Only facts are cold without feeling, emotion, and judgment. History shows the facts - you make your own call. I try to be educated with historical facts, at least for my own never out of context but the entire post including comments (for my collection).
A decent honest man won't do such thing of exploring weak people ! Decency is too much to ask? How can I vote for you to run the "US goverment of the people, by the people, and for the people" (defined by GOP founder Abe Lincoln)?
Fox & Friends Deceptively Edits 2007 Video Of Hillary Clinton Blaming Wall Street For Risky Business Dealings
Fox Claims Hillary Clinton Blamed Homeowners For Recession In 2007, Now Flip Flopped To Blame Wall Street. Fox & Friends accused Hillary Clinton of switching her position on who bears responsibility for the financial crisis that deepened the Great Recession, editing a speech Clinton gave in 2007 to show only the part where she said, “borrowers share responsibility as well. Homebuyers who paid extra fees to avoid documenting their income should have known they were getting in over their heads.” Fox co-host Steve Doocy used the clip to claim Clinton was switching her position, saying, “Hillary Clinton actually, these days she's blaming Wall Street. However back in the day in 2007 she was blaming the homeowners.” Co-host Ainsley Earhardt said Clinton was “flip flopping now.” From the May 25 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends:
STEVE DOOCY (CO-HOST): So Hillary has got this [ad] out saying that about [Trump]. It's interesting, he has not changed his position. Buy low, sell high. However, Hillary Clinton actually, these days she's blaming Wall Street. However, back in the day in 2007 she was blaming the homeowners. We've got two pieces of tape we are going to put -- butt them up to each other. The first one is of her, I believe at a CNN debate this year and then we're going to take you back to a speech she gave in 2007 where she blames homeowners themselves.
[...]
AINSLEY EARHARDT (CO-HOST): So a lot of people -- she's flip flopping now. A lot of people did get in over their heads and that's why they lost money. And that was tragic and we watched a lot of people lose everything in this country. It was awful. But a lot of people did make a lot of money during that time. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/25/16]
But Clinton’s 2007 Speech Excoriated Wall Street For Helping To “Create The Foreclosure Crisis”
Full Transcript Of Clinton’s 2007 Speech Shows She Berated Financial Industry, Said “Wall Street Helped Create The Foreclosure Crisis” And Bears “Responsibility.” In the December 2007 speech cited by Fox, Clinton blamed Wall Street, mortgage lenders, and brokers for the housing crash, saying, “responsibility also belongs to Wall Street, which not only enabled but often encouraged reckless mortgage lending.” Clinton also said, “Responsibility belongs to mortgage lenders and brokers … to the [Bush] Administration and to regulators … [and] to the rating agencies.” Clinton heavily criticized Wall Street throughout the speech, saying, “Some people might say Wall Street only helped to distribute risk. I believe Wall Street shifted risk away from people who knew what was going on onto the people who did not.” From the transcript of Clinton’s December 5, 2007 speech (emphasis added):
So I'm here today to call on Wall Street to do its part - to help end the foreclosure crisis that is devastating middle class families and threatening the health of our economy.
Wall Street needs to be part of a comprehensive solution that brings to the table all those responsible and calls on them to do their part. Wall Street helped create the foreclosure crisis, and Wall Street needs to help us solve it.
Let's start with an honest, clear-eyed assessment of what went so terribly wrong.
[...]
Now, who's exactly to blame for the housing crisis? Well, that's always a question that the press and people ask and I think there's plenty of blame to go around.
Responsibility belongs to mortgage lenders and brokers, who irresponsibly lowered underwriting standards, pushed risky mortgages, and hid the details in the fine print.
Responsibility belongs to the Administration and to regulators, who failed to provide adequate oversight, and who failed to respond to the chorus of reports that millions of families were being taken advantage of.
Responsibility belongs to the rating agencies, who woefully underestimated the risks involved in mortgage securities.
And certainly borrowers share responsibility as well. Homebuyers who paid extra fees to avoid documenting their income should have known they were getting in over their heads. Speculators who were busy buying two, three, four houses to sell for a quick buck don't deserve our sympathy.
But finally, responsibility also belongs to Wall Street, which not only enabled but often encouraged reckless mortgage lending. Mortgage lenders didn't have balance sheets big enough to write millions of loans on their own. So Wall Street originated and packaged the loans that common sense warned might very well have ended in collapse and foreclosure. Some people might say Wall Street only helped to distribute risk. I believe Wall Street shifted risk away from people who knew what was going on onto the people who did not.
Wall Street may not have created the foreclosure crisis, but Wall Street certainly had a hand in making it worse. [University of California, Santa Barbara, The American Presidency Project, accessed 5/25/16]
PolitiFact: Clinton “Called For Wall Street Regulations Early In The Financial Crisis.” PolitiFact rated Clinton’s claim that “she ‘called for addressing risks of derivatives, cracking down on subprime mortgages and improving financial oversight’ early on in the financial crisis” as “True.” PolitiFact linked to several speeches, which showed “Clinton began addressing the subprime mortgage issue in her appearances in March 2007. Later that year, she took on derivatives. She also proposed specific plans for solving these problems and increasing oversight of financial institutions.” [PolitiFact, 7/15/15]
Fox Also Defended Trump For Rooting For The Crash And Blamed It On President Bill Clinton
Fox Hosts: Trump Hoping For Market Crash Shows “He Seems To Understand … Business,” Blame Bill Clinton Instead. In the same May 25 Fox & Friends segment, the co-hosts also whitewashed Trump’s 2006 comments, unearthed by CNN, that he “sort of hope[d]” that the housing market would collapse, so that “people like me would go in and buy.” Co-host Brian Kilmeade said of Trump’s comments, “he seems to understand … business,” and Steve Doocy said, “It’s interesting, [Trump] has not changed his position. Buy low, sell high.” The hosts instead deflected blame to Bill Clinton, with Doocy saying, “In addition to repealing Glass-Steagall during his tenure, he also loosened the housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act which put pressures on banks to loan money to people in low income neighborhoods.” From the May 25 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends:
BRIAN KILMEADE (CO-HOST): Well, I mean, what [Clinton] is saying there is that Donald Trump was doing an interview on another network and came out and said of course, you know, if this crash might be good for me because I can go in and I could buy at these low rates and it comes off -- it does come off a little crass in isolation. I haven't heard the whole interview. But if you really want to pass blame around, if you want to take this to the next level, you can go back to Bill Clinton who once said -- started pushing all the sub prime rates that caused the whole crash. Nobody said that Donald Trump caused the whole crash. And by the way, he seems to understand, Ainsley, business. You don't really want to buy real estate when it's high.
[...]
STEVE DOOCY (CO-HOST): So Hillary has got this [ad] out saying that about [Trump]. It's interesting, he has not changed his position. Buy low, sell high.
[...]
DOOCY: And Brian's point about you know if you're going to talk about Donald Trump back in the day, talk about Bill Clinton. In addition to repealing Glass-Steagall during his tenure, he also loosened the housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act which put pressures on banks to loan money to people in low income neighborhoods. Which led in part to the big crash. [CNN.com, 5/19/16; Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/25/16]
Top Economists Reject That Bill Clinton’s Policies Are To Blame For Financial Crisis
Fmr. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: Experience "Runs Counter To The Charge That CRA Was At The Root Of … The Current Mortgage Difficulties." On November 25, 2008, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." Bernanke further wrote:
Further, a recent Board staff analysis of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and other data sources does not find evidence that CRA caused high default levels in the subprime market.
[...]
As the financial crisis has unfolded, many factors have been suggested as contributing to the current mortgage market difficulties. Among these are declining home values, incentives for originators to place loan quantity over quality, and inadequate risk management of complex financial instruments. The available evidence to date, however, does not lend support to the argument that CRA is to blame for causing the subprime mortgage crisis. [Accessed via United States Government Published Office, 5/25/16]
Fmr. SF Reserve Bank's Yellen: "[S]tudies Have Shown That The CRA Has Increased The Volume Of Responsible Lending To Low- And Moderate-Income Households." Federal Reserve chairwoman Janet Yellen, then president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, in a March 2008 speech criticized efforts to blame CRA lending for weaknesses in the mortgage market, stating, “There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending … [but] studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households” :
There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending, or with lending to low-income families in general. I believe it is very important to make a distinction between the two. Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households. We should not view the current foreclosure trends as justification to abandon the goal of expanding access to credit among low-income households, since access to credit, and the subsequent ability to buy a home, remains one of the most important mechanisms we have to help low-income families build wealth over the long term. [Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Janet L. Yellen’s Speeches, 10/10/08]
Slate's Gross: "The Notion That The Community Reinvestment Act Is Somehow Responsible For Poor Lending Decisions Is Absurd." In an October 7, 2008, Slate article, Daniel Gross, a business columnist for Newsweek and author of Dumb Money: How Our Greatest Financial Minds Bankrupted the Nation, criticized the notion that affordable housing initiatives caused the financial crisis, writing that "the notion that the Community Reinvestment Act is somehow responsible for poor lending decisions is absurd" and that "lending money to poor people and minorities isn't inherently risky. There's plenty of evidence that in fact it's not that risky at all." Gross further explained, "On the other hand, lending money recklessly to obscenely rich white guys ... can be really risky. In fact, it's even more risky, since they have a lot more borrowing capacity." [Slate, 10/7/08]
~~
One comment and one flag.
see more
-
"Only wished" what? Are you going with the ridiculous narrative that Bill Clinton forced the Wall Street fat cats to make 10's of billions on bogus mtg. products?
get a grip ...
see more
-
Hillary Clinton was one of the first people in Congress to warn about the subprime mortgage crisis and try to do something about it.
At the same time Trump ran a business that cold-called Americans and talked them into subprime mortgages, promising that the housing market would be strong for years to come. He later said that he hoped the housing market would crash because he would be able to profit off of this.
This is a simple fact.
see more
-
and her husband was responsible for the legislation requiring banks to make loans to those without assets. I am still waiting for Hillary to admit that mistake.The Banking Act of 1933 effectively separated risky speculative investment from traditional FDIC protected functions like issuing mortgages and small business loans. The repeal of this law at Bill Clinton's behest led directly to the toxic-mortgage meltdown of 2008, and the rest is a depressing history of economic stagnation.
see more
-
"and her husband was responsible for the legislation requiring banks to make loans to those without assets."
Evidence?
see more
-
September
1999
With pressure from the Clinton
administration, Fannie Mae eased credit requirements on loans it would purchase
from lenders, making it easier for banks to lend to borrowers unqualified for
conventional loans.
2000
The
Senate Banking Committee estimated that, as a result of CRA, $9.5 billion had gone to pay for services and salaries of
ACORN and other organizers.
Winter
2000
The City Journal warned that the Clinton administration had turned CRA into
"a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks," committing $1
trillion for mortgages and development projects, most of it funneled through
the community organizers.
March
2000
Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., proposed a bill to reform Fannie and
Freddie's oversight in a House subcommittee on capital markets. Rep. Frank
dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown"
and there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."
June
2000
Competitive
Enterprise Institute President Fred L. Smith Jr. on the Treasury Department's
$2 billion line of credit to Fannie and Freddie: "As long as the pipeline
is there, it is like it is very expandable. ... It is only $2 billion today. It
could be $200 billion tomorrow." Because of
Democrat obfuscation, Smith's "tomorrow" arrived in 2008, when
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/gl...
see more
-
No, show the actual order to "requir[e] banks to make loans to those without assets".
see more
-
Who was President? Who put the person in charge at HUD?
Clinton is the answer.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been
under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand
mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure
from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's
and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and
moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae
purchased were from these groups.http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/bus...
see more
-
Where's the order, Sixpac?
see more
-
Have to read between the lines and think a bit. I know it is hard but try.
see more
-
No, you said banks were "required" to make loans to people with no assets. That requires a written order. Where is it? No 'read between the lines'. A firm, direct written order. Without that, there's no "requiring" involved.
see more
-
I never said that, it was pinegold. Please stop lying.
see more
-
Oops. You jumped onto Pinegold's bandwagon, making the identical argument he was making and I didn't realize that it was another person jumping in. My apologies. So, are you saying that the banks weren't required to make loans to people with no assets and that Pinegold was lying?
see more
-
I doubt anyone with zero assets got a loan from any bank. I do know that Clinton urged banks to lower their standards. As for printed proof the only thing I can see is what was written back then. That is what I provided.
see more
-
-
If it makes you feel better yes, unless he can find proof.
see more
-
Convenient how you forget Bush's "Ownership Society" tour.
Don't you remember? He went around the country, with fancy printed backdrops, and expensively produced "town halls" where he encourages people with low or moderate incomes to take out mortgages.
He was touring around the country cheer-leading for subprime loans - the majority of which were done by *private* banks that had no connection to federal regulations..... and yet you are obsessing over Bill Clinton. Wow. Now that's perverted.
see more
-
okay "pressured." Does that change anything?
see more
-
Please show where they were "pressured" to make loans to people with no assets. Show the documented evidence for it.
see more
-
Is this how you think governance works? Direct written orders? clueless
see more
-
When dealing with places like banks, yes.
see more
-
Dude too bad your parents didn't abort you!
see more
-
Yeah like Obama's guidance on transgender bathrooms. No written rule just threat of withholding funding. You are really a dope if you don't know how it works.
see more
-
We are talking public financial institutions, here. What federal funding do they get, and how can it be withheld?
see more
-
-
"So 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.
Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.
And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down. Republican congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.
The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. "Corporate America," he said, "has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place."
see more
-
What about the Federal Reserve? None of this could have happened without the Fed artificially repressing interest rates.
Go back and look at the savings rate from the late 90's till 2008. The aggregate savings rate was abysmal. Given that, where did all of that phony credit come from not backed by real savings? Answer: The crackpots who rule the economy from the Eccles Building, i.e. the FOMC.
see more
-
okay, and Clinton is no better than Bush, whom you despise. So why do you want Hillary, who isn't as "capable" as Bill to be president?
see more
-
What must be hard, is to continually spread lies when you should know better.
Now that takes effort!
see more
-
Dude, you are so dishonest!
That policy amounted to only 16% of the subrpime loans.
Face reality, and stop propagating lies: more than 84% of subprime loans were made by private banks that were exempt from federal regulations.
see more
-
Why cherry-pick the article. It also said:
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
see more
-
those were variable factors, subject to interpretation, and the message of was clear from the Clinton administration to be "liberal" in making such determinations. The fact is that massive numbers of those without the ability to repay received mortgages. Did that just happen lol.
see more
-
Most of the loans that went bad originated in or after 2003, and were valued far beyond what would be considered a CRA-inspired loan.
Poor people just don't have enough share of the market to pull it down.
The foreclosure rate of subprime mortgages increased markedly across 2003–2007 borrower cohorts—subprime mortgages originated in 2006–2007 were roughly three times more likely to default within three years of origination than mortgages originated in 2003–2004.
see more
-
Not those without assets but below the poverty line with bad credit or no credit who couldn't qualify for traditional loans. It's what Clinton euphemistically called "creative financing." It was Clintion's Affordable Housing Program that unleashed the disastrous, unprecendted tsunami of subprime mortgage lending that eventually blew up the housing market and enabled smart investors like Trump to buy up real estate at bargin prices.
http://www.villagevoice.com/ne...
see more
-
The CRA loans were NEVER "stated income" or "stated assets" zero down or negative amortization loans. They were qualifying loans based on income, assets and credit worthiness.
Wall St didn't need any help figuring out how to write that bogus paper.
see more
-
Yes, but they got help. Freddie/Fannie would buy mortagages from originators, pool them, then sell them to Wall Street.
The Federal Reserve is the biggest culprit. Go back and look at savings rates from that period. There were no savings to back all of the phony credit issuance! That creates a bubble.
Consider the foregoing, then realize the Fed has been doing the exact same thing for many years only on a far grander scale. The bubbles in bonds and equities that the Fed has blown are far larger than its housing and dotcom bubble.
We are headed for a massive correction.
see more
-
"Require banks to make loans to those without assets..."
Freddie/Fannie would just buy up the loans from the originators, or once the Federal Reserve fueled credit bubble really got heated up, the originators could just sell to the securitizers on Wall Street.
Hillary Clinton didn't do anything to stop it. She didn't even realize there was a bubble.
As bad as Trump is, at least he saw the bubble and inevitable collapse coming.
see more
-
You are a hilliary and bill butt munch!
see more
-
You are picking and choosing points then making up the years and how they were put in place. Typical conservative move. We don't blame you, you simply don't have access to things like facts. CRA had nothing to do with the sub prime market so that part is just something you picked out of your butt. I noticed your attempt to blame ACORN for the crimes of the republicans, again. They have been cleared too many times of your crimes so just leave them alone. It just makes you look sad to keep attacking them. Bush and the Heritage Foundation pushed Fannie Mae to ease credit because, they were paid to and because they thought that home owners would be more likely to vote republican. Like home ownership would turn middle class people with jobs stupid enough to vote for a party that campaigns on moving their jobs overseas and taking the only assets the GOP has not already redistributed, their homes and retirement accounts.
see more
-
-
ACORN has been cleared? Yeah, and you claim others are fact-challenged!
Fannie and Freddie were bi-partisan pig troughs. They still are to a degree. But the D's were and are far worse on the subject of GSE's. Bush at least tried to do something about them, but then didn't pursue his proposed reforms with any real zeal.
What about the Federal Reserve? Where did all the phony credit for the housing boom come from? The phony credit didn't come out of real savings. Go look at the aggregate savings rate of Americans from the housing bubble years. It was very low.
The left needs to seriously start thinking about the viability and efficacy of the Federal Reserve system and the paper dollar standard.
see more
-
I looked at this site. There are no references or sources so the information can not be verified. And if every syllable of every word is true, it neglects to recognize years of Republican control of congress and the presidency. If things were so bad, why didn't the "responsible" party fix it when they had chances?
see more
-
[ More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/st...
see more
-
-
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been
under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand
mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure
from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09...
see more
-
1999?
how about 2004 - 2007?
"Nearly $3 of every $4 in subprime loans made from 2004 through 2007 came from lenders who were exempt from the law.
State-regulated mortgage companies such as Irvine-based New Century Financial made just over half of all subprime loans. These companies, which CRA does not cover, controlled more than 60 percent of the market before 2006, when banks jumped in.
Another 22 percent came from federally regulated lenders like Countrywide Home Loans and Long Beach Mortgage. These lenders weren't subject to the law, though some were owned by banks that could choose to include them in their CRA reports.
Among lenders that were subject to the law, many ignored subprime while others couldn't get enough."
