Housing crisis, the spark that begat the flame.

[BlueStreak]

Barney Frank is to blame for the housing debacle that triggered this rec(depr)ession?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYvtvcBKgIQ&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68&feature=related

I think not. At least that's not how I remember it. See, the "Ownership Society" was the brainchild of one George W. Bush. Hmmmmm---2002, "flipping", buying a house for a song and selling it for a princes ransom----I did a little of that myself. Now the damn things are too expensive----no one can afford them. Wow! Who'd a thunk that holding down wages whilst jacking up housing prices could lead to disaster?

Aaahhhhh, how the pieces of this puzzle come together. I'm not a religious man, but it would seem to me a sandal wearing hippie from the way back tried to warn us of the evils of unbridled greed.....It aint no good. He said.

Maybe we should've listened?

Dave

[Charles]

Barney Frank is to blame for the housing debacle that triggered this rec(depr)ession?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYvtvcBKgIQ&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68&feature=related

I think not. At least that's not how I remember it. See, the "Ownership Society" was the brainchild of one George W. Bush. Hmmmmm---2002, "flipping", buying a house for a song and selling it for a princes ransom----I did a little of that myself. Now the damn things are too expensive----no one can afford them. Wow! Who'd a thunk that holding down wages whilst jacking up housing prices could lead to disaster?

Aaahhhhh, how the pieces of this puzzle come together. I'm not a religious man, but it would seem to me a sandal wearing hippie from the way back tried to warn us of the evils of unbridled greed.....It aint no good. He said.

Maybe we should've listened?

Dave

It goes back quite a bit further than Shrub. Sadly, both parties were too busy playing politics to address the issue.

Allowing the mortgage brokers to run free offering loans above appraisal with payments below interest had more to do with it than anything. It was a real money making operation provided one got out before the music stopped. I know several who didn't.

And the mortgage brokers are still out there. Their latest scam is luring the aspirants into their offices to apply for a mortgage that they have no hope of qualifying for, and then pocketing their origination fees.

Or so I was told by a couple I do work for. One is an attorney and the other is a CPA, so they understand perfectly how the game is being played.

Chas

[merrylander]

I can just see it all now, old Barney out there with a gun forcing the brokers and bankers to write loans by exaggerating the borrower's qualifications. Then he shows up at Goldman Sachs and forces them to sell phony derivatives to their customers, all the while betting that those same derivatives will fail. Meanwhile the title companies sat back and collected their 80% commission on the title insurance policies. He was so busy one wonders why he did not lose weight.

What I really wonder is why some of those same brokers and bankers are not in jail.

[Charles]

Well, Barney does have a reputation as a gunslinger in "some" circles.

Chas

[whell]

What I really wonder is why some of those same brokers and bankers are not in jail.

Could is be because Eric Holder couldn't prosecute Charles Manson if he had the chance?

Seriously, as Chas suggests, this issue goes back to Carter. It did devolve in the early to mid 2000's for any number of reasons, none of which can be easily wrapped up with a bow and blamed solely on Bush....no matter how hard Dave would like to try. :p

Besides, I thought Obama fixed all this with the stimulus. :rolleyes:

[whell]

Well, Barney does have a reputation as a gunslinger in "some" circles.

Chas

Maybe less a gunslinger and more like a pea shooter.

[piece-itpete]

I understand the reluctance of any President to tackle the issue. Who wants to stop a gravey train?

Pete

[Zeke]

At least in words, a lot of this stuff was directly addressed, here:

"SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008

Title V of P.L. 110-289, the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (“SAFE Act”), was passed on July 30, 2008. The new federal law gave states one year to pass legislation requiring the licensure of mortgage loan originators according to national standards and the participation of state agencies on the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry (NMLS). The SAFE Act is designed to enhance consumer protection and reduce fraud through the setting of minimum standards for the licensing and registration of state-licensed mortgage loan. Mortgage loan originators who work for an insured depository or its owned or controlled subsidiary that is regulated by a federal banking agency, or for an institution regulated by the Farm Credit Administration, are registered. All other mortgage loan originators are licensed by the states.

The SAFE Act requires state-licensed MLOs to pass a written qualified test, to complete pre-licensure education courses, and to take annual continuing education courses. The SAFE Act also requires all MLOs to submit fingerprints to the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System (NMLS) for submission to the FBI for a criminal background check; and state-licensed MLOs to provide authorization for NMLS to obtain an independent credit report."

But only since Obama has been President have a litany of national -- and, hence, state -- standards actually been codified.

In sum (as of March-ish), things like application fees are illegal and, as Mortgage Loan Officers are now required to be registered and act within guidelines to legally operate, any failure to act within SAFE Act guidelines gets you removed from the game.

Amazingly, there never was a system to check this. In the past, a guy could be convicted of fraud in Dallas, TX, and open up shop 24 hours later in Tulsa, OK, with ZERO (beyond fines in the previous state) repercussions.

Now, this stuff is tightly regulated and it has taken me >90 days to receive licensing in MO and KS. Why was there an opening at a prestigious firm in a business that is relatively closed to outsiders?

Let's just say that, as licensing rolled in, a sizable percentage of originators rolled out: being unable to pass a criminal background, credit check, get the necessary score on state/fed examinations, and/or convince their brokerage houses that they were not a potential liability...

Yes, much of the industry used to smell. In my opinion, the SAFE Act is an example of regulation acting in a positive manner (that doesn't always occur).

Now, the potential unintended consequence is that fewer people will be able to afford homes with stricter guidelines for funding. :rolleyes:

[BlueStreak]

I understand the reluctance of any President to tackle the issue. Who wants to stop a gravey train?

Pete

And, there it is. The answer is none of them. If their constituency is fat, dumb and happy they'll just let it roll.

I will concede that it didn't start with GW. But, it certainly came to a head under his watch. And since we like to make a president "own" whatever fails on his watch these days..............:rolleyes:

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Maybe less a gunslinger and more like a pea shooter.

Yeah, it does get a little disconcerting trying to follow whether liberals are "pussies" or "thugs", the teabaggers keep changing it back and forth on us.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Yeah, it does get a little disconcerting trying to follow whether liberals are "pussies" or "thugs", the teabaggers keep changing it back and forth on us.

Dave

Followers and leaders? :D

Pete

[piece-itpete]

Heaven forbid I should offend anyone btw. Accept my apologies in advance.

Pete

[Charles]

At least in words, a lot of this stuff was directly addressed, here:

"SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008

Title V of P.L. 110-289, the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (“SAFE Act”), was passed on July 30, 2008. The new federal law gave states one year to pass legislation requiring the licensure of mortgage loan originators according to national standards and the participation of state agencies on the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry (NMLS). The SAFE Act is designed to enhance consumer protection and reduce fraud through the setting of minimum standards for the licensing and registration of state-licensed mortgage loan. Mortgage loan originators who work for an insured depository or its owned or controlled subsidiary that is regulated by a federal banking agency, or for an institution regulated by the Farm Credit Administration, are registered. All other mortgage loan originators are licensed by the states.

The SAFE Act requires state-licensed MLOs to pass a written qualified test, to complete pre-licensure education courses, and to take annual continuing education courses. The SAFE Act also requires all MLOs to submit fingerprints to the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System (NMLS) for submission to the FBI for a criminal background check; and state-licensed MLOs to provide authorization for NMLS to obtain an independent credit report."

But only since Obama has been President have a litany of national -- and, hence, state -- standards actually been codified.

In sum (as of March-ish), things like application fees are illegal and, as Mortgage Loan Officers are now required to be registered and act within guidelines to legally operate, any failure to act within SAFE Act guidelines gets you removed from the game.

Amazingly, there never was a system to check this. In the past, a guy could be convicted of fraud in Dallas, TX, and open up shop 24 hours later in Tulsa, OK, with ZERO (beyond fines in the previous state) repercussions.

Now, this stuff is tightly regulated and it has taken me >90 days to receive licensing in MO and KS. Why was there an opening at a prestigious firm in a business that is relatively closed to outsiders?

Let's just say that, as licensing rolled in, a sizable percentage of originators rolled out: being unable to pass a criminal background, credit check, get the necessary score on state/fed examinations, and/or convince their brokerage houses that they were not a potential liability...

Yes, much of the industry used to smell. In my opinion, the SAFE Act is an example of regulation acting in a positive manner (that doesn't always occur).

Now, the potential unintended consequence is that fewer people will be able to afford homes with stricter guidelines for funding. :rolleyes:

Best of wishes on your new career.

My little story of the mortgage brokers screwing people out of the origination fees is dated by at least 1 1/2 years.

My clients were flying back from Europe and sitting next to some mortgage brokers. They said the brokers were laughing about it as they explained their scam.

It's good to know that the flim flam artists are being drummed out of the corps.

Honest Injun!!!

Chas

BTW, they tell me that I'm part Cherokee. And I have noticed that whenever I toss down too much firewater, I have an overwhelming urge to lift a few scalps.

[Rex E.]

When does personal responsibility come into this? If you don't have the money and know you don't have it then no one in the world is to blame other than yourself. Not the lender, the agent not anyone but the person who took the loan.

[Oerets]

When does personal responsibility come into this? If you don't have the money and know you don't have it then no one in the world is to blame other than yourself. Not the lender, the agent not anyone but the person who took the loan.

Under your analogy the Nigerian Prince who needs a check cashed in the USA is not guilty but the person who is taken in is? Sure most people don't get snookered but a few do.

When you have the whole sale marketing of home loans that was going on then it was easy for some to be fooled.
Between the Realtors / Home Builders, Banks and appraisers all fueling the fire people got caught up.

This was a profit driven feeding frenzy caused by the quick money to be made in Closings, Origination fees and such. The banks got there money then bundled, sold most of the loans before they went toxic. Or were bailed out of any losses that they did get stuck with.


Then you have the people who had good credit and bought a home they could afford. But now the balloon payment is do and the home is worth 1/2 so no bank will loan them the money. So walking away from the home becomes an option they consider.


Barney

[BlueStreak]

Under your analogy the Nigerian Prince who needs a check cashed in the USA is not guilty but the person who is taken in is? Sure most people don't get snookered but a few do.

When you have the whole sale marketing of home loans that was going on then it was easy for some to be fooled.
Between the Realtors / Home Builders, Banks and appraisers all fueling the fire people got caught up.

This was a profit driven feeding frenzy caused by the quick money to be made in Closings, Origination fees and such. The banks got there money then bundled, sold most of the loans before they went toxic. Or were bailed out of any losses that they did get stuck with.


Then you have the people who had good credit and bought a home they could afford. But now the balloon payment is do and the home is worth 1/2 so no bank will loan them the money. So walking away from the home becomes an option they consider.


Barney

I would have to agree. I flipped a couple homes between 1996-2005. The real estate agents and lenders were always pushing me hard to buy something WAY more expensive than I could afford. I didn't fall for it, but I can easily see how some would.

At what point does the behavior of the so-called professionals become unethical? I would say that if you know you're pressuring someone to buy a home they have no chance in hell of affording-------This is that point.

I honestly don't understand why our friends on the right want to condone such unethical and unprofessional behavior. Can someone please explain that to me? Is it some sort of--"The businessman can do no wrong. Telling him he's an ass might upset him, so we have to blame anyone and everyone else." mentality?

Seriously. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

Dave

[Charles]

I would have to agree. I flipped a couple homes between 1996-2005. The real estate agents and lenders were always pushing me hard to buy something WAY more expensive than I could afford. I didn't fall for it, but I can easily see how some would.

At what point does the behavior of the so-called professionals become unethical? I would say that if you know you're pressuring someone to buy a home they have no chance in hell of affording-------This is that point.

I honestly don't understand why our friends on the right want to condone such unethical and unprofessional behavior. Can someone please explain that to me? Is it some sort of--"The businessman can do no wrong. Telling him he's an ass might upset him, so we have to blame anyone and everyone else." mentality?

Seriously. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

Dave

It was mass psychosis.

Everyone was watching "This Old House", standing around the water cooler talking about their new 4-plex, even the guy on the ass end of the garbage truck was a real estate mogul.

It was "no money down" and the financial laws of gravity have been suspended. Everyone was getting rich and no one wanted to be left behind.

It was greed, pure and simple. Everyone was busy putting the pencil to how much their net worth had increased instead of putting the pencil to how in the hell they were going to pay for it all.

Even the "buy now before housing becomes unaffordable" crowd failed to see the obvious flaw in their logic.

For a brief period of time, the interest I was receiving on a lowly IRA was higher than the interest I was paying on my home loan. At the same bank. Hell, I even had a 15K loan on a credit card at 0% interest.

Times wus good!!!

Now there were two ways to view a situation such as this. One is to borrow just as much money as you can, because you can't lose. The other is things are fixin' to change.

Fortunately, my crummy little crystal ball told me to chose the latter.

Chas

[bhunter]

Yeah, it does get a little disconcerting trying to follow whether liberals are "pussies" or "thugs", the teabaggers keep changing it back and forth on us.

Dave

Simple: Union Thugs; Regulators and Environmentalists Pussies. Two distinct groups.

[bhunter]

When does personal responsibility come into this? If you don't have the money and know you don't have it then no one in the world is to blame other than yourself. Not the lender, the agent not anyone but the person who took the loan.

Further, if the government wasn't distorting the market, the whole bubble wouldn't have occurred. Firms are much more careful lending their own money. The ridiculous part is attempting to place blame on evil corporations without acknowledging the nanny state's role. I seem to recall the Bush Admin trying to get stiffer regulation, but being thwarted by the left in Congress.

[merrylander]

Let's see - we have a system where the mortgage broker finds a lender, takes a 'point' off the top and disappears. The lender takes two, maybe three 'ponts' off the top, securitizes the loan, and disappears.

The miracle is that it took so long for it to blow up in everyone's face. I am beginning to believe that all financial rules here were designed by thieves for thieves. When SCOTUS declares bribery is legal and later says corporations are citizens (even if they are based in Switzerland) what else can one expect.

[piece-itpete]

Rex, how dare you think that people could be responsible for their own actions? Heresey! This is the USA - it's ALWAYS someone elses' fault.

I hereby summon you to a council of the Knights that say 'Ni!'

...the financial laws of gravity have been suspended. ...

Best description I've heard :thmpsup:

Heaven forbid I should offend anyone btw. Accept my apologies in advance.

Pete

No one took the bait. Dang.

Pete

[d-ray657]

I seem to recall the Bush Admin trying to get stiffer regulation, but being thwarted by the left in Congress.

I'd like to see some evidence of this.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

I'd like to see some evidence of this.

Regards,

D-Ray

Hope you are not holding your breath.:p

[finnbow]

I'd like to see some evidence of this.

Regards,

D-Ray

Particularly when the GOP controlled the Congress for 6 of 8 years under Dubya. And ain't it the GOP who is hollering about the financial reforms put into place by Dodd-Frank (though I also personally doubt their effectiveness)?

[piece-itpete]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

(SNIP)

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

.......

''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.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

(ENDSNIP)

Pete

[finnbow]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

(SNIP)

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

.......

''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.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

(ENDSNIP)

Pete

Though Frank and Watt spoke out against it, the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House at the time.

[piece-itpete]

Ahh, but it's my turn to say we didn't have 60 in the Senate....

Not even 59 +1 :)

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Let's see - we have a system where the mortgage broker finds a lender, takes a 'point' off the top and disappears. The lender takes two, maybe three 'ponts' off the top, securitizes the loan, and disappears.

The miracle is that it took so long for it to blow up in everyone's face. I am beginning to believe that all financial rules here were designed by thieves for thieves. When SCOTUS declares bribery is legal and later says corporations are citizens (even if they are based in Switzerland) what else can one expect.

The whole thing stinks, doesn't it? A corporation is a citizen, an individual with full Constitutional rights? By what stretch of the imagination? And people try to claim there is no corruption on the right.......a bunch of Boy Scouts, those angelic little Republicans. "They just want to do what's right for America.".....yeah, and I'm the fucking Pope.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

YOU'RE the fucking Pope??! Holy shit!

Pete

[noonereal]

It goes back quite a bit further than Shrub. Sadly, both parties were too busy playing politics to address the issue.

Allowing the mortgage brokers to run free offering loans above appraisal with payments below interest had more to do with it than anything. It was a real money making operation provided one got out before the music stopped. I know several who didn't.

And the mortgage brokers are still out there. Their latest scam is luring the aspirants into their offices to apply for a mortgage that they have no hope of qualifying for, and then pocketing their origination fees.

Or so I was told by a couple I do work for. One is an attorney and the other is a CPA, so they understand perfectly how the game is being played.

Chas



All the morgage brokers I knew who were pullin' in over $350,000 a year are now selling insurance to their friends and family.

[piece-itpete]

If the brokers are doing it knowingly for fees that is despicable. A broker who tells folks to lie on their app is a criminal.

However a broker doesn't decide who qualifies.

When I was an RE agent, folks would say well I went to the bank and they turned me down. I'd send them to a broker - more options. And they would often get excellent advice from the broker even if they couldn't get a mortgage.

The real culprits in this game are the bundlers and the credit rating agencies. Really more so the raters, as they gave the bundlers credibility. Brokers can only get away with what they are allowed to (outside of slimely things like Chas mentioned).

Mortgage brokers are like any other sales kinda - someone wants something and they find it. I do the same on many products we wholesale and distribute.

Plus, and here's the main thing - the mortgage brokers bought us RE agents donuts. Lots of them.

Pete

[merrylander]

All I know is that the mortgage broker who got us the loan on this property was driving an effing big Mercedes, made my 81 Buick Century look small.

[merrylander]

If the brokers are doing it knowingly for fees that is despicable. A broker who tells folks to lie on their app is a criminal.

However a broker doesn't decide who qualifies.

He/she does if they lie on the paperwork as many did

When I was an RE agent, folks would say well I went to the bank and they turned me down. I'd send them to a broker - more options. And they would often get excellent advice from the broker even if they couldn't get a mortgage.

The real culprits in this game are the bundlers and the credit rating agencies. Really more so the raters, as they gave the bundlers credibility. Brokers can only get away with what they are allowed to (outside of slimely things like Chas mentioned).

Mortgage brokers are like any other sales kinda - someone wants something and they find it. I do the same on many products we wholesale and distribute.

Hell I knew where the bank was, did not really need any stinkin broker

Plus, and here's the main thing - the mortgage brokers bought us RE agents donuts. Lots of them.

Pete

The initial lender knew the system was being gamed and they went along with it for the $$$$$$

[Charles]

All the morgage brokers I knew who were pullin' in over $350,000 a year are now selling insurance to their friends and family.

I'd rather deal with the plaid suit & cheap cigar crowd down at the used car lot.

Chas

[bhunter]

I'd like to see some evidence of this.

Regards,

D-Ray

This is from the New York Times:


But the truth is that the Bush administration foresaw the bubble bursting and proposed tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac government-subsidized “companies.” Side note: isn’t that an oxymoron? As the NY Times reported in 2003:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

Gasp! How could all this blame be placed on the Bush administration then? Who was blocking this legislation? We read:

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”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.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

The Bush administration’s mistake was they didn’t treat the problem with enough urgency. If Bush applied the same amount of pressure as he did the War on Terror, he could have gotten more cooperation from Democrats. And he didn’t have any “false intelligence” to worry about. These numbers weren’t lying.



Also, remember how much campaign support Obama received from Fannie and Freddie.

[d-ray657]

This is from the New York Times:



Also, remember how much campaign support Obama received from Fannie and Freddie.

It's hard to tell how much of that is a direct quote from the NY Times or other sources. No author is provided, and it is not clear who is responsible for the editorial commentary.

One glaring point in the article is that Bush asked Congress to transfer some of its authority to the Executive Branch. I'm not sure how much opposition to consolidation of power within the executive branch is a partisan issue. After all, in 2003, the date mentioned in the article, the Republicans had majorities in both houses of Congress. It would be interesting to see what the breakdown of the vote was in terms of party affiliation - if the bill even got out of a Republican controlled committee.

Finally, unless my recall of recent history has been erased, the housing bubble burst well before Obama was sworn into office. Accordingly, the comment with respect to campaign contributions is entirely irrelevant.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Zeke]

Best of wishes on your new career.

Thanks!

My little story of the mortgage brokers screwing people out of the origination fees is dated by at least 1 1/2 years.

My clients were flying back from Europe and sitting next to some mortgage brokers. They said the brokers were laughing about it as they explained their scam.

Oh, I have no doubt that it occurred.

It's good to know that the flim flam artists are being drummed out of the corps.

Honest Injun!!!

Chas

BTW, they tell me that I'm part Cherokee. And I have noticed that whenever I toss down too much firewater, I have an overwhelming urge to lift a few scalps.

1. It truly is a whole new ballgame in terms of regulation and compensation.
2. I've noticed I turn surly consuming too much scotch: I've had to cut back. :D

[bhunter]

Finally, unless my recall of recent history has been erased, the housing bubble burst well before Obama was sworn into office. Accordingly, the comment with respect to campaign contributions is entirely irrelevant.

Regards,

D-Ray

Ok, take a look at Fannie and Freddies contributions to democrats including Obama before the bubble burst. Frank and Dodd might be a good place to start. He was a U.S. Senator. I pulled that quote from a site and I am too lazy to search the NYT archives. I do recall that discussion happening back then.

[d-ray657]

Ya know, I heard that ACORN and the new black panthers were on Fannie and Freddy's payroll, and that they were all being financed by George Soros. Glenn Beck told me that.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

This is from the New York Times:



Also, remember how much campaign support Obama received from Fannie and Freddie.

I've read all of this before. McCain was even calling for reform back in 2006, I believe.

I imagine Fanny/Freddie were already in the shitter before anyone came up with a notion to reform them.

Chas

[bhunter]

Ya know, I heard that ACORN and the new black panthers were on Fannie and Freddy's payroll, and that they were all being financed by George Soros. Glenn Beck told me that.

Regards,

D-Ray

I miss Beck's show simply because he bugged the hell out of the democrats. BTW, what ever happened with ACORN and the NBP. There was video of the NBP and Holder didn't see a problem with their intimidation?

[d-ray657]

I miss Beck's show simply because he bugged the hell out of the democrats. BTW, what ever happened with ACORN and the NBP. There was video of the NBP and Holder didn't see a problem with their intimidation?

The voters did not see a problem with intimidation. The investigation did not identify a single voter who was intimidated. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/its-really-truly-over-new-report-completely-debunks-new-black-panther-nonsense/2011/03/04/AF1uRpwC_blog.html)

THe DOJ office of professional responsibility issued an in depth report (http://democrats.judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/OPR%20Report.pdf) about both the filing of the lawsuit and it's subsequent dismissal against 3 of the 4 defendants. Interestingly, the voting rights office in philadelphia noted that it had received several calls complaining about the men's presence at the polling place, but that all of the complaints were from people out of town who had seen the TV report.

Ultimately, the DOJ sought an injunction against the fellow that was holding the night-stick, and he may no longer appear at polling places. The NBPP is now a non-issue.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

The voters did not see a problem with intimidation. The investigation did not identify a single voter who was intimidated. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/its-really-truly-over-new-report-completely-debunks-new-black-panther-nonsense/2011/03/04/AF1uRpwC_blog.html)

THe DOJ office of professional responsibility issued an in depth report (http://democrats.judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/OPR%20Report.pdf) about both the filing of the lawsuit and it's subsequent dismissal against 3 of the 4 defendants. Interestingly, the voting rights office in philadelphia noted that it had received several calls complaining about the men's presence at the polling place, but that all of the complaints were from people out of town who had seen the TV report.

Ultimately, the DOJ sought an injunction against the fellow that was holding the night-stick, and he may no longer appear at polling places. The NBPP is now a non-issue.

Regards,

D-Ray

Looked like voter intimidation to me.

But nobody asked me, right???

Chas

[piece-itpete]

Chas, it's only voter intimidation if you require ID :)

Pete

[merrylander]

Chas, it's only voter intimidation if you require ID :)

Pete

If I have my voter registration card, the one that tells me what polling place I vote at why do I need photo ID? Suppose that I never fly and do not drive why would I have a driver's license? They say if you go to the MVA they will issue you a photo ID - for a price, but there is no charge for a voter registration card.

[merrylander]

All charges of false voter registration against ACORN were throw out of court.

[finnbow]

All charges of false voter registration against ACORN were throw out of court.

Yep, but they served their intended purpose - fostering resentment among working class whites in the GOP. Worked like a charm.

[piece-itpete]

Yeah, helping pimps had nothing to do with it. They're needy too!

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Ah yes, the NBP "voter intimidation"....all two of them. Shocking, I tell you. Obamas "thugs" out beating people into voting for him.

Tell me, how many voters would have been affected by raising the age limit to 21, or requiring literacy tests? And who was it that suggested that? Oh, there are far more subtle yet effective ways to influence election outcomes than to put a couple of NBP idiots outside a polling place in a black neighborhood where Obama was likely to carry the vote anyways. Aren't there?

Dave

[merrylander]

I have a better idea - require a clear understanding of the English language . . .



then no one would get to vote.:p

[merrylander]

Yeah, helping pimps had nothing to do with it. They're needy too!

Pete

Well that particular rabble rouser have been exposed for what he is.:D

[merrylander]

Yep, but they served their intended purpose - fostering resentment among working class whites in the GOP. Worked like a charm.

Working class anyone in the GOP is a sure sign of mental retardation.:p

[finnbow]

Ah yes, the NBP "voter intimidation"....all two of them. Shocking, I tell you. Obamas "thugs" out beating people into voting for him.

Tell me, how many voters would have been affected by raising the age limit to 21, or requiring literacy tests? And who was it that suggested that? Oh, there are far more subtle yet effective ways to influence election outcomes than to put a couple of NBP idiots outside a polling place in a black neighborhood where Obama was likely to carry the vote anyways. Aren't there?

Dave

Maybe they should prohibit voting by those married to their first cousins or sisters. Poof, there goes the GOP base.;)

[piece-itpete]

Hey, don't make me drive over there with 16" guns on my hood :D

Pete

[merrylander]

Ah yes, the NBP "voter intimidation"....all two of them. Shocking, I tell you. Obamas "thugs" out beating people into voting for him.

Tell me, how many voters would have been affected by raising the age limit to 21, or requiring literacy tests? And who was it that suggested that? Oh, there are far more subtle yet effective ways to influence election outcomes than to put a couple of NBP idiots outside a polling place in a black neighborhood where Obama was likely to carry the vote anyways. Aren't there?

Dave

Black Panthers in a black neighborhood would mostly intimidate white thugs trying to intimidate black voters, no?:rolleyes:

[d-ray657]

Ultimately, the idiot who was brandishing the billy club was subjected to an injunction. The career professionals in the DOJ who made the decisions on the scope of the action had serious concerns about being able to satisfy their burden of proof, particularly with respect to the national organization - which had officially posted a disclaimer of the Philadelphia idiots on it's website, and which suspended the Philly branch from the organization. A painstaking review by the ethics division found only professional conduct - and no racial or political motivation - in the decision to limit the relief sought in the case. If nothing else, this case demonstrates the ability of the Fox propaganda machine to take one fact and twist it in an utterly false smear against anyone with whom it disagrees.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Chas, it's only voter intimidation if you require ID :)

Pete

Ain't it the truth, buddy, ain't it the truth.

BTW Pete, who DID you marry...your sister or first cousin?

Myself, I married 'em both!!!

Chas

[finnbow]

Ain't it the truth, buddy, ain't it the truth.

BTW Pete, who DID you marry...your sister or first cousin?

Myself, I married 'em both!!!

Chas

Sounds like a West Virginia version of a Doublemint commercial.

[Charles]

Sounds like a West Virginia version of a Doublemint commercial.

I thought that in West Virginia you just knocked both of 'em up.

Chas

[finnbow]

I thought that in West Virginia you just knocked both of 'em up.

Chas

The three most commonly told lies in WV:

1. My pickup truck is paid for.
2. I didn't know she was my sister.
3. I was just trying to help that sheep over the fence.:eek:

[BlueStreak]

Maybe they should prohibit voting by those married to their first cousins or sisters. Poof, there goes the GOP base.;)

Have two lines at the polling places with a sign in front of each.

One sign reads "Democrats, Republicans and Independents Only" and leads to the voting booths.

The second sign reads, "Republicans and Teabaggers who plan to retire as soon as their Social Security and Medicaid kicks in." This sign points them directly to a short bus, parked outside.

Dave

[merrylander]

. . . and make them stand in front of the bus as it takes off?