The 2008 US Presidential Election Thread

[7 Wishes]

This is getting unbelievably out of hand.

So now it's criminal to have the same perspective on an issue such as inner-city education as Ayers?

Come on, guys. Do you actually believe the bullshit you're spewing here? An ever-increasing number of Americans (and pretty much the rest of the world) certainly do not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKjWmBruR98&feature=related

Again...NO CONNECTION whatsoever.

Most of the people on the board with Obama were centrists, and many were conservatives. They, too, should be guilty by association by your reasoning.

[treetopovskaya]

the same can be said about obama & his supporters... "darlin".

what exactly do the dems/libs have to be proud of? please... do tell. nm... nothing but bs.

for me... i'm not so much proud to be an american... just very thankful.

It happened again today in Scranton, Pa and from what I'm hearing the perp was a Dem plant/operative trying to stir shit up.

Yeh, I bet.
Just like Rush Limbaugh was quick to say the Virginia Tech shooter had to be a liberal.

GAWD, consider the source!!!

Limbaugh was pushing Palin for VP for a long time from what I've heard.
GOOD JUDGMENT, that.

This is SERIOUS BUSINESS, folks! Who is going to lead our country is NO FUCKIN JOKE and considering Palin an option means you got the WORST JUDGMENT possible or DON'T CARE what happens to this country...

...OR GOT ACCUSTUMED TO HAVING an INCOMPETENT AS PRESIDENT.

I mean, Republicans have nothing to be proud of...
2 terms of President Bush and you think the rest of us should listen to you?

In what altered universe????

[treetopovskaya]

wait...

MCCAIN is the one running against obama... not palin.

where's joe btw?

It happened again today in Scranton, Pa and from what I'm hearing the perp was a Dem plant/operative trying to stir shit up.

Yeh, I bet.
Just like Rush Limbaugh was quick to say the Virginia Tech shooter had to be a liberal.

GAWD, consider the source!!!

Limbaugh was pushing Palin for VP for a long time from what I've heard.
GOOD JUDGMENT, that.

This is SERIOUS BUSINESS, folks! Who is going to lead our country is NO FUCKIN JOKE and considering Palin an option means you got the WORST JUDGMENT possible or DON'T CARE what happens to this country...

...OR GOT ACCUSTUMED TO HAVING an INCOMPETENT AS PRESIDENT.

I mean, Republicans have nothing to be proud of...
2 terms of President Bush and you think the rest of us should listen to you?

In what altered universe????

[Lula]

ayers, acorn.... what else?

when obama was affiliated with acorn as attorney, his partner in the lawsuit was the u.s. dept of justice and it was regarding the motor voter bill. about acorn today and all the voter registration fraud- it is unfortunate to say the least, but these frauds won't be casting a vote as they don't exist. is this a way to set up a stolen election accusation? i wonder.... i just don't see how this translates to the polls on nov 4.

[Rick]

wait...

MCCAIN is the one running against obama... not palin.

where's joe btw?

Not sure at the moment, but there's a very strong contingent that thinks you will be able to find him at Number One Observatory Circle early next year.

[treetopovskaya]

possible treason...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... bush-deal/

ayers, acorn.... what else?

when obama was affiliated with acorn as attorney, his partner in the lawsuit was the u.s. dept of justice and it was regarding the motor voter bill. about acorn today and all the voter registration fraud- it is unfortunate to say the least, but these frauds won't be casting a vote as they don't exist. is this a way to set up a stolen election accusation? i wonder.... i just don't see how this translates to the polls on nov 4.

[7 Wishes]

You've been pimping this for four days now, and no-one is biting.

It's simply not true.

Give it a rest. YOUR PARTY IS LOSING to a very good, honorable man, who also happens to be black.

Deal with it. It's reality. He's got one of the cleanest records of anyone in the Senate.

[LaDoDa]

possible treason...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... bush-deal/

ayers, acorn.... what else?

when obama was affiliated with acorn as attorney, his partner in the lawsuit was the u.s. dept of justice and it was regarding the motor voter bill. about acorn today and all the voter registration fraud- it is unfortunate to say the least, but these frauds won't be casting a vote as they don't exist. is this a way to set up a stolen election accusation? i wonder.... i just don't see how this translates to the polls on nov 4.

Simply not true:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... i-fm-says/

[treetopovskaya]

i don't belong to a party... and it may be true.

You've been pimping this for four days now, and no-one is biting.

It's simply not true.

Give it a rest. YOUR PARTY IS LOSING to a very good, honorable man, who also happens to be black.

Deal with it. It's reality. He's got one of the cleanest records of anyone in the Senate.

[Lula]

too funny or ridiculous. i was just reading about the final debate and this was in the article-

"Another demand cited by the official: Both candidates are demanding a water glass, and not just any glass. They want an exact replica of water glasses used at the previous debates."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/14/ ... =hpmostpop

so tell me the meaning of the water glass

[Skylorde]

Frankly, I'm kind of hoping Obama wins. Partly because I don't like Mexicain but for another reason as well.

This election is poison to whomever wins and here's why. Inflation is coming and coming with a vengeance. People in general have a very short memory of cause and effect and when inflation is in full afterburner mode sometime next year or the year after, the blame is going to be laid directly on the President and Congress. The economic groundwork is already laid for a repeat of the 1970's. Overall, we are in store for some hard economic times and again, blame the President and Congress.

My hope is that the Republicans take this time to lick their wounds, recognize the disastrous ways they ruled over the last 8 years and regroup with a true Conservative message & platform.

Yea, I'll be holding my breath

[RossValoryRocks]

ayers, acorn.... what else?

when obama was affiliated with acorn as attorney, his partner in the lawsuit was the u.s. dept of justice and it was regarding the motor voter bill. about acorn today and all the voter registration fraud- it is unfortunate to say the least, but these frauds won't be casting a vote as they don't exist. is this a way to set up a stolen election accusation? i wonder.... i just don't see how this translates to the polls on nov 4.

Wow...clueless and don't have all the facts...Obama gave $800,000 THIS YEAR to ACORN.

The Ayers link is well documented regardless of what 7 and all you liberals say. BTW 7, I am not a republican so my "party' can't lose to him.

Again though...it DOESN'T MATTER...none of it...Obama will be elected...and the country will go even further down the shitter than it is now.

Not because Obama is a bad man, but because his policies suck and he has shown a history of bad decision making (Ayers being one of them).

You libs all love Obama for the simple fact he is not Bush. I'll admit to some buyers regret with Bush, but you are so centered on the "I hate Bush" thing you don't even see what Obama's policies will do to this country.

It will Bankrupt it (if it isn't already, Obama's policies will ensure it).

It will cause the loss of not a few hundred thousand jobs, but MILLIONS.

It will drive this country into another Depression.

History people is repeating. I have been saying it for 80 pages now. Look at 1932 and what Hoover did when he raised taxes...Obama is going to do the same thing and will wreck our economy.

[7 Wishes]

The economy is already wrecked, and its worst state since the Depression, if not worse.

It just cannot possibly get worse.

Republicans have NO IDEA how economics work. They've failed time and time again since the last true fiscal conservative, Ike, was President.

[RossValoryRocks]

The economy is already wrecked, and its worst state since the Depression, if not worse.

It just cannot possibly get worse.

Republicans have NO IDEA how economics work. They've failed time and time again since the last true fiscal conservative, Ike, was President.

Some conservatives do. The bunch currently in the White House are not conservatives by any strech, and the ones formerly in congress are not either.

You however are way off base on the economic conditions currently.

The Great Depression was far far far worse. We aren't even close at the moment. It just seems like it because we have had a prolonged period (almost 25 year or so) without anything more drastic than a mild recession.

[Monker]

too funny or ridiculous. i was just reading about the final debate and this was in the article-

"Another demand cited by the official: Both candidates are demanding a water glass, and not just any glass. They want an exact replica of water glasses used at the previous debates."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/14/ ... =hpmostpop

so tell me the meaning of the water glass

It depends on who you are.

McCain supporters have a glass half empty.
Obama supporters have a glass half full.

[RossValoryRocks]

too funny or ridiculous. i was just reading about the final debate and this was in the article-

"Another demand cited by the official: Both candidates are demanding a water glass, and not just any glass. They want an exact replica of water glasses used at the previous debates."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/14/ ... =hpmostpop

so tell me the meaning of the water glass

It depends on who you are.

McCain supporters have a glass half empty.
Obama supporters have a glass half full.

Other way around Monker.

[Monker]

You libs all love Obama for the simple fact he is not Bush. I'll admit to some buyers regret with Bush, but you are so centered on the "I hate Bush" thing you don't even see what Obama's policies will do to this country.

You're just wrong. There is more to Obama's appeal then just "he's not Bush". That was more Kerry's 'appeal'. There has ALWAYS been something more to Obama then that. If you can not see that, and freely admit it, then you are obviously either not paying attention, or lying to cover McCain's, and the Replican party's, ass.

History people is repeating. I have been saying it for 80 pages now. Look at 1932 and what Hoover did when he raised taxes...Obama is going to do the same thing and will wreck our economy.

So, you are arguing we need an extreme liberal, like FDR, to get us out? That also sounds an awefully lot like what conservatives argue about Obama. Or, perhaps you another world war would help? We should all have babies and start another baby boom?

We are not going to have another 'great depression'. That is just lunacy talking.

[Monker]

too funny or ridiculous. i was just reading about the final debate and this was in the article-

"Another demand cited by the official: Both candidates are demanding a water glass, and not just any glass. They want an exact replica of water glasses used at the previous debates."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/14/ ... =hpmostpop

so tell me the meaning of the water glass

It depends on who you are.

McCain supporters have a glass half empty.
Obama supporters have a glass half full.

Other way around Monker.

I don't think so...Your guy is losing, and you freely admit it. That is a glass half empty.

[Enigma869]

Obama is going to do the same thing and will wreck our economy.

I think you're in the minority as being someone who actually believes that our economy isn't already wrecked! Most of us think it's a fucking disaster!


John from Boston

[RossValoryRocks]

Obama is going to do the same thing and will wreck our economy.

I think you're in the minority as being someone who actually believes that our economy isn't already wrecked! Most of us think it's a fucking disaster!


John from Boston

It is wrecked, and it will get worse. It was wrecked in 1929, and got worse in 1932 when Hoover and Co. raised taxes.

[RossValoryRocks]

So, you are arguing we need an extreme liberal, like FDR, to get us out? That also sounds an awefully lot like what conservatives argue about Obama. Or, perhaps you another world war would help? We should all have babies and start another baby boom?

We are not going to have another 'great depression'. That is just lunacy talking.

FDR didn't get the country out of the Great Depression...World War 2 did. And don't put words in my mouth Monker, I have never nor will ever advocate liberalism as a cure for for what ails this country.

You obviously are not a student of history. Read about how the recession of 1929 to 1932 became the Great Depression. It's truly facinating, and if you read Obama's policies you will see it going to happen again.

[Skylorde]

The economy is already wrecked, and its worst state since the Depression, if not worse.

It just cannot possibly get worse.

Republicans have NO IDEA how economics work. They've failed time and time again since the last true fiscal conservative, Ike, was President.

We agree, the economy is wrecked. Let's dissect that statement for a minute and ask ourselves why is the economy wrecked. We can get into the nitty gritty details but let's try to summarize shall we?

Ground zero of this economic disaster can be laid directly at the feet of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. All the other parties caught in the blast (AIG, Lehman, etc) are casualties of the shockwave.

Why did Fannie and Freddie fail? The answer is very simple. BAD GOVERNMENT REGULATION. Not LACK of regulation, not OVER regulation but BAD regulation. It all started with another FUCKED UP liberal idea, the community reinvestment act. Further expanded upon in the 90's by Clinton (Republicans hands aren't clean here by ANY stretch). The purpose? To give low income borrowers (even ones with poor credit) the opportunity to buy a house.

In 1999, Fannie Mae further expanded upon their reckless lending practices by offering some borrowers the opportunity to get loans of 110% and zero down. In a nut shell, mortgage paper became a shell game. Banks would write the paper, then sell it to Fannie & Freddie who in turn repackaged them and sold them to wall street in bundles. In a nut shell, Fannie & Freddie's message to the banks was "You write the paper, we'll buy it". If you were breathing, employed and capable of holding a pen, you were buying a house.

Some Republicans and a few Democrats tried to sound the warning bell but their efforts were lackluster at best.

Barney Frank: 2003

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Barney Frank: July 2008

I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days from the long- term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward. They're in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we're going to do some things that are going to improve them.

Quotes? I've got a fucking BAG full of them that shows the left is primarily responsible for this disaster. As I said earlier, Republican hands are not clean by any stretch however the brunt of the blame is laid at the feet of the Democrats for sponsoring yet another fucked up socialist idea and forcing lending institutions with BAD REGULATION to take risks they normally wouldn't take.

Here's the bottom line. The Achilles heel of capitalism is greed. Greed is kept in check by risk. Fannie and Freddie's "We're backed by the Government" attitude caused them to get GET RECKLESS and GREEDY all at the same time.

[Monker]

Obama is going to do the same thing and will wreck our economy.

I think you're in the minority as being someone who actually believes that our economy isn't already wrecked! Most of us think it's a fucking disaster!


John from Boston

It is wrecked, and it will get worse. It was wrecked in 1929, and got worse in 1932 when Hoover and Co. raised taxes.

And, it was fixed by FDR installing a bunch of socialist programs, a world war, and a baby boom.

As for raising taxes, Reagan signed tax increases several times...It didn't seem to hurt the economy back then...and, arguably, helped balance the budget in the 90's.

Obama isn't proposing to dramaticaly increate taxes to fight the deficit. Hell, he is increasing the deficit even with his tax increase for those making over $250k. So, even with his proposed tax increase (which congress would still have to pass and send to him), I doubt it would have any more affect on the economy then Bush's tax refund did. It's a bogus fear factor you are trying to throw in the debate.

[7 Wishes]

I've got a fucking BAG full of them that shows the left is primarily responsible for this disaster.

Blatantly, falsely, patently incorrect and false, as usual.

Republican Phil Gramm was the sponsor of the 1999 Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act which removed depression-era Glass-Steagall Act requiring a
separation between banking, investment, insurance, and brokerage
activities. Bush considered appointing Gramm as the Secretary of
Treasury and now Gramm is considered as McCain’s frontrunner for the
post. Gramm’s and the Republican Congress’ Act was the first key
piece of de-regulation that put into place this economic crisis.

How did the repeal of this Act have a role in the current crisis?
The Act allowed, for the first time since the Great Depression, banks
to deal in securities which allowed them to purchase mortgage-backed
securities. If not for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act being passed by the
Republican Congress, banks could not have dealt in mortgage-backed
securities.

Did Clinton have a role in this deregulation? Clinton did
initially threaten to veto this Act, but eventually signed it into
law. At that time, the Republicans had the majority in Congress, it
was a Republican-authored Bill, and the Republicans had enough votes
to override a veto by Clinton.

Nonetheless, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was only the first step
that was taken to create this mess. In addition to the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act, the Republican Administration and Congress furthered this
mess between 2001 and 2006. In order to stimulate the economy, stave
off a recession, and feed the market's huge demand for more mortgage-
backed securities, Bush aggressively pushed the lending industry to
make massive amounts of mortgage loans. To do so, he called for the
most massive increase minority and low income homeownership in our
history as part of his "Ownership Society" plan.

In 2001/2002, Bush created "America's Home Ownership Challenge"
in which he challenged the private lending sector as well as Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac to make more than 5.5 million new minority and low
income mortgage loans. To meet his challenge to the private lending
industry, 24 of our largest banking and lending companies pledged to
make 1.1 trillion dollars in low income and minority loans. You can
find all of the official documents in the White House Press Releases
if you use "America's Home Ownership Challenge" as your search term in
the White House archives.

Bush aggressively pushed the private lending industry to make
over 1.1 trillion in low income and minority lows and to "create more
creative" loan products to do it. He pushed them to "loosen credit
standards" and pushed them to make the most risky loan products
available to the riskiest buyers. Then, he turned to Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac and threatened to not rewrite their regulatory charters.

The government-sponsored corporations created to increase the
liquidity of mortgage markets, so more capital would be available for
mortgage loans, are supposed to lead the market in reaching
underserved populations. While these corporations have increased their
commitments to these efforts, they lag behind private lenders in this
regard, according to government studies. The Administration will
revisit the regulatory goals for these corporations’ purchases of
affordable housing loans, which are set to expire in 2003. The federal
government should demand more and should hold such publicly-chartered
corporations accountable for better performance.
(From Bush’s Press Release entitled “A Home of Your Own EXPANDING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL AMERICANS, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH JUNE 2002”
regarding his “America’s Homeownership Challenge).
The Bush Administration issued the following press release
hailing its successes in pushing the private lending industry and
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into making more low income and minority
loans:
Under President Bush's leadership, overall U.S. homeownership in
the second quarter of 2004 reached an all-time high of 69.2 percent.
Single-family housing affordability is at its highest level in 30
years, and minority homeownership set a new record-high of 51 percent
in the second quarter.
The President has called on Congress to work with him on
additional steps to promote homeownership in America. He has set bold
goals for homeownership, including his challenge to the Nation to
create 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the end of the decade -
and he has now set an additional goal of 7 million new affordable
homes.
(White House Press Release – “Increasing Affordable Housing &
Expanding Homeownership).

Through the Republican Congress in 2003 and the Bush
Administration's work through HUD and the FHA, the Bush Administration
forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to, for the first time, make
available riskier loan products to minority and low income buyers.

The Federal Housing Administration Mortgage Program. In 2002, the
President issued America’s Homeownership Challenge to increase first-
time minority homeowners by 5.5 million through 2010. The Federal
Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage program is an important tool for
reaching that goal. In 2006, 31 percent of those using FHA mortgages
were minorities purchasing their first home. The 2008 Budget continues
Administration efforts to modernize FHA by improving its ability to
reach traditionally underserved homebuyers (aka those who do not
normally qualify for loans), such as low- and moderate-income
families, individuals with blemished credit, and families who have
little savings for a down payment.

(From Bush Administration’s White House Press Release entitled,
“Focusing on the Nation’s Priorities – Meeting America’s Housing
Needs”).

The Bush Administration through HUD, also required Fannie and
Freddie to give a higher percentage of their loans to loan-income and
minorities that otherwise would not qualify for the loans.

That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country
to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we
achieve a more secure America, by achieving the goal of 5.5 million
new minority home owners. I call it America's home ownership
challenge.
And let me talk about some of the progress which we have made to date,
as an example for others to follow. First of all, government sponsored
corporations that help create our mortgage system -- I introduced two
of the leaders here today -- they call those people Fannie May and
Freddie Mac, as well as the federal home loan banks, will increase
their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion.
(Applause.) I want to thank Leland and Franklin for that commitment.
It's a commitment that conforms to their charters, as well, and also
conforms to their hearts.
(From White House Speech archives – “President calls for Expanding
Opportunities to Homeowners” at St. Paul AME Church in Atlanta,
Georgia).

Franklin Raines, the head of Fannie Mae at the time, also
responded to Bush’s “Challenge” in a letter, stating:

June 13, 2002
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As America’s largest source of private capital for affordable
housing, Fannie Mae applauds your call for “broader homeownership,
especially for minorities.” We accept your challenge to the private
sector to join in partnership to address America’s housing needs. And
we are proud to step up to your challenge by launching an even greater
commitment of private capital and creative strategies to expand
minority homeownership. * * * (the full letter can be found online).

Then, the following press release was sent out:
Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO, Franklin D. Raines today joined
President Bush and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) Secretary Mel Martinez, and other industry leaders and non-
profit organizations, for a housing summit to promote the
Administration's proposal to expand minority homeownership.
* * *
Fannie Mae's ten-point plan to help advance the Bush
Administration's homeownership proposals was included in the Blueprint
for the American Dream document released by HUD today.
The Blueprint for the American Dream that we unveiled today is
the response to the `homeownership challenge' President Bush issued in
June to increase minority homeownership," said HUD Secretary Mel
Martinez. "Our partners, representing every segment of the affordable
housing industry, are committed to working together to achieve the
President's goal of adding 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the
end of the decade."
In his February State of the Union address President Bush called
for "broader homeownership, especially among minorities." In June,
President Bush challenged both the public and private sector to be a
partner in his crusade to create 5.5 million new minority homeowners
by the end of the decade.
Fannie Mae responded by committing $700 billion in home financing
to 4.6 million minority households through 2009. This increases by 66
percent the specific pledge Fannie Mae made in 2000 to minority
families through it's American Dream Commitment plan to provide $420
billion for three million minority families.
(quotes from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Business Wire “President
Bush’s Nationwide Effort to Increase Minority Homeownership” – October
15, 2002).

Fannie Mae responding to Bush’s aggressive push by committing $700
billion for low income and minority loans, a 66 percent increase in
its previous pledge made in 2000.

In 2003, the following article was on Washington Business Wire:

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 18, 2003--On the third
anniversary of its "American Dream Commitment(R)," Fannie Mae and its
lender partners already have fulfilled over half of its ten-year
pledge to provide $2 trillion in home financing for 18 million
historically underserved families, Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO
Franklin D. Raines announced today.
To date, Fannie Mae has provided more than $1.3 trillion for
nearly 12 million targeted families, completing two-thirds of the
American Dream Commitment in about 30 percent of the time, and leading
the market in serving minorities and the nation's affordable housing
needs.

Joining with representatives from 11 leading mortgage lenders and
Fannie Mae partners, Raines applauded the mortgage finance industry
for its extraordinary efforts to reach and serve "emerging markets" of
historically underserved families and communities, deliver Fannie
Mae's $2 trillion in targeted capital, and extend the benefits of the
nation's housing boom.

Lender partners participating in today's announcement include:
Bank of America; Bank One Corporation; Charter One Bank; Countrywide
Financial Corporation; Doral Financial Corporation; First Horizon Home
Loan Corporation; Fleet Boston Bank; Huntington Mortgage Company;
Irwin Mortgage; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; and Standard Mortgage
Corporation.

"Together, America's top lenders and Fannie Mae have made
terrific progress in bringing the nation's housing boom to overlooked
Americans and addressing the gaps in housing opportunity," Raines
said. "Fannie Mae applauds our lender partners for helping us surpass
the halfway mark in our $2 trillion commitment to underserved families
so quickly. Together, we lead the market in serving Americans of color
and modest means."

The Administration and Republican Congress also passed the “American
Dream Downpayment Act of 2003” to allow low income and minorities with
blemished credit and no ability to come up with a downpayment to have
the government cover their downpayment and closing costs. The Act
gave 161.5 million dollars in taxpayer money to cover the downpayment
and closing costs of minorities and low income individuals that would
not be able to afford a downpayment and/or had “blemished credit.”

On December 16, 2003, President Bush signed into law the American
Dream Downpayment Act of 2003, which will help approximately 40,000
families a year with their down payment and closing costs, and further
strengthen America’s housing market. This legislation complements the
President’s aggressive housing agenda announced in 2002 to dismantle
the barriers to homeownership.
(From White House Press Release “American Dream Downpayment Act of
2003 – Expanding Homeownership Opportunities for All).

Bush also pushed and passed a "Zero-down Payment" initiative.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW HUD "ZERO DOWN PAYMENT" MORTGAGE
Initiative Aimed at Removing Major Barrier to Homeownership
LAS VEGAS - As part of President Bush's ongoing effort to help
American families achieve the dream of homeownership, Federal Housing
Commissioner John C. Weicher today announced that HUD is proposing to
offer a "zero down payment" mortgage, the most significant initiative
by the Federal Housing Administration in over a decade. This action
would help remove the greatest barrier facing first-time homebuyers -
the lack of funds for a down payment on a mortgage.
Speaking at the National Association of Home Builders' annual
convention, Commissioner Weicher indicated that the proposal, part of
HUD's Fiscal Year 2005 budget request, would eliminate the statutory
requirement of a minimum three percent down payment for FHA-insured
single-family mortgages for first-time homebuyers.

"Offering FHA mortgages with no down payment will unlock the door to
homeownership for hundreds of thousands of American families,
particularly minorities," said HUD's Acting Secretary Alphonso
Jackson. "President Bush has pledged to create 5.5 million new
minority homeowners this decade, and this historic initiative will
help meet this goal."
Preliminary projections indicate that the new FHA mortgage product
would generate about 150,000 homebuyers in the first year alone.
"This initiative would not only address a major hurdle to
homeownership and allow many renters to afford their own home, it
would help these families build wealth and become true stakeholders in
their communities," said Commissioner Weicher. "In addition, it would
help spur the production of new housing in this country.”

The Administration, through HUD, further forced Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac to offer riskier 3, 5, and 7 year arm loan products to low
income and minorities.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW ADJUSTABLE-RATE MORTGAGE PRODUCTS TO
ENHANCE HOMEBUYING OPPORTUNITIES

40,000 More Families Expected To Benefit From New Offerings
WASHINGTON – The Department of Housing and Urban Development is
proposing to enhance homebuying opportunities by expanding its
offerings of adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) products on FHA-insured
mortgages. Potential homebuyers would be able to choose mortgages with
periods of three, five, seven or ten years, depending on their needs,
during which time the interest rate would be fixed. “By offering
additional types of FHA-insured ARMs tailored to the financial
conditions and desires of the borrowers, we are creating more
homeownership opportunities,” said HUD Secretary Mel Martinez today in
a speech to America’s Community Bankers. “We estimate that as many as
40,000 families a year will choose these new adjustable-rate mortgages
as their way of financing their home purchase.”

(HUD Press Release).

Bush and the Republican Congress forced Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac to make zero-down loans and adjustable rate 3, 5, and 7 year arms
available to the riskiest buyers. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were
forced to effectively finance 103 percent of the mortgage (including
closing costs).

The Administration often pointed to the huge increase in
housing as one of its greatest successes.

[The Administration has] Helped Americans buy homes, expanding the
homeownership rate to nearly 70 percent and the minority homeownership
rate to over 51 percent nationwide. With approximately three million
minorities owning a home for the first time, the Nation now has the
highest minority homeownership rate in its history. Furthermore, the
Administration is ahead of schedule in achieving the Presidential goal
of adding 5.5 million new minority homeowners by 2010.

(From Bush Administration’s press release entitled “Expanding Home
Ownership” under section entitled “Accomplishments”).

It was between 2001-2005 that most of these loans that have gone
bad were made. You can find all of the official documents at the White
House, HUD, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac press release websites. You
can also find the head of Fannie Mae's letter (Raines) back to Bush
(after Bush threatened to not renew their charter) saying that he
would meet his aggressive challenge online.

So why did Bush and the Republican Congress push minority and
low income loans? They pushed it for two main reasons. First, the
economy was facing a recession and they looked to stimulate economy by
stimulating the housing market. In fact, the Administration pointed
to the huge increase in housing numbers under his “leadership” to show
that he stimulated the economy to keep us out of a recession. Second,
there was a huge demand in the securities market for mortgage-backed
securities and there were not enough of them to keep up with demand.

Mortgage-backed securities were in such demand because it allowed
banks and lenders to turn an illiquid asset - mortgages-- into a
liquid asset by bundling the mortgages and selling them as
securities. Also, many thought that they were great securities to buy
because they were further secured by collateral -- the homes -- and if
they debt went bad, the collateral could be sold. They also thought
that the mortgage-backed securities bundled from loans made through
Fannie and Freddie were government guaranteed because they are quasi-
government agencies.

In any event, there was a huge demand for these in the market and
not enough supply. To increase supply for mortgage-backed securities,
more loans had to be made. The only way to get more loans made was to
come up with more creative loan products to get people into homes that
otherwise would not qualify. So the Bush Administration and
Republican Congress aggressively came up with ways to allow
individuals who normally could not get loans to get loans.

The problem was, in part, the housing “bubble” started to burst
and home values started to fall. At the same time, many of the 3 and
5 year arm loans were set to adjust to higher interest rates. Some
homeowners did not have the thousands of dollars to pay the closing
costs of refiancing. Other homeowners went to re-finance, but were
unable to re-finance their mortgages because their homes were now were
less than what they owed on their mortgages. Their interest rates
shot up incredibly high rates, like 15.9%. Homeowners saw their
mortgage payments triple and could no longer afford their homes. The
cause of the foreclosures in most cases were “creative loan products”
with low introductory rates that were scheduled to shoot up or
adjustable rates that shot up to unconscionable rates that left
individuals unable to pay their very high mortgages as well as the
loss in home value that left individuals unable to refinance their
mortgages at reasonable fixed rates.

Go to the HUD website and search in the archives - "Blueprint for the
American Dream" to see the most massive push for subprime home loans
in U.S. history made by the Republican administration.

[Saint John]

Republicans seem to be having no problem paying their mortgages.

[7 Wishes]

Listen, Dan, us Whigs are having a MUCH harder time these days.

There is so much anti-Whig legislation out there right now...we have no hope.

[Skylorde]

I've got a fucking BAG full of them that shows the left is primarily responsible for this disaster.

Blatantly, falsely, patently incorrect and false, as usual.

Republican Phil Gramm was the sponsor of the 1999 Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act which removed depression-era Glass-Steagall Act requiring a
separation between banking, investment, insurance, and brokerage
activities. Bush considered appointing Gramm as the Secretary of
Treasury and now Gramm is considered as McCain’s frontrunner for the

<diarrea snip>

Complete bullshit.

Let's be clear about this. Your response is the typical squirting diarrhea that flows out of your mouth daily on the board --- As usual.

Even if this was the case (and it's not, as much as you liberals would love it to be) YOUR BOY Clinton signed it!!!

Did the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act cause the housing bubble?

No. That is one common myth among the progressive left. Because it involves financial deregulation and the unpopular Phil Gramm, the Act is vilified and assumed to be part of a broader chain of evil events. Here are some of the articles which promulgate the myth that the Act caused or helped cause the housing bubble. One version of the claim originates with Robert Kuttner, but if you read his article (and the others) you'll see there's not much to the charge. Kuttner doesn't do more than paint the Act as part of the general trend of allowing financial conflicts of interest.

Most of all, the Act enabled financial diversification and thus it paved the way for a number of mergers. Citigroup became what it is today, for instance, because of the Act. Add Shearson and Primerica to the list. So far in the crisis times the diversification has done considerably more good than harm. Most importantly, GLB made it possible for JP Morgan to buy Bear Stearns and for Bank of America to buy Merrill Lynch. It's why Wachovia can consider a bid for Morgan Stanley. Wince all you want, but the reality is that we all owe a big thanks to Phil Gramm and others for pushing this legislation. Brad DeLong recognizes this and hail to him. Megan McArdle also exonerates the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

Here is a good critique of GLB, on the grounds that it may extend "too big to fail" to too many institutions. That may yet happen but not so far.

The Act had other provisions concerning financial privacy.

Maybe you can blame some conflict of interest problems at Citigroup and Smith Barney on the Act. But again that's not the mortgage crisis or the housing bubble and furthermore those problems have been minor in scale. Ex-worker has a very sensible comment. The most irresponsible financial firms were not, in general, owned by commercial banks. Here's lots of informed detail on GLB and the bank failure process. Here is another good article on how GLB didn't actually change Glass-Steagall that much.

Here's a Paul Krugman post on GLB; he attacks Phil Gramm but he doesn't explain the mechanism by which GLB did so much harm. The linked article has no punch on this score either, although you will learn that Barack Obama has scapegoated GLB, again without a good story much less a true story.

I may soon cover the Commodity Futures Modernization Act as well.

[7 Wishes]

Read the remainder of the article. The Act set the stage for Bush's MASSIVE deregulation.

You are as stubborn as you are ignorant, that's for sure.

[RossValoryRocks]

Obama is going to do the same thing and will wreck our economy.

I think you're in the minority as being someone who actually believes that our economy isn't already wrecked! Most of us think it's a fucking disaster!


John from Boston

It is wrecked, and it will get worse. It was wrecked in 1929, and got worse in 1932 when Hoover and Co. raised taxes.

And, it was fixed by FDR installing a bunch of socialist programs, a world war, and a baby boom.

As for raising taxes, Reagan signed tax increases several times...It didn't seem to hurt the economy back then...and, arguably, helped balance the budget in the 90's.

Obama isn't proposing to dramaticaly increate taxes to fight the deficit. Hell, he is increasing the deficit even with his tax increase for those making over $250k. So, even with his proposed tax increase (which congress would still have to pass and send to him), I doubt it would have any more affect on the economy then Bush's tax refund did. It's a bogus fear factor you are trying to throw in the debate.

You are the most complete idiot I have ever seen, you don't argue to actually prove a point you do so just to be an asshole.

You also prove you know jackshit about economics.

I am done am going back to doing what everyone else does here: just ignore you and wait for you to go away.

[RossValoryRocks]

Read the remainder of the article. The Act set the stage for Bush's MASSIVE deregulation.

You are as stubborn as you are ignorant, that's for sure.

7 you are out of your league...you don't even really understand what you are posting about...which is funny.

The left started it, the right contributed to it, and they all got rich while screwing us.

But for SURE the Democrats started this. As Skylorde said, it was BAD regulation that started this mess and that falls squarely at the feet of the left.