Quantcast

The Truth About the Financial Meltdown and Obama's "Grassroots" Role In It

Ken 2012/05/19 20:56:42
IBD Editorials
















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?

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • SharonJohnson 2012/05/20 03:33:26
  • Ken SharonJ... 2012/05/20 23:17:38
  • Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/05/19 22:30:47
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +2
    Because this is the way he wanted it!
  • Wolf 2012/05/19 22:14:30
    Wolf
    +2
    Actually the architect of the housing bubble was Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich with the house for everyone and the irresponsible lending through the government sponsored surrogate Fannie and Freddie and lots of help from the irresponsible Fed floating extra dollars and keeping the interest rates too low for too long to cheapen government borrowing and reducing the wealth of the citizens...the latest scam which is still going on today with outrageous refinancing and capital write downs shows the extend the criminals in this public sector go to obtain votes...fraud and corruption like this should be punished with hanging and all the politicians should be in line for this punishment...this is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the taxpayers...hang em high..
  • Ken Wolf 2012/05/19 23:25:10
    Ken
    +1
    All true, Fannie Mae and Bill Clinton originated the "suprimes" that led to the "derivatives" that eventually led to the downfall of our financial system. However, Obama was involved at the "grass roots" suing big banks on behalf of his client, Acorn, for discrimination. Only in America could the "due diligence" of a lender be termed "discrimination." It if's the banks' money (and their depositors), shouldn't they have the right to determine the standards under which they will loan it? Amazing - and Obama is still at it and the media is silent!
  • teigan Ken 2012/05/20 00:01:22 (edited)
    teigan
    +1
    He was part of Saul Alinsky's grassroots movement. Archetechs of ruin
  • Ken teigan 2012/05/20 00:06:23
    Ken
    +1
    You've got that right.

    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.
  • teigan Ken 2012/05/20 00:17:55
    teigan
    +1
    That's right, it's all in the book. Saul Alinsky used to do a run on banks in order to force them to give loans to those that would never pay it back. Hell they were forced to count food stamps as income. Then the government itself got involved, banks were even given quotas. This didn't happen overnight by any means.
  • Ken teigan 2012/05/20 23:19:43
    Ken
    +1
    After HUD rewrote the regulations under the CRA, setting quotas for loans to "low and middle income" applicants, "NINJA" loans became the rule rather than the exception. NINJA = No Income, No Job or Assets
  • teigan Ken 2012/05/21 00:06:41
    teigan
    +1
    Even food stamps were counted as income. Because everyone deserved a house. This socialist move broke the bank and tanked our economy. Proving that NO, you can't have something for nothing because you eventually run out of money.
  • Ken teigan 2012/05/21 00:11:50
    Ken
    +1
    And good old Barnie Frank infamously stated, when Bush attempted to stop the practice, " I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . ." That was in September of 2003 - imagine if Bush had been able to stop the abuses at that point!
  • teigan Ken 2012/05/21 00:59:17
    teigan
    +1
    That was only one of many times Frank the fairy insisted that there was no problem. Liberals deny it even as they watch Franks denial of any problems. If he could have stopped it the damage would have been less, but at that point the damage was already done. They had been gaming the system and setting the stage for our melt down for far too many years.
  • Kane Fernau 2012/05/19 21:58:49
    Kane Fernau
    +2
    He knows what he's doing. Bankrupt the country destroy the dollar declare Martial Law and himself dictator forever.
  • Ken Kane Fe... 2012/05/19 23:33:29
    Ken
    +1
    He actually wants to "cut America down to size" as he doesn't like the fact that the U.S. has been so successful and the socialist countries haven't. He is an anti-colonialist who believes the U.S. got wealthy by stealing from third-world countries. He has the same view of our own economy, as a single big "pie" that the wealthy are taking too big a share of. Michelle expressed their beliefs best when she said during the 2008 campaign:

    "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.
  • Kane Fe... Ken 2012/05/20 01:47:21
    Kane Fernau
    +1
    Barry never grew up as an American. Hawaii is not like any other state. Howlies are a minority in Hawaii. Let alone Indonesia.
  • Ken Kane Fe... 2012/05/20 23:22:30
    Ken
    +1
    That is something that people fail to recognize. While Obama is all about race in his "Dreams From My Father", acting as though he had problems because of his race, a mixed-race youth in Hawaii would have been right at home, while a white person, or "haole" would be the one more likely to be subjected to discrimination.
  • Freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2012/05/19 21:50:13 (edited)
    Freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    +1
    So the housing problem was his fault because he is black??? That is the only reasoning I see in your argument.



    Loans were made too readily available to minorities and since he is a minority it is all his fault? Wtf?

    kkk
  • Ken Freedom... 2012/05/19 23:36:40
    Ken
    Odd Mr. Hyatt that you see fit to play the race card when the post does not say it was Obama's fault, either because he's black or otherwise. It merely points out that Obama, who now routinely blames Bush for the mess he "inherited", was a willing participant in the actions that led to that mess. By being so shallow as to play the race card you have demonstrated your ignorance and inability to civilly discuss an issue.
  • Freedom... Ken 2012/05/20 00:02:52
    Freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    +1
    Blood Of Housing Massacre On Obama's Hands was the name of the post!!!

    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.
  • Ken Freedom... 2012/05/20 23:32:20 (edited)
    Ken
    As I pointed out, I didn't "word the post", it's an oped from Investor's Business Daily. And I'm not blinded by anything, the fact is that there are individuals, like Barnie Frank, among many others, who were involved in making the decisions that ended up screwing Americans and who denied all culpability. The blog may have been entitled "blood" of housing crisis on Obama's hands, but the body of the story tells what his involvement actually was - using the Clinton policy change to sue banks into submission - truly an act of government authorized extortion. Obama also escaped all blame and continues to "blame Bush" for the mess he inherited.

    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...




    As I pointed out, I didn't "word the post", it's an oped from Investor's Business Daily. And I'm not blinded by anything, the fact is that there are individuals, like Barnie Frank, among many others, who were involved in making the decisions that ended up screwing Americans and who denied all culpability. The blog may have been entitled "blood" of housing crisis on Obama's hands, but the body of the story tells what his involvement actually was - using the Clinton policy change to sue banks into submission - truly an act of government authorized extortion. Obama also escaped all blame and continues to "blame Bush" for the mess he inherited.

    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...
    (more)
  • teigan Freedom... 2012/05/20 00:13:07
    teigan
    +1
    Boy, I read it twice and still couldn't find any reference to Obama being black. Are you a racist? Why else would anyone see the color of skin everywhere?
  • Freedom... teigan 2012/05/20 17:46:44
    Freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    my point was the only link between obama and the bad lending practices that got us here were that the bad lending practices you speak of deal with lending to ppl that look like him...
  • teigan Freedom... 2012/05/20 18:27:22
    teigan
    +1
    Your point was to shut down discussion by playing a race card. The fact is you can go back and see where this all began. Obama was part of a group that worked for force banks through threats and lawsuits to give loans to people that could never afford to pay back their loans. And the group was not all black, Saul Alinsky was not black. All of the poor people that got loans through these actions were not all black. You seem to beleive that the ONLY poor people are black.
  • Ken Freedom... 2012/05/20 23:37:50 (edited)
    Ken
    Not really - there were many, many whites and hispanics who took advantage of the NINJA loans and ended up "under water" in their mortgages. To attempt to create the impression that it is racist to point out Obama's involvement is ludicrous.
  • Matt 2012/05/19 21:33:08 (edited)
    Matt
    These rules only apply to domestic banks, not to the multinational bankers that own both of our political parties, and are now swallowing the domestic banks up with their "bailout" money. small banks swallowed
  • Ken Matt 2012/05/19 23:44:38
    Ken
    +1
    It was one of the international banks, Citibank, which Obama sued on behalf of Acorn. The fact is that James Johnson, CEO of Fannie Mae, started the "subprime" movement in the early 90s, and then Clinton "federalized" it with the rewriting of regulations under the Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act - forcing banks to make loans to those who couldn't qualify under their ordinary "due diligence," on pain of lawsuits for alleged discrimination.

    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.

    reckless endangerment
  • Matt Ken 2012/05/20 02:45:00
    Matt
    +1
    Most of the money that was lost in the housing bubble was imaginary e-cash. It didn't exist, but it was backed by the greatly inflated value of the houses that it was loaned against. The greater bubble is the falsely rated "derivatives" that were sold to banks, pension funds, insurance companies, and charities, that were uninsured and backed by nothing.

    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.
  • Ken Matt 2012/05/20 23:48:32
    Ken
    +1
    You are partially correct, and those who bought with little or no down payment, subsequently found themselves "underwater" in their mortgages and simply abandoned the homes they had purchased lost nothing. However, those who did make a down payment and who were up to date on their payments when the "crash" crash occurred did lose something. The falsely rated derivatives were yet another result of government policy - allowing Fannie and Freddie to refinance lenders by buying up the "suprimes", giving the impression that the derivatives couldn't fail because they had the backing of the two giant government sponsored entities.

    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.
  • Matt Ken 2012/05/21 02:33:28
    Matt
    +1
    In 2001, I took a small loan against my house in Ohio, in order to pay cash for the one that I live in now, in Tennessee. I borrowed through ABN-AMRO Mortgage Group, one of the world's largest lenders. For some reason, I now make my payments to Citi Mortgage.

    I think that my loan was possibly "bundled" and sold, separately.
    http://www.nedap.org/programs...
  • Ken Matt 2012/05/21 04:10:46
    Ken
    That isn't unusual. I bought a home around 1988, with 20% down payment, and my loan ended up with The Principal mortgage company. I don't even recall who it was originally with.
  • Zuggi 2012/05/19 21:12:12 (edited)
    Zuggi
    No.

    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.
  • Ken Zuggi 2012/05/19 23:47:16
    Ken
    Not my argument, Investors Business Daily's. Yet Barack Obama as counsel for Acorn sued Citibank, one of the large international banks. Do you happen to have a cite for the information you are providing? Gretchen Morgenson, financial editor/writer of the New York Times tells a far different story in "Reckless Endangerment."
    reckless endangerment
  • Zuggi Ken 2012/05/20 00:15:40 (edited)
  • Ken Zuggi 2012/05/20 23:58:55
    Ken
    The truth is that the making of "subprime" loans originated with Fannie Mae when James A. Johnson took over as its CEO in the early 1990s even before the CRA regulations were re-written. Johnson wanted to increase Fannie's loan volume (on which his bonuses were based!) and started the practice. It was Clinton's HUD which rewrote the regulations under the CRA forcing FDIC insured lenders to make a quota of loans to "low and middle income" borrowers. That, and the fact that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two enormous "government sponsored entities," were allowed to buy up suprimes to re-finance lenders to make more bad loans, that led to the belief that the derivatives couldn't fail because they had government backing and compounded the problem. Gretchen Morgenson, financial editor/writer for the New York Times, explains the problem in detail and places the blame where it truly lies.
  • Zuggi Ken 2012/05/21 00:09:52
    Zuggi
    There's absolutely no way for you to reconcile your claims with this chart:

    absolutely reconcile claims chart

    The mortgage bubble saw a giant plunge in F&F market share.
  • Ken Zuggi 2012/05/21 00:23:25
    Ken
    Your graph shows a limited period, '03 to '07, while the fact is that many, many subprimes were issued by Fannie beginning in the early 1990s. Thirteen years of 60-70% volume (1990 to 2003) is a lot more mortgages than four "bubble years" at 20-50% of the market for privately issued mortgages. As they say, statistics don't lie but liars use statistics. And the scary fact, one that you are ignoring, is that they are up to the same stunt again!
  • Zuggi Ken 2012/05/21 01:06:56
  • Ken Zuggi 2012/05/21 04:18:16 (edited)
    Ken
    Regardless of what you claim, it all started in the 1990s with Fannie Mae and the new regulations under the CRA, and George W. Bush attempted to stop it. This is what Barnie Frank had to say in 2003 about Bush's attempts to regulate Fannie and Freddie: " I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . ." http://online.wsj.com/article...

    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.
  • Zuggi Ken 2012/05/21 04:56:58
    Zuggi
    Alright, go have fun in your padded room.
  • Ken Zuggi 2012/05/21 16:45:46
    Ken
    Some people just can't handle the truth!

News & Politics

2013/05/18 09:13:30

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals