boards

本页内容为未名空间相应帖子的节选和存档,一周内的贴子最多显示50字,超过一周显示500字 访问原贴
USANews版 - 喂,希拉里,2008 recession是你老公造成的!
相关主题
数据显示“奥巴”是 毁 民主党最大的 force
SEC Sues Former Fannie, Freddie Executives
实际上经济都是民主党的错,共和党很冤枉
你现在比Obama刚上台时生活更好了吗?
克林顿是过去20年两次最严重的经济危机的罪魁祸首
致那些自认为是进步派的左臂们
McCain backs Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac bail out
Barack Obama's Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Connection
FBI Investigating Potential Fraud by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman, AIG
前总统克林顿:金融危机, 民主党难辞其咎
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: fannie话题: had话题: clinton话题: mae话题: freddie
进入USANews版参与讨论
1 (共1页)
g********2
发帖数: 6571
1
September 28, 2016
Uh, Hillary, Your Hubby Caused the 2008 Recession
By Jack Cashill
On the debate stage Monday night, Hillary Clinton smugly repeated the big
lie that Democrats have been telling with something close to impunity since
2008.
“We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since
the 1930s,” said Hillary. “That was in large part because of tax policies
that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class,
took their eyes off of Wall Street, and created a perfect storm.”
In fact, tax policies had almost nothing to do with the recession of 2008.
What caused the market crash was the collapse of the subprime market. If
that collapse had an architect-in-chief, his name was Bill Clinton. This is
not a speculation. It is an easily documented fact.
When Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 1993, the homeownership rate was lower
than it had been when Richard Nixon was inaugurated in 1969. Despite
increasing prosperity, despite the growth in the condominium market, the
numbers were declining.
The Clintons wanted to push those numbers up. If they had been inclined to
look, the explanation for the decline was simple enough: the collapse of the
two-parent family. From 1970 to 2000, single-parent households,
disproportionately black, increased 60 percent. In that same period, married
couples with their own children fell from 40 percent of all households to
just 24 percent.
The Clintons and their media allies refused to acknowledge family breakdown
as a problem -- remember “Murphy Brown” -- let alone as an explanation for
the disparity in home-ownership rates. Their preferred explanation for just
about everything unpleasant, then as now, was the inevitable racism. This
they could and would freely impute to less enlightened Americans, “the
deplorables” as they would come to be known.
The Clintons found the confirmation they were looking for in a 1991 study by
the Federal Reserve. According to the study, 61 percent of blacks had been
approved in their quest for government-backed home loans as compared to 77
percent for whites. Bingo!
To make the racism story line work, the Clintons had to ignore another
significant set of data, namely, default rates. A comprehensive HUD study of
FHA loans for the years 1992-1999 found that blacks were defaulting more
than twice as frequently as whites, and Hispanics were defaulting three
times more frequently. If minorities had been held to a higher standard,
their default rates should have been lower than whites, not higher. This was
obvious.
No matter. As early as 1993, HUD began to bring legal action against those
mortgage bankers who declined a higher percentage of minorities than whites.
In 1995, the Clinton administration put teeth in Jimmy Carter’s 1977
Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which had merely “encouraged” financial
institutions to “help meet the credit needs of local communities.” Under
Clinton, regulators moved from encouraging to strong-arming.
The regulators were backed by the street-level bullyboy tactics of the late
and unlamented ACORN, shorthand for Association of Community Organizations
for Reform Now. Historically, banks had been reluctant to offer home loans
to people who might not pay them back, and so ACORN set out to embarrass
bankers into overcoming that reluctance.
A sympathetic media romanticized ACORN and turned what might have been a
nuisance for the banks into a public-relations nightmare. As the New York
Times reported approvingly, “The nation’s largest banks have come to the
negotiating table just to silence objections that could derail or create
costly delays to a merger.”
To make ACORN’s task easier, the Clinton administration demanded that banks
quantify the progress they were making in giving loans to LMIs -- people of
“low and moderate income.” The administration encouraged banks to use “
innovative or flexible” lending practices to reach their LMI numbers.
Meanwhile HUD, which Congress had made the regulator of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac in 1992, began to pressure these agencies to set numerical goals
for affordable housing, even if that meant buying subprime mortgages. The
media cheered the agencies on. A September 1999 Times article commended
Fannie Mae for prodding banks to provide mortgages to those whose credit was
“not good enough to qualify for conventional loans.”
With a gun to their head, the lenders turned to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
to relieve them of the imprudent loans they were now being forced to make.
Before the 1990s, Fannie and Freddie had sufficiently tough lending
standards that default was not much of an issue. That would change.
In 1999, the Clintons’ newly appointed CEO, Franklin Delano Raines, was
boasting of the changes Fannie Mae had already made and the changes to come.
As he told the Times, Fannie Mae had lowered the down payment requirements
for a home and now planned to extend credit to borrowers a “notch below its
traditional standards.” That notch was spelled subprime.
Given the greater risk, subprime prospects typically have had to pay more
interest to secure a loan. For investors, high interest translated into high
yield. In October 1997, the investment banks Bear Stearns and First Union
Capital Markets underwrote the first securitization of subprime loans for a
total of $385 million.
The back-patting press release announcing the launch hit all the bubble-era
hot buttons: these “affordable” and “flexible” mortgages offered the
possibility of credit for “low and moderate income families” in “
traditionally underserved markets.”
These securities proved enormously popular. They promised a 7.5 percent
yield in a low-interest environment and, if that were not enough, a chance
to cleanse one’s venal Wall Street soul by doing what appeared to be a
social good.
To rally the base a week before the 2000 election, the Clinton
administration announced historic new regulations that would put a further
squeeze on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. “These new regulations will greatly
enhance access to affordable housing for minorities, urban residents, new
immigrants and others left behind, giving millions of families the
opportunity to buy homes,” said HUD Secretary, now New York State governor,
Andrew Cuomo.
The regs upped Fannie and Freddie’s “affordable housing” quota from 42 to
50 percent. “We have not been a major presence in the subprime market,”
boasted CEO Raines, “but you can bet that under these goals, we will be.”
Raines deflected criticism by focusing on Fannie Mae’s success at social
engineering. “We have met or exceeded our affordable housing goals, even as
they have increased,” he told the Congressional Finance Committee in late
2003. He also shared the company’s “voluntary goal,” namely, to “lead
the market in serving minority families.”
When President Bush expressed concern about the precarious state of Fannie
and Freddie in June 2004, he triggered seventy-six Democrats in Congress to
sign a letter warning that “an exclusive focus on safety and soundness is
likely to come, in practice, at the expense of affordable housing.”
Despite early signs of impending disaster, Congress kept the pressure on. On
June 27, 2005, Barney Frank, the ranking Democrat on House Financial
Services Committee, took to the House floor to chide those who worried about
a housing bubble.
“You are not going to see the collapse that you see when people talk about
a bubble,” he lectured his colleagues. “So those on our committee in
particular are going to continue to push for homeownership.”
And push they did. Subprime credit had become, what one wag called, “the
mad cow disease of structured finance.” With a clean bill of health from
the media and the Democrats, and a shockingly ignorant assist from Wall
Street, the infected product was allowed to poison the entire economy.
No sweat for Hillary. The final convulsion -- Phew! -- occurred on George
Bush’s watch.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/09/uh_hillary_your_hubby_caused_the_2008_recession.html#ixzz4LYZrfl7W
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
h******k
发帖数: 15372
2
属实
g********2
发帖数: 6571
3
克林顿政府推动了次贷危机,造成2008年的recession.
m**1
发帖数: 495
4
这个是早就坐实了的,可是“主流媒体”集体禁声。
l*******g
发帖数: 27064
5
左逼媒体没噤声吧
和稀拉里一样把黑锅扣在小布什头上

【在 m**1 的大作中提到】
: 这个是早就坐实了的,可是“主流媒体”集体禁声。
t*******d
发帖数: 12895
6
加上NAFTA这个催化剂

【在 g********2 的大作中提到】
: 克林顿政府推动了次贷危机,造成2008年的recession.
g********2
发帖数: 6571
7
总有些人特赞男克,说他会搞经济,甚至就因为这个要投票给希拉里,说如果希拉里上
台,实际上就是男克上台,美国经济有救了。
我就没搞懂,男克到底会搞什么经济?
g********2
发帖数: 6571
8
September 28, 2016
Uh, Hillary, Your Hubby Caused the 2008 Recession
By Jack Cashill
On the debate stage Monday night, Hillary Clinton smugly repeated the big
lie that Democrats have been telling with something close to impunity since
2008.
“We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since
the 1930s,” said Hillary. “That was in large part because of tax policies
that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class,
took their eyes off of Wall Street, and created a perfect storm.”
In fact, tax policies had almost nothing to do with the recession of 2008.
What caused the market crash was the collapse of the subprime market. If
that collapse had an architect-in-chief, his name was Bill Clinton. This is
not a speculation. It is an easily documented fact.
When Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 1993, the homeownership rate was lower
than it had been when Richard Nixon was inaugurated in 1969. Despite
increasing prosperity, despite the growth in the condominium market, the
numbers were declining.
The Clintons wanted to push those numbers up. If they had been inclined to
look, the explanation for the decline was simple enough: the collapse of the
two-parent family. From 1970 to 2000, single-parent households,
disproportionately black, increased 60 percent. In that same period, married
couples with their own children fell from 40 percent of all households to
just 24 percent.
The Clintons and their media allies refused to acknowledge family breakdown
as a problem -- remember “Murphy Brown” -- let alone as an explanation for
the disparity in home-ownership rates. Their preferred explanation for just
about everything unpleasant, then as now, was the inevitable racism. This
they could and would freely impute to less enlightened Americans, “the
deplorables” as they would come to be known.
The Clintons found the confirmation they were looking for in a 1991 study by
the Federal Reserve. According to the study, 61 percent of blacks had been
approved in their quest for government-backed home loans as compared to 77
percent for whites. Bingo!
To make the racism story line work, the Clintons had to ignore another
significant set of data, namely, default rates. A comprehensive HUD study of
FHA loans for the years 1992-1999 found that blacks were defaulting more
than twice as frequently as whites, and Hispanics were defaulting three
times more frequently. If minorities had been held to a higher standard,
their default rates should have been lower than whites, not higher. This was
obvious.
No matter. As early as 1993, HUD began to bring legal action against those
mortgage bankers who declined a higher percentage of minorities than whites.
In 1995, the Clinton administration put teeth in Jimmy Carter’s 1977
Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which had merely “encouraged” financial
institutions to “help meet the credit needs of local communities.” Under
Clinton, regulators moved from encouraging to strong-arming.
The regulators were backed by the street-level bullyboy tactics of the late
and unlamented ACORN, shorthand for Association of Community Organizations
for Reform Now. Historically, banks had been reluctant to offer home loans
to people who might not pay them back, and so ACORN set out to embarrass
bankers into overcoming that reluctance.
A sympathetic media romanticized ACORN and turned what might have been a
nuisance for the banks into a public-relations nightmare. As the New York
Times reported approvingly, “The nation’s largest banks have come to the
negotiating table just to silence objections that could derail or create
costly delays to a merger.”
To make ACORN’s task easier, the Clinton administration demanded that banks
quantify the progress they were making in giving loans to LMIs -- people of
“low and moderate income.” The administration encouraged banks to use “
innovative or flexible” lending practices to reach their LMI numbers.
Meanwhile HUD, which Congress had made the regulator of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac in 1992, began to pressure these agencies to set numerical goals
for affordable housing, even if that meant buying subprime mortgages. The
media cheered the agencies on. A September 1999 Times article commended
Fannie Mae for prodding banks to provide mortgages to those whose credit was
“not good enough to qualify for conventional loans.”
With a gun to their head, the lenders turned to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
to relieve them of the imprudent loans they were now being forced to make.
Before the 1990s, Fannie and Freddie had sufficiently tough lending
standards that default was not much of an issue. That would change.
In 1999, the Clintons’ newly appointed CEO, Franklin Delano Raines, was
boasting of the changes Fannie Mae had already made and the changes to come.
As he told the Times, Fannie Mae had lowered the down payment requirements
for a home and now planned to extend credit to borrowers a “notch below its
traditional standards.” That notch was spelled subprime.
Given the greater risk, subprime prospects typically have had to pay more
interest to secure a loan. For investors, high interest translated into high
yield. In October 1997, the investment banks Bear Stearns and First Union
Capital Markets underwrote the first securitization of subprime loans for a
total of $385 million.
The back-patting press release announcing the launch hit all the bubble-era
hot buttons: these “affordable” and “flexible” mortgages offered the
possibility of credit for “low and moderate income families” in “
traditionally underserved markets.”
These securities proved enormously popular. They promised a 7.5 percent
yield in a low-interest environment and, if that were not enough, a chance
to cleanse one’s venal Wall Street soul by doing what appeared to be a
social good.
To rally the base a week before the 2000 election, the Clinton
administration announced historic new regulations that would put a further
squeeze on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. “These new regulations will greatly
enhance access to affordable housing for minorities, urban residents, new
immigrants and others left behind, giving millions of families the
opportunity to buy homes,” said HUD Secretary, now New York State governor,
Andrew Cuomo.
The regs upped Fannie and Freddie’s “affordable housing” quota from 42 to
50 percent. “We have not been a major presence in the subprime market,”
boasted CEO Raines, “but you can bet that under these goals, we will be.”
Raines deflected criticism by focusing on Fannie Mae’s success at social
engineering. “We have met or exceeded our affordable housing goals, even as
they have increased,” he told the Congressional Finance Committee in late
2003. He also shared the company’s “voluntary goal,” namely, to “lead
the market in serving minority families.”
When President Bush expressed concern about the precarious state of Fannie
and Freddie in June 2004, he triggered seventy-six Democrats in Congress to
sign a letter warning that “an exclusive focus on safety and soundness is
likely to come, in practice, at the expense of affordable housing.”
Despite early signs of impending disaster, Congress kept the pressure on. On
June 27, 2005, Barney Frank, the ranking Democrat on House Financial
Services Committee, took to the House floor to chide those who worried about
a housing bubble.
“You are not going to see the collapse that you see when people talk about
a bubble,” he lectured his colleagues. “So those on our committee in
particular are going to continue to push for homeownership.”
And push they did. Subprime credit had become, what one wag called, “the
mad cow disease of structured finance.” With a clean bill of health from
the media and the Democrats, and a shockingly ignorant assist from Wall
Street, the infected product was allowed to poison the entire economy.
No sweat for Hillary. The final convulsion -- Phew! -- occurred on George
Bush’s watch.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/09/uh_hillary_your_hubby_caused_the_2008_recession.html#ixzz4LYZrfl7W
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
h******k
发帖数: 15372
9
属实
g********2
发帖数: 6571
10
克林顿政府推动了次贷危机,造成2008年的recession.
相关主题
你现在比Obama刚上台时生活更好了吗?
克林顿是过去20年两次最严重的经济危机的罪魁祸首
致那些自认为是进步派的左臂们
McCain backs Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac bail out
进入USANews版参与讨论
m**1
发帖数: 495
11
这个是早就坐实了的,可是“主流媒体”集体禁声。
l*******g
发帖数: 27064
12
左逼媒体没噤声吧
和稀拉里一样把黑锅扣在小布什头上

【在 m**1 的大作中提到】
: 这个是早就坐实了的,可是“主流媒体”集体禁声。
t*******d
发帖数: 12895
13
加上NAFTA这个催化剂

【在 g********2 的大作中提到】
: 克林顿政府推动了次贷危机,造成2008年的recession.
g********2
发帖数: 6571
14
总有些人特赞男克,说他会搞经济,甚至就因为这个要投票给希拉里,说如果希拉里上
台,实际上就是男克上台,美国经济有救了。
我就没搞懂,男克到底会搞什么经济?
g********2
发帖数: 6571
15
顶上来回复汪得慢。
----------------------------
发信人: wonderment (wonder), 信区: USANews
标 题: Re: 数据显示“奥巴”是 毁 民主党最大的 force
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Nov 21 15:49:07 2016, 美东)
互联网泡沫和克林顿有关,那么你给讲讲为什么次贷危机是男克搞的?
k******0
发帖数: 2438
16
这是汪得慢羞辱每一个右派的问题,意思是,他会每次都问这些自以为高深的经济问题
刁难你,即使你已经解释了10次或更多。

【在 g********2 的大作中提到】
: 顶上来回复汪得慢。
: ----------------------------
: 发信人: wonderment (wonder), 信区: USANews
: 标 题: Re: 数据显示“奥巴”是 毁 民主党最大的 force
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Nov 21 15:49:07 2016, 美东)
: 互联网泡沫和克林顿有关,那么你给讲讲为什么次贷危机是男克搞的?

s******r
发帖数: 21961
17
当年老布什/老克大选的时候,有个评论当时3个竞选者的经济政策是:
老布什是个木苹果
老克是个毒苹果
还有那个是个烂苹果
g********2
发帖数: 6571
18
所以叫汪得慢呢。

题刁难你,即使你已经解释了10次或更多。

【在 k******0 的大作中提到】
: 这是汪得慢羞辱每一个右派的问题,意思是,他会每次都问这些自以为高深的经济问题
: 刁难你,即使你已经解释了10次或更多。

1 (共1页)
进入USANews版参与讨论
相关主题
前总统克林顿:金融危机, 民主党难辞其咎
新政”能解救美国吗? zz
Fannie Mae chief to collect 3M bonus
房利美续亏损 再寻求153亿美元救助
Fannie Mae现在需要美国政府再度纾困84亿美元
政府注资不能从根本上解决经济衰退 (转载)
这下好,CNN都不得不跳出来为romney, newt僻谣了
小布什有什么错?我没搞懂
WSJ:金融危机肇始于克林顿时代?
Fannie, Freddie又要开始制造房产泡沫了
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: fannie话题: had话题: clinton话题: mae话题: freddie