prosecution.
As a top official in the Clinton Justice Department, Holder led what
became a witch hunt against racist lenders. Today he's turned the job
over to another Clinton retread, Tom Perez, who as the new head of the
department's civil rights division has cracked down on no fewer than 60
banks for alleged lending bias.
Perez has ordered bank defendants to set aside "special financing
programs" for minorities with weak credit and donate millions to Acorn
clones that shake down banks for such risky mortgages.[How can the federal government do that in a supposedly "free" society?]
Copying the policies of the Clinton administration, the Obama Justice
Department also has ordered defendants to open new branches in
unprofitable areas devastated by the recession.
Scores of risky mortgages are already being inked, restarting another cycle of risky financing.
Many of the 1990s' discrimination cases were referred to HUD and
Holder by Acorn officials, who worked closely with the White House on
crafting banking and housing policies. Holder at the time also solicited
private civil-rights lawyers for "fair lending" cases.
One lawyer who heeded the call was Obama, who at the time was
agitating for looser credit standards as a Chicago civil-rights lawyer.
In 1995, he sued Citibank and other lenders on behalf of Acorn
deadbeats.[You might say that Obama was at the "grassroots" of the financial scandal he now blames on George W. Bush!]
Now he and the repeat offenders he's hired from the Clinton gang are
rebooting the same risky home-loan programs for low-income minorities.
These programs fed the subprime mortgage bubble and triggered record
defaults and foreclosures that devastated urban neighborhoods. They've
turned the American Dream into a nightmare for millions of minorities.
They've hurt more than helped the people Obama claims to care about
most.
So why is he doubling down on them?
















A guy below, a lefty, claims that the Dems had nothing to do with it. I've read left-wing blogs that claim the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) was in effect since Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s and couldn't have caused it. That is true, but the regulations under the CRA were rewritten during the Clinton administration to force every federally insured (FDIC) bank/lender to make the "suprime loans" and Obama was right there ready to sue them for "discrimination" if they didn't.
"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
That statement betrays a basic ignorance on the part of both Obama's about how our economic system works. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't get filthy rich by stealing from anyone - they created wealth both for themselves and tens-of-thousands of others, and that is the reason most of the wealthy are wealthy. Mitt Romney is worth around $200 million, but he created over $60 billion in wealth from an investment of $36 million, along with thousands of jobs at companies like Staples, Burger King, Dominoes, Dunkin Donuts, Burlington Coat Factory, and many others which his company, Bain Capital, saved.
Loans were made too readily available to minorities and since he is a minority it is all his fault? Wtf?
Sad thing is I even agree with the basics of everything you say. I am from conservative Alabama, worked for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, and I am against the lending practices that led us to this point. I am against bad loans being given to ppl because we feel sorry for them and think everyone deserves a house.... But the way you worded your post it seemed you were incapable of intelligently discussing the issue so I decided to come down to your level.
You are blinded by hate for a specific political side and fail to realize the same things could be said about all politicians. Hell it could just about be said for all pre- 2007 Americans. The problem is the system that allows clinton's, bush's, and Obama's not the specific individuals. Blaming the faults of our government on individuals is the reasons these issues are never dealt with.
For his part, Bush actually warned of the problem almost as soon as he took office and proposed to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, prompting a letter signed by 76 democrats in the House of Representatives chastising him for "emphasizing only safety and soundness," claiming that "an exclusive focus on safety and soundness is likely to come, in practice, at the expense of affordable housing."
"We urge you to reconsider your administration's criticisms of the housing-related government sponsored enterprises (the 'GSEs') and instead work with Congress to strengthen the mission and oversight of the GSEs," states the missive of nearly a page...
For his part, Bush actually warned of the problem almost as soon as he took office and proposed to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, prompting a letter signed by 76 democrats in the House of Representatives chastising him for "emphasizing only safety and soundness," claiming that "an exclusive focus on safety and soundness is likely to come, in practice, at the expense of affordable housing."
"We urge you to reconsider your administration's criticisms of the housing-related government sponsored enterprises (the 'GSEs') and instead work with Congress to strengthen the mission and oversight of the GSEs," states the missive of nearly a page and a half, signed by a rogues' gallery of 76 House Democrats.
They include not only Frank, but Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., now being probed for reportedly laundering TARP money in her husband's bank; and erstwhile House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who was charged with more than a dozen counts of violating House rules and federal laws. You can google and find the entire letter in PDF format online!
http://news.investors.com/art...
I suggest you read "Reckless Endangerment" by Gretchen Morgenson and educate yourself. Ms. Morgenson is a financial editor/writer at the New York Times so you can't claim she's part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
The engineered "crash" forced our government to print this money and it wasn't ACORN who walked away with trillions.
It was like you taking out an insurance policy on your neighbor's house, and then burning it down.
The thing that is really scary is that they are at it again, pushing "home ownership" as the "be-all and end-all" of our economy. I was a renter until I was in my mid-30s when I finally was able to buy a "fixer-upper" and get into the housing market, and I'm now a renter again.
I think that my loan was possibly "bundled" and sold, separately.
http://www.nedap.org/programs...
You're talking about the CRA. Yet the CRA covered only a tiny fraction of lenders; of the top ten subprime lenders, none were covered by the CRA. And CRA loans outperformed non-CRA loans.
Lending institutions were making dumb loans for one simple reason: they were making record profits from them. Your argument is an utter failure.
http://www.traigerlaw.com/pub...
http://www.frbsf.org/news/spe...
etc
The mortgage bubble saw a giant plunge in F&F market share.
And Barney wasn't the only one - none of the Dems wanted Fannie and Freddie regulated for "safety and soundness" in 2003, they wanted more "subsidized housing," which is exactly how they viewed the no money down, lax standards loans. This isn't something that can be weaseled out of - it was largely a Democratic program that caused the whole financial meltdown.