rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one, or recover it when possible. x


Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached
#1

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit
The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place.

President Obama’s economic advisers and outside experts say the nation’s much-celebrated housing rebound is leaving too many people behind, including young people looking to buy their first homes and individuals with credit records weakened by the recession.

In response, administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default.

Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

Officials are also encouraging lenders to use more subjective judgment in determining whether to offer a loan and are seeking to make it easier for people who owe more than their properties are worth to refinance at today’s low interest rates, among other steps.

Obama pledged in his State of the Union address to do more to make sure more Americans can enjoy the benefits of the housing recovery, but critics say encouraging banks to lend as broadly as the administration hopes will sow the seeds of another housing disaster and endanger taxpayer dollars.

“If that were to come to pass, that would open the floodgates to highly excessive risk and would send us right back on the same path we were just trying to recover from,” said Ed Pinto, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former top executive at mortgage giant Fannie Mae.

Administration officials say they are looking only to allay unnecessary hesi­ta­tion among banks and encourage safe lending to borrowers who have the financial wherewithal to pay.

“There’s always a tension that you have to take seriously between providing clarity and rules of the road and not giving any opportunity to restart the kind of irresponsible lending that we saw in the mid-2000s,” said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record.

The administration’s efforts come in the midst of a housing market that has been surging for the past year but that has been delivering most of the benefits to established homeowners with high credit scores or to investors who have been behind a significant number of new purchases.


Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit


The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place.

President Obama’s economic advisers and outside experts say the nation’s much-celebrated housing rebound is leaving too many people behind, including young people looking to buy their first homes and individuals with credit records weakened by the recession.






It’s time to stop worrying about a lack of savings and do something about it.

In response, administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default.

Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

Officials are also encouraging lenders to use more subjective judgment in determining whether to offer a loan and are seeking to make it easier for people who owe more than their properties are worth to refinance at today’s low interest rates, among other steps.

Obama pledged in his State of the Union address to do more to make sure more Americans can enjoy the benefits of the housing recovery, but critics say encouraging banks to lend as broadly as the administration hopes will sow the seeds of another housing disaster and endanger taxpayer dollars.

“If that were to come to pass, that would open the floodgates to highly excessive risk and would send us right back on the same path we were just trying to recover from,” said Ed Pinto, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former top executive at mortgage giant Fannie Mae.

Administration officials say they are looking only to allay unnecessary hesi­ta­tion among banks and encourage safe lending to borrowers who have the financial wherewithal to pay.

“There’s always a tension that you have to take seriously between providing clarity and rules of the road and not giving any opportunity to restart the kind of irresponsible lending that we saw in the mid-2000s,” said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record.

The administration’s efforts come in the midst of a housing market that has been surging for the past year but that has been delivering most of the benefits to established homeowners with high credit scores or to investors who have been behind a significant number of new purchases.

“If you were going to tell people in low-income and moderate-income communities and communities of color there was a housing recovery, they would look at you as if you had two heads,” said John Taylor, president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a nonprofit housing organization. “It is very difficult for people of low and moderate incomes to refinance or buy homes.”

Before the crisis, about 40 percent of home buyers were first-time purchasers. That’s down to 30 percent, according to the National Association of Realtors.

From 2007 through 2012, new-home purchases fell 30 percent for people with credit scores above 780 (out of 800), according to Federal Reserve Governor Elizabeth Duke. But they declined 90 percent for people with scores between 680 and 620 — historically a respectable range for a credit score.

“If the only people who can get a loan have near-perfect credit and are putting down 25 percent, you’re leaving out of the market an entire population of creditworthy folks, which constrains demand and slows the recovery,” said Jim Parrott, who until January was the senior adviser on housing for the White House’s National Economic Council.

One reason, according to policymakers, is that as young people move out of their parents’ homes and start their own households, they will be forced to rent rather than buy, meaning less construction and housing activity. Given housing’s role in building up a family’s wealth, that could have long-lasting consequences.

“I think the ability of newly formed households, which are more likely to have lower incomes or weaker credit scores, to access the mortgage market will make a big difference in the shape of the recovery,”

Duke said last month. “Economic improvement will cause household formation to increase, but if credit is hard to get, these will be rental rather than owner-occupied households.”

Deciding which borrowers get loans might seem like something that should be left up to the private market. But since the financial crisis in 2008, the government has shaped most of the housing market, insuring between 80 percent and 90 percent of all new loans, according to the industry publication Inside Mortgage Finance. It has done so primarily through the Federal Housing Administration, which is part of the executive branch, and taxpayer-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, run by an independent regulator.

The FHA historically has been dedicated to making homeownership affordable for people of moderate means. Under FHA terms, a borrower can get a home loan with a credit score as low as 500 or a down payment as small as 3.5 percent. If borrowers with FHA loans default on their payments, taxpayers are on the line — a guarantee that should provide confidence to banks to lend.

But banks are largely rejecting the lower end of the scale, and the average credit score on FHA loans has stood at about 700. After years of intensifying investigations into wrongdoing in mortgage lending, banks are concerned that they will be held responsible if borrowers cannot pay. Under some circumstances, the FHA can retract its insurance or take other legal action to penalize banks when loans default.

“The financial risk of just one mistake has just become so high that lenders are playing it very, very safe, and many qualified borrowers are paying the price,” said David Stevens, Obama’s former FHA commissioner and now the chief executive of the Mortgage Bankers Association.

The FHA, in coordination with the White House, is working to develop new policies to make clear to banks that they will not lose their guarantees or face other legal action if loans that conform to the program’s standards later default. Officials hope the FHA’s actions will then spur Fannie and Freddie to do the same.

The effort requires sign-on by the Justice Department and the inspector general of Department of Housing and Urban Development, agencies that investigate wrongdoing in mortgage lending.

“We need to align as much as possible with IG and the DOJ moving forward,” FHA Commissioner Carol Galante said. The HUD inspector general and Justice Department declined to comment.

The effort to provide more certainty to banks is just one of several policies the administration is undertaking. The FHA is also urging lenders to take what officials call “compensating factors” into account and use more subjective judgment when deciding whether to make a loan — such as looking at a borrower’s overall savings.

“My view is that there are lots of creditworthy borrowers that are below 720 or 700 — all the way down the credit-score spectrum,” Galante said. “It’s important you look at the totality of that borrower’s ability to pay.”
Reply
#2

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

New Study Finds CRA 'Clearly' Did Lead To Risky Lending Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials...z2Tmis9bdv Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.

But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, "Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks."

Added NBER: "There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts," or predominantly low-income and minority areas.
To satisfy CRA examiners, "flexible" lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often, the 43-page study found.

The strongest link between CRA lending and defaults took place in the runup to the crisis — 2004 to 2006 — when banks rapidly sold CRA mortgages for securitization by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Wall Street.

CRA regulations are at the core of Fannie's and Freddie's so-called affordable housing mission. In the early 1990s, a Democrat Congress gave HUD the authority to set and enforce (through fines) CRA-grade loan quotas at Fannie and Freddie.

It passed a law requiring the government-backed agencies to "assist insured depository institutions to meet their obligations under the (CRA)." The goal was to help banks meet lending quotas by buying their CRA loans.

But they had to loosen underwriting standards to do it. And that's what they did.
"We want your CRA loans because they help us meet our housing goals," Fannie Vice Chair Jamie Gorelick beseeched lenders gathered at a banking conference in 2000, just after HUD hiked the mortgage giant's affordable housing quotas to 50% and pressed it to buy more CRA-eligible loans to help meet those new targets. "We will buy them from your portfolios or package them into securities."

She described "CRA-friendly products" as mortgages with less than "3% down" and "flexible underwriting."

From 2001-2007, Fannie and Freddie bought roughly half of all CRA home loans, most carrying subprime features.

Lenders not subject to the CRA, such as subprime giant Countrywide Financial, still fell under its spell. Regulated by HUD, Countrywide and other lenders agreed to sign contracts with the government supporting such lending under threat of being brought under CRA rules.

"Countrywide can potentially help you meet your CRA goals by offering both whole loan and mortgage-backed securities that are eligible for CRA credit," the lender advertised to banks.

Housing analysts say the CRA is the central thread running through the subprime scandal — from banks and subprime lenders to Fannie and Freddie to even Wall Street firms that took most of the heat for the crisis.

Obama officials, who are cracking the CRA whip anew against banks, insist the law played no role in the mortgage meltdown.

"CRA loans performed substantially better than subprime loans, and the CRA has been around for decades," argued senior Justice Department official Thomas Perez.

While the 1977 law was passed 30 years before the crisis, it underwent a major overhaul just 10 years earlier. Starting in 1995, banks were measured on their use of innovative and flexible" lending standards, which included reduced down payments and credit requirements.
Banks that didn't meet Clinton's tough new numerical lending targets were denied merger plans, among other penalties. CRA shakedown groups like Acorn held hostage the merger plans of banks like Citibank and Washington Mutual until they pledged more loans to credit-poor minorities (see chart).

WaMu CEO Kerry Killinger has blamed the CRA for his bank's overexposure to risky loans. He said he wanted to tighten lending requirements, but "such measures would have presented other issues such as the company's CRA rating and its commitment to serving its (low-income and minority) customers and communities."

Other large banks have reported serious delinquency rates on CRA home loans. Bank of America's 2009 10-K states: "Our CRA portfolio comprised 6% of the total residential mortgage balances, but 17% of nonperforming residential mortgage loans."

Under Clinton's revised CRA, moreover, banks for the first time earned CRA credit for purchasing subprime securities.

A wave of these securitizations began in 1997, which also happens to mark the start of the housing bubble.
Reply
#3

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

Quote: (05-19-2013 06:40 PM)Quintus Flaminius Wrote:  

Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.

Make sure the Koch brothers watch this video




Reply
#4

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

You don't impeach presidents for policies that you disagree with. That's what elections are for. And like him or not, Obama has won two.
Reply
#5

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

So did Bush, Obama uses welfare to get votes, HAS been committing voter fraud, that's not how you're supposed to run for elections.
And BTW, we're a constitutional republic, not a democracy, democracy is mob rule.
Reply
#6

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

The government pressuring/encouraging banks to lend to uncreditworthy people while uttering some boo-hoo platitudes about "the poor" and minorities.

It's almost as if this has been tried before...

#NoSingleMoms
#NoHymenNoDiamond
#DontWantDaughters
Reply
#7

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

Complain all you want....but we have 3 more years!

A man is only as faithful as his options-Chris Rock
Reply
#8

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

Save the rage for when Hillary is elected.
Reply
#9

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

Democracy=government by the mob.

The have-nots will always outnumber the haves and the trajectory of any democratic government is towards socialism.
Reply
#10

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

What would be the point of impeaching Obama? Impeachment on its own is meaningless. Sure the House could likely impeach Obama, but the Senate will determine whether to remove him from office, and the Democrats control the Senate. Given that the GOP couldn't remove a sitting president from office when they controlled the Senate, what makes you think they'll be able to pull it off now when they're in a far weaker position?
Reply
#11

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

Quote: (05-19-2013 07:18 PM)Quintus Flaminius Wrote:  

Obama uses welfare to get votes

Quintus you could be right!! I just heard CNN report that Obama and his secret storm laboratory created the tornado in OK to distract us from Benghazi and IRS 'scandals.'
Reply
#12

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

Quote: (05-21-2013 11:11 AM)JayMillz Wrote:  

Quote: (05-19-2013 07:18 PM)Quintus Flaminius Wrote:  

Obama uses welfare to get votes

Quintus you could be right!! I just heard CNN report that Obama and his secret storm laboratory created the tornado in OK to distract us from Benghazi and IRS 'scandals.'

I'm more concerned with Metal Gear.
you just KNOW they've got a giant, nuclear equipped, rail gun wielding, T-rex mech just waiting to strike
Reply
#13

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

Do you really think we having Joe Biden finish out Obama's term will improve things? That is what will happen if the president is impeached and convicted by a trial in the senate(where the dems have a majority and it is pretty unlikely they would get rid of one of their own)
Reply
#14

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

the only politician I dislike more than Obama... actually two... Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton
Reply
#15

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

What I don't get is that if Obama is impeached - Biden becomes President! No thank you.

Quote:Old Chinese Man Wrote:  
why you wonder how many man another man bang? why you care who bang who mr high school drama man
Reply
#16

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

Quote: (05-21-2013 11:53 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

What I don't get is that if Obama is impeached - Biden becomes President! No thank you.

Biden is smooth.

He single-handedly won the election in 2008 with this move:






Plus, he is a true Playboy:




Reply
#17

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

Quote: (05-21-2013 11:44 AM)Muk Wrote:  

the only politician I dislike more than Obama... actually two... Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton

Hopefully, guys like you will be making donations to OK, especially since about four months ago, Oklahoma Senators Tom Coburn and James Inhofe both voted against H.R.152, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act (remember Hurricane Sandy in NY/NJ).
Reply
#18

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

The CRA, in my opinion, played a big role in the subprime mortgage meltdown. It was risky policy that sounded good in speeches. However, let's keep in mind that George W. Bush's administration, years later, did nothing but exacerbate the problem - the HUD or Housing and Urban Development sector under his watch increased the goal for minority and low-income home-ownership to levels even higher than they were under Clinton.

Given Obama's statist ideology, it's no surprise he wants to try something similar now. But, I agree with whoever above said disagreeing with the man's ideology isn't grounds for impeachment. I don't support Obama's plans for lending or the CRA of old, but that doesn't mean I have a sliver of a case should I call for his impeachment. This threat gets thrown around by the Right to the point where it's almost insulting to the process.
Reply
#19

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

I don't think he should be impeached, but that's a truly stupid decision indeed.

"Imagine" by HCE | Hitler reacts to Battle of Montreal | An alternative use for squid that has never crossed your mind before
Reply
#20

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

Anyone that voted against or disagrees with Obama is a racist.
Reply
#21

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

I regard it as the zenith of intellectual laziness that the GOP is resorting to sabotaging and obstructing the administration to score points.

Obama's policies are terrible and any sound conservative could trash Obama's childish notions in a real debate. That Romney failed to crush Obama in the 2nd and 3rd debates or the election is mind-boggling, but it shows clearly the complete discrepency of perception between the Republican leadership and donors and the average red-blooded American citizen, who disapproves of BO., but is offered no real alternative except more Bush, Rubio, McCain and progressive neo-conservatives and politically correct sheeple.

A year from now you'll wish you started today
Reply
#22

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

This focus on macro system theory is a black hole into nothingness. It takes a crazy near genius mind to process big picture problems. Say what you will about The President but this man made it to the pinnacle of macro American alpha power and became a self-made millionaire without a stable father figure, without any family political connections, without inherited wealth, and without the unearned privilege of having white skin. What!?! And you dare challenge your intellectual superior's policies and decisions? A man who writes New York Times bestsellers without a ghost writer/"co"-author, and who was head of the Harvard Law Review without any help from "daddy"? What do you really "know" about macro system management? Have you ever managed 1000 employees? 10,000 employees? 100,000 employees? Now try one MILLION +! Good luck with that. Bottom line: it weakens individual micro system game by getting angry at big picture systems and forces of which the individual has little actionable understanding and control. Do not pretend you are smarter than The President, you are not, you cannot possibly comprehend his body of knowledge and power. So do yourself a favor and just go with it, getting caught in the liberal vs. conservative thing is a road to nowhere. Who cares? The world is the way it is regardless of "why" it is the way it is. Let it be and give some respect to those who deserve it. The Man for better or for worse is leading one of the greatest, most peaceful, most prosperous countries in the world toward more greatness. America is not failing, we are better than ever. If you don't believe that then I'll say to you what the conservatives said to the hippies in the 1970's: "Love it or leave it."
Reply
#23

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

I wonder if Operation Vigilant Eagle helps his case. Its 4 years old and not sure how its constitutional.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123992665198727459.html

There was a marine Brandon Roub who was confined to a Psych ward for at least a week due to complaining about the direction of the government on the facebook.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Operati...22-54.html
Reply
#24

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

Quote: (05-26-2013 12:27 PM)kbell Wrote:  

I wonder if Operation Vigilant Eagle helps his case. Its 4 years old and not sure how its constitutional.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123992665198727459.html

There was a marine Brandon Roub who was confined to a Psych ward for at least a week due to complaining about the direction of the government on the facebook.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Operati...22-54.html

During Obama's 3rd term, a lot of veterans (terrorists) will be rounded up and put in camps to save harm from the American people.

Quote:Quote:

Given the government's increasing view of veterans as potential domestic terrorists, it makes one think twice about a new Michigan law that adds a veterans designation on Michigan driver's licenses and state IDs.

I support this, as vets have been exposed to guns and violence. There is no place for these domestic terrorist in our society.
Reply
#25

Still think Obama shouldn't be impeached

Quote: (05-19-2013 07:09 PM)j r Wrote:  

You don't impeach presidents for policies that you disagree with. That's what elections are for. And like him or not, Obama has won two.

And Bush v. Gore in 2000 definitely had no foul play in regards to vote counting...
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)