You can thank this great heavily researched report to a link posted to it by TheOtherLeggoHead in this forum a while back. Of course there are many other sources for this kind of information out there, since your lefty media friends can only hide the truth on their networks.
Here's the link to the full in depth article, but if you want to fastly skim some of the major highlights, I posted them below in this message. But before that, a few quotes from me, you and a few others, so everybody has a good idea of just what kind of false beliefs you've got about our economy and it somehow being Bush and evil greedy rich people who caused it.
Fact is the spark that burned down our economy was all started with a few "well intentions" by the dems forcing banks to "give the American dream" to people who had no business owning homes, or at least as expensive of ones as they bought. Fact also is that Bush tried 11 times to change what he saw coming and your party branded him as a racist and a bigot for doing so.
If I were you I'd just read the quotes below first, so you can see how you so obviously have your facts wrong, and then the highlights from this link I re-posted. Then if you want to learn more about the reality of how our economic mess started click on this link and read further. I doubt you'll do that though, or even skim some of the highlights I re-posted below, because your party won't even open their eyes to the little things, let alone the bigger stuff in the realities of what works in this world.
http://tjhancock.wordpress.com/housing-bubble-financial-crisis-detailed-comprehensive-assessment/
Quote
Critterhunter
Far as tax breaks not creating jobs go...Sure it created jobs. But the fact is our economy TANKED because of Barny Frank and your lefty dem politicians forcing banking regulations on housing to make loans more easy to get for poor people and minorities. Once they started defaulting on those loans many empty houses went on the market, housing prices started dropping, new home construction tanked, skilled trade guys and contractors went under, people's mortgages went upside down on the home value, and thus so on and so on and down comes the economy. All because of the "good intentions" of the dems forcing banks to start giving risky loans to people who had no business owning a home, or at least not as expensive of ones as they bought.
Really bothers me the media and the left have done such a good job somehow blaming Bush for the economy's downfall, when in fact he tried to change that regulation about 5 (correction, 11) times because he saw what was going to happen, but every time he did the dems and the media screamed racism and evil Republican. And now they've somehow convinced people that the economy crashed because taxes were lower, or somehow greedy rich people stole a bunch of money from the economy and made it go under. Such a total lie, and I'm really mad that the GOP talking heads don't kill that lie and explain it about the economy every time the media or dems brings it up and somehow makes the economy Bush's fault. The GOP needs to learn how to unify and repeat their message like the dems, because the dems are a master at that, and of course get help doing it from the media.
Quote
calfrope
Quote
Darkflight
frank forced banks to make bad loans...OMG that is so factually challenged it is a laugh....
The great & Powerfull BARNEY...Really?..
Of course it had nothing to do with Phil Grahm removing the barriers between banking/insurance companies-allowing them to bet against the very mortgages they sold...Nope no conflict of intrest there.
Yep-Big bad Ol Barney did it..
You should not get your information from a media group owned by Saudi & Australian billionares..
Hey darkflight, who did Bob Rubin work for, and hired by which President for 2 Presidential terms? What kind of packaged toxic loans did he design and come up with for Clinton? Now connect the dots.
Quote
Deno
OK in the Dark,
First off, the liberals accused the banks of redlining.
Then they forced the banks to make bad loans or be called racist and face big fines.
Bush tried to stop it 11 different times,
and every time the likes of ba'ney and maxine waters called him a racist
that didn't want poor people to have houses.
It's all your sides fault, take your head outta your azz.
You need to turn off msnbc and listen to Rush or watch FOX,
you wouldn't be so confused.
Quote
Darkflight
You can't force banks to do anything-are you nuts or just ignorant?
And below are just some of the highlights, which were grabbed from various parts of the article so be aware one paragraph doesn't necessarily follow the next. Keep in mind this article also shows where Bush tried ELEVEN TIMES to change things before it was too late because he saw what was coming, and for his efforts to stop this train wreck heading our way for the economy your party branded him a bigot as usual. Good job there guy. All you dems can pat yourself on the back by what all your good intentions did to burn down our economy. :thumbup:
Housing Bubble, Financial Crisis What Happened, Who is Responsible?
"I dont mind cleaning up the mess that some other folks made, thats what I signed up to do"- Barack Obama (D-IL), October 20, 2009
"I think that the responsibility that the Democrats had may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."- Former President Bill Clinton (D-AR), September 25, 2008
"Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."-Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL) , September 30, 2008
"President Obama is using the financial crisis to make Americans doubt themselves, their values, and the very system they had believed enabled their specialness. In the vacuum of this doubt, he is moving his agenda to radically alter the fiber of what it means to be American."- TJ Hancock (American)
In 1995, the Clinton Administration changed the law governing GSEs mission the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to encourage more lending in poor neighborhoods. Previously, the CRA directed government to monitor banks lending practices to make sure they did not violate fair lending rules in poor neighborhoods. With the 1995 change, the government published each banks lending activity and started giving bank ratings based primarily upon the amount of lending it performed in poor neighborhoods. These changes empowered community organizations, such as ACORN, to pressure banks to increase lending activities in poorer neighborhoods which involved reducing mortgage loan standards or face backlash from those organizations private and political associates. For instance, if Chase made 100 mortgages in a poor Chicago district, and Countrywide 150, the government would likely give Chase a lower CRA rating, and community organizers could pressure politicians to make it more difficult for Chase to get licensed to do full ranges of business in new areas of the country. Low CRA ratings could also disadvantage Chase with regard to government lending programs and make it more difficult for Chase to participate in mergers and acquisitions.
Through Fannie Mae, the government controlled banks mortgage lending activity rates. As long as Fannie was willing to buy these mortgages, banks had no problem lowering their standards if necessary, making the loans and selling them off to Fannie Mae. Banks could even buy the mortgages back from Fannie Mae, with Fannies payment guarantee, thereby eliminating the credit risk (as long as Fannie was government backed).
That evidence finally came in 2004, despite fierce Democrat party efforts to prevent it and their systematic attacks on people who tried to bring it to light. Even after the evidence was in clear public view, Democrats continued to resist any changes to the regulatory structure that would have slowed GSEs mortgage lending activity.
The Clinton Administrations 1995 CRA changes authorized GSEs to buy subprime mortgages, which it began to do in 1997. Subprime means that the person receiving the loan has a poor credit record and/or very low income compared to the loan size.
Almost immediately, Fannie began to loosen its standards, requiring people to show lower wealth amounts in order to qualify for mortgages.
The chart below shows the dramatic rise in home ownership rates during Mr. Raines tenure, from 1995 to December 2004, after roughly 25 years at roughly constant levels. This chart is what the Democrat party fell in love with, and represented what Congressional Democrats so fiercely defended in committee hearings about regulating Fannie. The vast majority of the rise happened before George W. Bush became President.
[attachment 243214 homeownership.jpg]
"Youve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Dont despair: You can still buy a house." so said an April 1995 Chicago Sun Times article that directed people with very poor credit to contact to a group of community organizers called ACORN.
When Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) asked for details on how many losses Fannie accounted for in the negative interest rate environment, the company said the information was "confidential and proprietary."
At risk for Democrats included the following:
1.Democrats had changed the law governing Fannie Maes mission (the CRA) to pressure management to take more risks, but did nothing to adapt the regulatory structure to the new mission. Allowing the discovery of aggressive accounting at both Freddie and Fannie, without a fight, would place Democrat party at political risk ahead of a Presidential election cycle.
2.Democrats had appointed Fannies senior executives and much of the board of directors, who would had to have been involved with the illegalities and may easily be publicly viewed as such if no fight had been put up to reframe the issue.
3.Publicly, Democrats fiercely defended the increased home ownership rates in poor neighborhoods, which were based upon investors having trust in purchasing Fannies repackaged mortgages. This easy access to funding would dry up if investors viewed investments in the securities Fannie issued as increasingly risky.
4.The CRA changes had significantly boosted community organizers, such as ACORN, which were rapidly becoming a Democrat party power base.
5.Local Democrat-linked political power brokers, such as Valerie Jarrett and friends, were making fortunes in the Chicago subprime housing market, where ACORN was a major player.
On September 11, 2003, President Bush sent Congress a sweeping GSE regulation proposal; the first of what U.S. News & World Report counted was 17 times President Bush would call on Congress to regulate GSEs. The proposed regulations would have averted the worst national crisis since, well, 9-11had they been inacted. Lets let the New York Times tell the story, as it reported the day of the White House proposal:
And later in the article, some quotes from the dems...
Sen. Charles Schumer (D, NY): And my worry is that were using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddies mission.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasnt broke In fact, the GSEs (Fannie, Freddie) have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission a mission that has seen innovation flourish, from desktop underwriting (no formal analysis) to 100% loans (no collateral).
Rep. Maxine Waters (D, CA), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez: Secretary Martinez, if it aint broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs ever missed their housing goals?
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): I dont want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) and OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision). I want to load the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesnt bail them out.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY): To OFHEO head, Armando Falcon, The question that represents is the confidence that your agency has with regard to regulating these GSEs Why should I have confidence; why should anyone have confidence in you as a regulator at this point?
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY): Im just @#$%& of at OFHEO (the regulator), because if it wasnt for you I dont think that wed be here in the first placeyouve given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which theyve done a tremendous job.
Barney Frank (D-MA): I worry about increasing the capital requirementsId like to get Fannie and Freddie more deeply into helping low income housing and possibly moving into something thats more explicitly a subsidy (taxpayer money used as principle in subprime mortgages). My concern is that this would not what would be a regulators or Treasurys idea of what would be the best way of promoting safety and soundness
Barney Frank (D-MA) even went so far as to suggest the issue of Fannie Mae regulation should rest in the hands of Fannies CEO:
Barney Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated? Mr. Raines?
Franklin Raines: No, sir.
Barney Frank: Mr. Gould?
George Gould: No, sir. . . .
Barney Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .
President Bush Tries to Act Despite a Stonewalling Congress
ACORN v. Bush
With such fervent Democrat resistance, the Bush Administration continued to do what it could within the Executive Branch. In February 2004, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) tried to strengthen its GSE oversight. The Democrat party and its allies, such as ACORN, moved swiftly and strongly. In a March press conference, Barney Frank (D-MA) stated, "We cannot accept and leave alone this sweeping decision by a federal regulator to substantially diminish the role state-elected and appointed officials have in protecting their economies and their consumers."