Read paragraph three at least.

<link>>

The "funny" thing is, there's little evidence to suggest that in the aggregate, loans issued to otherwise credit-worthy borrowers, on rational albeit "sub-prime" terms, for the purchase of owner occupied homes, are defaulting at an especially high rate.

This IS a rather convenient angle though....as it does allow the Foxfartians to sneak the race angle into the discussion. And whenever they can do that, they're gold.

Regardless of what Fannie and Freddy did ten years (or longer ago) there is no excuse for deregulation and the Bush executive branch's ignoring their responsibility to enforce the few laws that govern business practices in the financial markets.

Deregulation has failed in every industry where it's been tried.

Bush and his minions have ignored their responsibilities.

Having John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales as Attorneys General says a lot about bush's interest in enforcing federal laws and regulations.

It's just more of the incompetence and failure of Bush and the Republican rubber-stampers who have been running the country for the past eight years.

We can't afford four more years of the last eight!

And if I post links to all of the de-regulation policies started by Reagan, will you accept that as a "Simple Explanation'?

Apparently the NYT lied nine years ago? I see. You, like Barney Franks, seem astounded by this turn of affairs.

Who would have thought that loaning money to people without the means to repay it was risky?

Minorities are different? How?

In 1999 the neoliberals thought this was great.

No, because like you I think this is the other side's fault. Liberals are hilarious. Responsible? No! Funny? You bet!

class of loans. You did NOT cite as to how that specific class of loans is performing.

DoctorTom:

Deregulation has failed in every industry where it's been tried.

Bush and his minions have ignored their responsibilities.

I do not understand partisan blinders.

Congress was incompetent when it pressured banks to make more loans to expand home ownership. The banks were incompetent in making bad loans, for one thing they expected home prices to constantly rise. On the books, if the home value goes up 12% in two years, the assets of the bank, has gone up more than if they got a 10% down payment. Mr. Bush and clinton both were guilty of supporting the expansion of home ownership as national policies.

The current problem is not a result of 8 years of stupid policy, but 30 years. The republicans, democrats and We the People deserve the blame.

The programs initiated by Carter and Clinton worked just fine. There was no crises because the people getting the loans were mostly people who could afford them. Who ever heard of the type of loans that were available in the last 6 years? No interest loans, full or even above purchase price loans with no down payment. Loans to people who didn't have proof of income. Those loans were created as a result of Bush's initiative he outlined in June of 2002.

"Freddie Mac recently began 25 initiatives around the country to dismantle barriers and create greater opportunities for homeownership. One of the programs is designed to help deserving families who have bad credit histories to qualify for homeownership loans. Freddie Mac is also working with the Department of Defense to promote construction and financing for housing for men and women in the military."

"...you don't have to have a lousy home for first-time home buyers. If you put your mind to it, the first-time home buyer, the low-income home buyer can have just as nice a house as anybody else."

<link>

"And so, therefore, I've called -- yesterday, I called upon the private sector to help us and help the home buyers. We need more capital in the private markets for first-time, low-income buyers. And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and, as I understand, it's about $440 billion over a period of time. They've used their influence to create that much capital available for the type of home buyer we're talking about here. It's in their charter; it now needs to be implemented. Freddie Mac is interested in helping. I appreciate both of those agencies providing the underpinnings of good capital."

<link>

sorry, I know the neo-cons have no sense of personal responsibility, but the current mess is entirely the fault of the deregulation allowing the bundling of debt to be sold as an asset, and the no-holds-barred irresponsible lending practices setup under the idiot son.

Bidness takes it from there. That's their job. Only a utopian-socialist-commie-polly­ana would suggest that we can eliminate the bar, and then just prevail on all the players to be "nice". As anyone in bidness knows, the guys that're voluntarily nice, are buried by those who aren't. Therefore....all this ranting and raving about the dirty ding-dang borrowers and rack-a-frackin' lenders, misses the point entirely.

It's society's MANDATE to set the bar at a level that's ultimately "nice". So...that as everyone strives their best, to succeed and profit - as we NEED for them to do - they're all operating under the same rules - and those rules suit our sensibilities.

DAMN....it's been fun watching all these free-marketeers arguing against their OWN fundamental philosphies, without it even occuring to them that they're doing it.

it ain't the colored folks fault, fool, but we understand you cons need to believe this to shore up your sense of superiority.

I read your link and saw no hint of Bush asking banks to make risky loans. Maybe I'll read it again someday.

Is that NO ONE in this thread has presented evidence of ANYONE asking banks to make risky loans!

look at the dumbfucks on this thread...and all of 'em picking on Ranger.

The mortgage industry intends to pursue minorities with greater intensity as federal regulators turn up the heat to increase home ownership...the federal government in the meantime has increased pressure on lenders to seek out minorities, as well as low-income groups and borrowers with poor credit histories...Fannie Mae recently reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to commit half its business to low- and moderate-income borrowers. That means half the mortgages bought by Fannie Mae would be from those income brackets.

David Glenn
President and CEO
Freddie Mac, 1999

So...1999....that means Bill Clinton's HUD was pushing Fannie Mae closer to the brink at the very same time his former OMB director, Franklin Raines was the CEO knocking down $90 mil and his Deputy Attorney General, Jamie Gorelick was making $26 with no background in finance.

Of course she did keep the CiIA from talking to the FBI about him...worth something I guess.

But anyway...what of the possible repurcussions...

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending [expanding mortgage loans among low and moderate income people], Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s.

New York Times, 1999

..