-
Could the Republicans Survive Dodd-Frank?
September 24, 2012 | 29 comments
-
The True Story of the Financial Crisis
May 13, 2011 | 169 comments
-
The Fed Fails Upward
May 4, 2009 | 28 comments
-
The True Origins of This Financial Crisis
February 6, 2009 | 192 comments
-
Reagan and McCain
January 25, 2008 | 2 comments
Feature
The ‘Big Lie’ Defense
The painful task of taking on the left.
(Page 2 of 2)
In other words, well before 2005 and 2006, Fannie and Freddie were buying subprime loans. They didn’t follow Wall Street into the subprime business, they led it. In fact, as disclosed in my dissent, Fannie and Freddie had been active in the purchase of subprime mortgages well before 2000. The affordable housing requirements were imposed in 1992 and, beginning shortly thereafter, Fannie and Freddie bought increasing numbers of subprime and other low-quality loans that enabled them to meet the affordable housing goals.
Nocera and McLean also describe the role of affordable housing goals in causing Fannie and Freddie to acquire the triple-A tranches of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) issued by Wall Street and based on subprime loans; they date this activity to early in the 2000s:
They’d [i.e., Fannie and Freddie] begun buying these securities in the earlier part of the decade because they offered decent yields. But when the housing goals became harder to fulfill, the triple-A tranches provided an easy way to meet their mission numbers. Eventually, the Street began designing a special GSE tranche that was packed with loans that satisfied the affordable housing requirements. And HUD allowed the GSEs to count these purchases toward their goals. Over time, Fannie and Freddie became two of the world’s largest purchasers of triple-A tranches. In the peak year of 2004, the GSEs bought about $175 billion in triple-A’s, or 44 percent of the market.
So, far from getting into subprime loans “with trepidation” in 2005 and 2006, or a “reality” in which Fannie and Freddie “followed the private sector off the cliff,” Fannie and Freddie were buying Wall Street’s subprime MBS in the early 2000s, and by 2004 were the principal buyers of the subprime packages the private sector was putting together. In effect, they helped build the business that Nocera now denounces as the work of the Devils on Wall Street.
If there is any further doubt about what caused the GSEs to buy these loans — loans that ultimately caused their insolvency and have cost U.S. taxpayers more than $150 billion thus far — here is a statement from Fannie’s 2006 10-K, which somehow never made it into the Nocera book or the majority report of the FCIC:
[W]e have made, and continue to make, significant adjustments to our mortgage loan sourcing and purchase strategies in an effort to meet HUD’s increased housing goals and new subgoals. These strategies include entering into some purchase and securitization transactions with lower expected economic returns than our typical transactions. We have also relaxed some of our underwriting criteria to obtain goals-qualifying mortgage loans and increased our investments in higher-risk mortgage loan products that are more likely to serve the borrowers targeted by HUD’s goals and subgoals, which could increase our credit losses. [Emphasis added.]
Thus, according to Nocera himself, Fannie and Freddie got into subprime mortgages well before 2005 and 2006, and were the principal customers for the MBS backed by subprime loans that Wall Street was putting together in 2004. In calling my dissent “loony,” Nocera was attacking me for drawing conclusions not substantially different from those he had announced in his own book. But the point here is not that Nocera did not read his own book, although that might be true. It’s that his commitment to the left’s narrative about the financial crisis was more powerful than the facts. Since the progressives’ position was that Fannie and Freddie, seeking profit and market share, had followed Wall Street into subprime lending, it must be true. Indeed, he’d probably read it in the New York Times.
I responded to Nocera’s attack by pointing out that the SEC’s case rested on a simple and reasonable finding that the mortgages the GSEs had not disclosed were in fact subprime, because they had a substantially higher rate of delinquency and default than prime loans. This seemed to put to rest the left’s specious argument that what Pinto and I had called a subprime mortgage was not in fact a low-quality loan. Since Fannie and Freddie had become insolvent because of the poor quality of the mortgages they held or had guaranteed, one would think this would be obvious, but this assertion had been the left’s principal argument against my dissent and Pinto’s work from the outset. Indeed, the SEC’s complaint had noted that for years Freddie had been coding billions of dollars of loans as “subprime” or “subprime-like” while reporting publicly that its exposure to subprime was “less than one percent.”
This response prompted another article from Nocera that described what I had been doing as creating a “Big Lie”—in effect, making up numbers, even though they had just been corroborated by the SEC. “So this is how the Big Lie works,” he wrote. “You begin with a hypothesis that has a certain surface plausibility. You find an ally whose background suggests that he’s an ‘expert’ [this nasty remark refers to Ed Pinto, who was once the chief credit officer of Fannie and a life-long participant in the housing finance market]; out of thin air, he devises ‘data.’ You write articles in sympathetic publications, repeating the data endlessly; in time, some of these publications make your cause their own.…Thus has Peter Wallison, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, almost single-handedly created the myth that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the financial crisis.…Rarely has his intellectual dishonesty been on such vivid display.”
Following this attack—still without a shred of data—came a similar assault from Nocera’s New York Times colleague, Paul Krugman, writing in his blog on January 9, 2012:
In a Dec. 23 column in the New York Times, Joe once again went after the Big Lie—the claim that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the financial crisis—and drove home the point that the people advancing this story aren’t just wrong but are acting with intent, engaging in deliberate deception.…Basically, Joe is arriving where I’ve been since 2000: what’s going on in the discussion of economic affairs (and other matters, like justifications for war) isn’t just a case where different people look at the same facts but reach different conclusions. Instead, we’re looking at a situation in which one side of the debate isn’t interested in the truth, in which scholarship is actually just propaganda.
It’s important to keep in mind after reading this that these two—Nocera and Krugman—are at the top of their profession. What a commentary that is on the quality of the rest. You can imagine the trash that is written and spoken by those lower in the progressives’ pecking order.
But then, of course, after those who disagree are called liars on the level of a Nazi propagandist, come the obsequious and disingenuous statements about willingness to engage in debate. Here is Nocera again, in his December 23 column: “Three years after the financial crisis, the country would be well served by a real debate about the role of the government in housing.…To have that debate, though, we need a clear understanding of what role the government’s affordable-housing goals did—and did not—play in the crisis. And that is impossible as long as the Big Lie holds sway.” Huh?
Has there ever been a less sincere invitation? As Dana Milbank wrote recently in the Washington Post, “Nazi comparisons are the most extreme form of political speech; once one ties his political opponents to the most deplorable chapter in human history, all reasoned argument ceases.” This country will never solve its problems until the left learns the lessons of tolerance and adult decorum.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (134) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Peter J. Wallison
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/02/the-big-lie-defense
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Revenge of the Fruitcakes
- Behind a Quilt of Mist
- The Thatcher Legacy
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Darin| 4.2.12 @ 7:54AM
Communicating with a liberal is only slightly more difficult than communicating with the dead.
Timothy L. Pennell| 4.2.12 @ 9:46AM
Let's see.
How many Blacks were killed by Blacks, over the weekend? Does anyone know? How many of these Black killers of Blacks, have a Hoodie on? All of them?
How many Whites were killed by Blacks, over the weekend? How many Asians? How many Hispanics?
How many B*tches and Hoes were Raped this weekend by Black Boys wearing Hoodies? How many White Girls, Brown Girls, and Yellow girls were BRUTILIZED by Blacks, wearing Hoodies, over the weekend?
How is it that 13% of our Population, commits 56% of all the Violent Crime? How is it that a Human Species can compete with the Animal Kingdom, for the greatest number of Out of Wedlock Births?
Why are Black Schools so VIOLENT? Why are they so DANGEROUS and Out of Control?
Why don't they Pull up their Pants, Tie their shoes, or Wear their Hats correctly?
How many Armed Robberies occurred this weekend, by Black Robbers wearing Hoodies? How many Assaults? How many Drive by Shootings?
How many Black babies were killed by a Stray bullet, an angry Boyfriend, or a Black Babysitter on Friday night, Saturday night, and Sunday?
Why did Jesse Jackson once tell a Black Audience that: When I'm walking in the City, late at night, and I hear footsteps behind me? If I turn around and see WHITE PEOPLE, I feel relieved"?
Everyone who's head is not firmly planted in the Muslim's Ass, knows the answer to every one of these questions.
Those of you who's heads Do reside at that address - PURP - why don't YOU answer these questions, that we all might become enlightened.
scotchieguy| 4.2.12 @ 12:00PM
Timothy, you might want to check out Thomas Sowell's brilliant "Black Rednecks and White Liberals." It gets to the heart of "black culture." Sowell believes the term "African American" is an oxymoron. Rather, black culture stems from white redneck culture, not African culture. Check it out on Amazon. What is pathetic is that libs actually defend this upside down culture. "Oh, but you don't understand. They simply haven't been properly educated. That is the problem. If only we can get involved (meaning libs) will things change." BS. Your involvement caused the decay and destruction. $7 tril. later, things are much, much worse. Thank a lib for that, and think the lemmings in the media for repeating the lie.
Oldefarte| 4.2.12 @ 5:22PM
No doubt accurate, but WTF does that have to do with Wallison's editorial????????
Timothy L. Pennell| 4.2.12 @ 7:11PM
Since you're obviously too STUPID to follow along, I'll explain it to you.
There's a BIG LIE going on in Sanford. NBC has EDITED the 911 Calls. We have "Linguistic Experts giving interviews to "News" Organizations that claim that the Screams on the Tapes are that of Trayvon Martin, even after Martin's FATHER told police, after hearing the tapes, that the Screams "DEFINATELY didn't come from his Son.
Capiche?
bemused,but not AMUSED| 4.2.12 @ 5:23PM
Just out of curiousity..WTF does the above obscenely racist rant have to do---in the slightest- with what this article in question was about, other then to spew,once again, the most vile filth one can imagine....?
Getting back to the actual subject-matter...I find it interesting that in the article, the author objects to conservatives being branded with the "Nazi" or fascist label (which , in point of fact, i rarely see used in print from anyone in the main-stream print media.).BUT see used indiscrimintley constantly, in every blog on THIS site, against those on the Left.....
Timothy L. Pennell| 4.2.12 @ 7:17PM
Why don't you tell everyone what is Racist about what I wrote?
Why don't you tell us all EXACTLY which FACT I got wrong?
Blacks kill Blacks, every minute of every day. They do it like it's an Olympic Event, and NOBODY GIVES A SHIT.
Including you.
I'll say it, again.
Why don't you go through my post, LINE BY LINE, and show everyone how smart you are?
Otherwise, take your Punk Ass Bullshit, someplace else.
bemused,but not AMUSED| 4.2.12 @ 7:34PM
Every single breathe you exhale is poisonous, bro..you are either a make-believe cartoon character out of a nightmare... or... the biggest and filthiest pig i have ever had the displeasure of reading...
I might be a punk---and i'm proud of that... but your rants show you to be the scum of the earth..
Domingo| 4.3.12 @ 1:03AM
Refute what he says line by line or shut up.
Tilon| 4.3.12 @ 3:23AM
I don't see any facts, bro, just emotional whining garbage.
"I might be a punk---and i'm proud of that..."
Could this liberal be any more comically stereotypical?
bemused,but not AMUSED| 4.3.12 @ 1:23PM
You call your belching spew-FACTS...?
SHOW US THE VERIFIED NUMBERS, CONCERNING THE "EVENTS" YOU MENTION,FOR THE TIME PERIOD YOU STATE...and then, perhaps we can discuss them..
I don't see any "facts" presented, in your rant, either... other then the fact that you must be The Grand Kleagle of the KKK.. or at least running for the dubious position....
idalily| 4.3.12 @ 5:28PM
The facts are available. Just google crime statistics. Internet. It's easy if a person really wants to know the truth. But I suppose insulting people, screaming racism and never making a counterargument are easier than educating oneself.
BTW, Bemused, you still haven't used your oh-so-superior intellect to explain to me the difference between fascism, communism and socialism. I asked you about that, and I'm still waiting for an answer. You sneered at TAS readers who said they are the same animal, and I asked you to explain the difference. I'm still waiting. What's the matter? Too hard a question for your superior intellect?
bemused,but not AMUSED| 4.4.12 @ 11:52AM
..just "Google" the terms, bro...just like ya told me.. it will be as useful as your suggestion was...
Nick| 4.3.12 @ 6:26PM
Yeah, Beclowned.
I'm still waiting to find what Jonah Goldberg got wrong in his excellent book Liberal Fascism?
And, why you questioned his Jewishness, like a typical liberal bigot?
Occam's Tool| 4.2.12 @ 7:03PM
Joe Biden recently noted that he was glad that he was a Senator, and never held "a real job."
cvrgrl| 4.2.12 @ 11:56AM
let me tell you what is interesting...
what is interesting is that mainstream conservatives are finally seeing, really believing, that progressives, liberal power hungry fiends like obama, the idiot fool of my generation, will orchestrate the character assasination of anyone who gets in their way, or fails to advance the agenda
like chrissy ( tingles ) matthews, as a liberal you MUST BE ALL IN!
this article, like the other documenting the tossing of the solicitor general under the bus for failing to defend the indefensible, shows that idiological zealots on the left know no depths as to how far they will slink to advance their desire to dissolve capitalism
and sadly, their tactics work because people are dependent sheep, looking for someone to throw some tidbits before slaughter
Alan Brooks| 4.2.12 @ 7:42PM
The Big Lie is that McCain would have been a better POTUS than Obama-- I'd rather Palin ran at the top of the ticket than McCain!
You run Doles and McCains as candidates and expect me to vote for them? In a pig's ear!
So screw you. If you don't like Obama, then you deserve him anyway because you are being punished for your sins.
Alan Brooks| 4.2.12 @ 10:31PM
... and you know very well Romney will win the nomination, even if there is a brokerage at the convention. Romney is a statist down to his cells; now we know what you are doing- you want your statist rather than the Democrats-- but I vote for your guy, and will tell everyone not to vote for him.
Alan Brooks| 4.2.12 @ 10:36PM
" but I vote for your guy, and will tell everyone not to vote for him."
meant I WONT vote for him- will work for Obama's campaign, and tell everyone to vote for him.
Yet it does demonstrate how 'conservative' America is, that after all the time you wasted, they will still vote en masse for your turkeys.
dlb| 4.2.12 @ 8:09AM
When a leftist says "The Truth is...", what follows is almost invariably a lie.
denton fisk| 4.2.12 @ 8:15AM
Pete, you are right but you're down picking the weeds and you're not seeing the overall picture. Everyone in government saw that the American wage and household income is too high to survive in an 'equal' world. The quickest way to change that was collapse the housing industry. Now, in spite of most costs doubling like gas and food, we still have a low inflation rate thanks to the collapse in value of housing. Everyone's paycheck is now worth 30 percent less without a pay cut and without violence in the streets. Pretty good stuff, if you think about it. The elites prosper and the lowlifes suffer - they just don't know how badly - as we equalize pay with the developing world.
nister| 4.2.12 @ 8:27AM
When you have "most costs doubling like gas and food", you have inflation rates of 100%, do you not? Hardly a "low inflation rate".....
Appleby| 4.2.12 @ 8:36AM
Rather than calling this a conspiracy, why not call it what it is: inevitability? Why do you think socialism is collapsing everywhere in the world? Because the credit cards are maxed out from guaraneeing people way too much income for the work they are doing (or not doing, if they are working in the "public sector" i.e. for the government), when other people will do the same work for much less. In Toronto the Mayor has stood up to four separate unions with whom the previous administration had made deals called "jobs for life" -- and has refused to kowtow to the notion of "jobs for life" for part-time library workers, to boot. Why should we pay people $40 an hour with benefits and "jobs for life" to clean police stations, when unemployment is 15% and people are willing to do the same job for $12 an hour and benefits?
Nothing conspiratorial about this, folks. This is economics.
idalily| 4.3.12 @ 5:33PM
Appleby, stop. You're making progressives' heads hurt. To them: math is hard. And who balances a checkbook anyway? We still have checks, so what's the problem? Let's spend it "helping" people. Oh, and conservatives are still just evil meanies who want dirty water, abused women and starving children who can't read.
IOW, you are trying to be rational with people who are not capable of rational thinking. It's a waste of time. But I applaud your efforts just the same.
Yips| 4.2.12 @ 8:18AM
When a progressive says, "Let's focus on the facts..." what comes next is deceit.
idalily| 4.3.12 @ 5:34PM
Kind of like, "Let me be clear"?
Indy| 4.2.12 @ 8:39AM
The liberal media has an agenda, nothing will get in their way of driving it to closure. Facts? No, don't pay attention to them...move along children.
JP| 4.2.12 @ 8:42AM
"Nocera called it "loony," at the same time reasserting the conventional narrative of the left: that while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had made some regrettable errors in buying subprime and other low-quality loans, .."
And who created the conditions for the subprime meltdown? Congress has it s fingerprints all over the mess - as does the Federal Reserve Bank. Wall St just reacts. Wall St will find ways to make money no matter what the conditions of the economy are. But moral hazards are created within the Beltway -always have, always will.
Gary B| 4.2.12 @ 8:42AM
As correct as they are, getting into details like this is pathology. As Denton Fisk says, it's picking the weeds.
The only way to win hearts and minds is way up top, at the slogan level. If I were running the Republican campaign, I'd use Obama's own words against him. God knows there's a warehouse full of them.
I would use this approach to pound home the message that, above everything else, Obama is anti-American and hates everything that has made our country great. There is a ton of evidence from his own mouth to support what a huge percentage of Americans already know: He wants to bring America down and is close to succeeding.
I would relate to and connect with a strong emotion already held by most Americans... fear. The thought of four more years of this traitor strikes fear into the hearts of Americans and joy in the hearts of America's enemies (Russia, Iran, China, et al).
Revisiting the details of the economic collapse is an intellectual argument. If you want to sell something, you must appeal to strongly held emotions of your target audience. The Tea Party has it right.
Nancy in NC| 4.2.12 @ 9:28AM
The problem as I see it is the GOP candidates are not conservatives either.They have made citizens be as suspicious of the GOP as the left. After all, Bush was the "compassionate" conservative. Conservative, my foot. Reagan did much to advance conservative ideas through his speeches, but he sold out too. Sure, he was pragmatic, but he was unable to stand by his principles either.
We have come so far down this path of serfdom with an education system that has failed to teach logical economic theory, true American history, or what Socialism/Marxism actually looks like, that the American citizenry is either clueless or tuned into the other side.
The pioneer spirit of Americans has been replaced with an entitlement mentality. We can thank Wilson, FDR, and LBJ. But we can also thank Nixon, Ford, and the Bushes for not righting the course. I believe they didn't believe in the principles of a Constitutional Republic either. Their stripes were only aligned slightly differently.
Look at Romney...he talks about smaller government, but when he was governor of Mass he played right along with big government ideas. It's difficult for him to attack Obama when he has RomneyCare. Oh, I know it was at the state level. Big whopping deal. It was still government in an area where government has no business and interfered with free market principles. He did nothing to reform the system, such as tort reform or allowing insurance be purchased anywhere in the US.
If I were the GOP I would play that tete to tete with Russian's leader 24/7. That video should scare the pants off of everyone. Exactly what does he have in mind after the election?
Gary is spot on. Unfortunately, the candidates carry their own baggage and their attacks will appear to be self aggrandizing.
Gary B| 4.2.12 @ 9:51AM
Nancy,
There is a hell of a lot more than just the open mic blunder with Putin's man. Imagine a 30-second spot with a montage of short clips from Obama's speeches with a powerful five-word conclusion that instills fear in the heart of everyone who goes to work every day.
In thirty minutes you and I could write a plan to mob the floor with Obama. Unfortunately all the Republican campaign consultants put together couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, to use a very old expression. Why is that?
Cpl. Punishment| 4.3.12 @ 4:56PM
Stop believing what the media tell you about Romney and look into him yourself. In the most Liberal (as bad as CA) in the union he succeeded in welfare reform, balanced budgets without raising taxes and much more. Romneycare (at least how Romney envisioned it) is NO WHERE near what MA has today or what is called Obamacare. Romney's plan centered around catastrophic health insurance plans that are not even legal in MA anymore. Romney's predecessor (Duval Patrick, another Axelrod stooge) was responsible for implementing it. He has reversed evrything that Romney did.
One more thing. You will never hear Romney defend himself on this or talk about how he did anything specifically. He will use statements like "At Bain Capital we created" Or " We saved the Olympics" The Mormon religion forbids it.
Wish Obama was Mormon!!!!
JeffC| 4.2.12 @ 8:45AM
Peter,
cross Dana and he will quickly hint you are a facist. He'll refrain from the Nazi allusion and thus be the adult in the conversation ...
gearjammer| 4.2.12 @ 9:30AM
Can we fit tbis artical on a bumper sticker ? Were not most of the predators and greed balls democrats or at least quite connected to the DC political class ? Money buys speech-give money and buy persuasive speech, video whatever. And, hold hearings and investigate the media economic model. Is it free enterprise ? Start saying their propagandists are over paid cheater liers and looters. When they attack the corporations -say do you hate all 50000 people who work there ? What do you have against them ?
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 11:22AM
Dana Milbank is as despicable of a propagandist for the left as any of those clowns at the NYT's. He actually wrote a book about Glenn Beck, someone gave him his marching orders to try to destroy him and he want about it like a true Fascist. Now his marching orders are to smear Paul Ryan's plan as an attack on poor people.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html
I wonder how the poor will fare under the Democrats budget that will collapse America into bankruptcy in a decade or two if not stopped? Using Timmy Geithner's logic, we don't have a plan but we hate yours whatever it is.
Tomper| 4.2.12 @ 9:22AM
"This country will never solve its problems until the left learns the lessons of tolerance and adult decorum "
That will never happen. There are no adults on the left.
ansonheath| 4.2.12 @ 7:20PM
Tomper, my words exactly. The only thing that frustrates me is the continuous attempt by our side to expect reasonable dialogue. Insane!!
albert constantine jr.| 4.2.12 @ 11:02AM
I believe that Mr. Alinsky spoke to the need to isolate and demonize those with whom you disagree, in order to achieve radical change. As long as they are following his playbook, expect no change in tactics.
bruce| 4.2.12 @ 11:12AM
this all started with jimmy carter when he got the community reinvestment act passed by dems.this was used to eliminate what the national socialist democrats called red lining which was just good business practice of not lend money to dead beats.Dem's forced this disaster on the banks then acorn got involved and bad loans were given out by the millions,then covered up freddy&franny;.the dems blocked any attempts by the republican to look at freddy&fannies; crooked books so when the russian,china and muslims unloaded there freddy&frannies;.there went the housing market all caused by govt.interference in the marked plus economic war fare by our pal the russians,chi-com and the ragheads.
cicero| 4.2.12 @ 11:29AM
Let's back up a bit. The collapse of the banking industry was not caused by the sub-prime mortgage market. The banks that started the slide were investment banks - Bear Stearns, Layman Bros, Merrill Lynch. These guys did not issue loans backed by mortgages. They were buying mortgage backed securities, and playing them in the hedge fund market like poker chips. When they decided to refuse to loan the losers at the table another stake on the basis of the morgage backed securites as collateral, the whole house of cards (pun intended) collapsed. Once the mortgage backed securities were deemed not worth anything for collateral, the government inposed accounting rules (mark to market) kicked in. If Bears' mortgage backed securities were worth nothing, neither were anyone elses. They all had to be marked down in value to zero, even though the mortgages backing them were performing. As I have said many times before, if the government had done absolutely nothing, and kept its nose, and our money, out of the matter, it would have been over in about 2 weeks. The bankers who got caught on the wrong side of the issue would have lost their jobs, their investments, and certainly not gotten their multi-million dollar bonuses as they did after the bailouts. They would have been suedd by their investors, drummed out of the industry, and maybe even had to put back some of the money they had taken out of the system. As it was, it became a game of "I win on a good bet, and the taxpayers pick up the loss on a bad one".
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 11:50AM
You make valid points Cicero but what the point the author is making is what was the primary cause of the financial collapse and it starts with the government and the data absolutely backs it up. Yes the investment banks played a big part in it and using AIG as a backdoor bailout was a disgrace but it was the actions and policies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac along with HUD that made the subprime disaster inevitable. Reckless Endangerment is the best book to understand the roots of this crisis and Jim Johnson is a prime villain that rarely gets mentioned. Being a big-time Democrat operative and donor, the media has protected him much like his partner in crime Franklin Raines.
Mark in LA| 4.2.12 @ 12:58PM
I doubt this guy has any more valid data than the articles I see showing that the GSEs only had 20% of the subprime loans total. What is he trying to say that after Wall Street started the mess that Freddie and Fannie helped keep it going. Yes, I would buy that but the damage was already done in that prices were already above peoples ability to service those mortgages long before Freddie and Fannie joined in.
How were all the brokerages and big banks on the edge of insolvency when we were "staring at the abyss" if it was all the fault of the government and Freddie and Fannie? They were insolvent because they still had crappy loans that they bought and hadn't yet managed to pawn off on their unsuspecting dupes (clients).
Thats the great thing about the psuedo-science of economics. Nothing can ever truely be proven so it allows all sorts of paid shills to spout nonsense. Usually, their only real "proof" is to bark longest and hardest at the chior who are hearing just what they want to hear.
There is no way this thing gets as big as it got without the private sector mortgage industry and Wall Street.
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 1:48PM
You don't know what you are talking about Mark, read Reckless Endangerment if you really want to learn something. It was written by a New York Times reporter in case you want to dismiss it as right wing propaganda. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac drove the whole market and they were the most powerful entity in DC, there is no doubt about that.
Oldefarte| 4.2.12 @ 5:27PM
You need to back up to 1977 and the Democrats' CRA. If the government had stayed out of banking's business, none of this would have occurred. You can give [ie welfare] mortgages to financial indigent and not expect the real estate market to eventually collapse one same lose their miniumu wage jobs and can make the payments on their house notes!!!!!!!!
weaverofdreams_2000| 4.2.12 @ 8:36PM
As I recall, the balloon burst in 2006/07. In what world is the problem those who took out mortgages in 1977. Or 1982? Or 1986? Or 1990 even? Thoise would all be paid off, or nearly so, by the time of the bubble bursting.
Who was in charge of the ship at that time? You should really knock off the hooch. Take a bath. Hug your kids or grandkids.
Cheers!
John| 4.2.12 @ 1:04PM
The trouble with engaging in dialogue with liberal politicians and power-brokers by using well-reasoned and well-supported articles is this: they are not interested in seeking the truth, they are only interested in winning and in power. Whatever means they choose to get it and maintain it can be justified because it results in "the right people" in power.
The sad thing is, way too many people don't have the inclination to do anything other than accept what is considered "generally accepted" truth, the truth as portrayed by the media outlets, which with a few notable exceptions are aggressively dominated by... liberals.
Petronius| 4.2.12 @ 1:11PM
The left has always conquered by silencing opposition. And they always will so long as they control all the mikes, cameras, lecterns, and presses.
Mark in LA| 4.2.12 @ 1:16PM
Even the CATO institute projects Fannie and Freddie's cost to the taxpayer at 311 billion by the year 2014. How does this small amount compare to all the monies funneled to banks that we know about and all the money coming in throught the side doors we don't know about? What about the bailout via the low interest rates and the billions going to the banks that way.
The idea that Freddie and Fannie cause the massive losses that prompted the Fed to guarantee trillions in loans is ridiculous.
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 1:56PM
Only a liberal like you would call 311 billion a "small amount". The banks for the most part paid back the TARP money but Fannie and Freddie are nothing but a huge black hole. And Bernake is just doing the bidding of big government control freaks who won't let the free market make needed corrections. You don't have a clue but apparently you take the NYT's at its word so that is no surprise.
Mark in LA| 4.2.12 @ 2:16PM
With a comment like this you prove yourself an idiot:
The banks for the most part paid back the TARP money
Yes, they "paid" it back with other money the government and the FED provided them with. As for 311 being big, not compared to the 16 trillion reported in loan guarantees by the FED. How much are we being taxed today with the .1% you are getting from your bank acount to help offset their losses? Don't you think that is a tax?
http://www.foxbusiness.com/ind.....ral-money/
Try getting your head around how big the losses claimed by the banks, brokerages, mortgage companies, and investors of those mortgage backed bonds were and compare that to the losses at the GSEs and then try to blame the GSE for the entire mess. That's what this guy is trying to do. It just doesn't make sense mathematically.
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 2:27PM
I never said I approved of Bernake's decisions, from from it. Savers are being abused and big banks being rewarded no doubt about it but that is a whole different issue. It is conservatives that oppose what Bernake is doing, not liberals for the most part. Like I said, if you want to really understand, read Reckless Endangerment. It explains how the whole ball got rolling and it was Jim Johnson at Freddie Mac with the Clintons support along with guys like Barney Frank. Bush tried to do something to get them under control but Barney Frank and his Democrat allies refused. To be sure, Fannie and Freddie had bought off a whole bunch of Republicans but they were a Democrat controlled organization as shown by Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines. You might recall that Barney said he wanted to roll the dice with lower lending standards for affordable housing, how did that work out?
O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 4.2.12 @ 3:29PM
We sheep are unaware of sheep existing in 'LA' for the 'Fiscal' 'Mark' to 'fckewe' sodomize.
Yet we sheep are not beyond being aware there is virtually no limit to the depravities sodomizers will engage in to satisfy their sodomization much less what a member of any species may well encounter in 'LA'.
Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization
Oldefarte| 4.2.12 @ 5:29PM
No, its ridiculous to have the government force banks to make loans to indigents in 1977 [CRA] and expect those indigents to pay off same!!!!
weaverofdreams_2000| 4.2.12 @ 8:32PM
I suspect those who got loans in 1977 have long since paid them off.
Delirium tremons at work.
Cheers!
JA| 4.2.12 @ 1:21PM
It is beyond my comprehension that anyone whose brain power exceeds that of a pebble would want to discuss anything at all with a ideologue progressive (i.e, socialist or communist).
They are NOT interested in facts or the truth or ever remotely helping working families;they are only interested in achieving absolute power and wealth.
The sooner these liberal ideologues (socialists, communists) are simply eliminated, the better.
Don't waste your breathe or ink on these communist/fascist Hitler/Stalin wannabes.
Jack London| 4.2.12 @ 1:25PM
You can tell that Wallison, like so many AmSpec contributors, is trading snake oil when he resorts to the old Nazi propagandists label. His article, of course, is just another tired old attempt to blame government for everything by putting that premise first and then inventing lies to support it.
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 1:52PM
You didn't even read it Jack like usual. The point was that the NYT's propagandist were accusing him of the "Big Lie" when he just reported the facts based on data which they just ignored because it didn't fit their narrative. A socialist like you never blames the government for screwing up if you think the intentions are right no matter what the damage. See the "War on Poverty"
Jack London| 4.2.12 @ 2:40PM
Yawn. Wallison has been totally trashed several times. Best one here:
http://www.americanprogress.or.....lison.html
"Wallison, of course, wrote a lonely dissent from both the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission majority report and from his fellow Republican commissioners, in which he alone blamed the global financial crisis on U.S. affordable housing policies. This argument is clearly contradicted by the facts, including the following:
– Parallel bubble-bust cycles occurred outside of the residential housing markets (for example, in commercial real estate and consumer credit).
– Parallel financial crises struck other countries, which did not have analogous affordable housing policies.
– The U.S. government’s market share of home mortgages was actually declining precipitously during the housing bubble of the 2000s.
These facts are irrefutable.
Wallison’s argument, which places most of the blame on the affordable housing goals of the former government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before they fell into government conservatorship in 2008, also ignores the actual delinquency rates. As David Abromowitz and I noted in December 2010:
Mortgages originated for private securitization defaulted at much higher rates than those originated for Fannie and Freddie securitization, even when controlling for all other factors (such as the fact that Fannie and Freddie securitized virtually no subprime loans). Overall, private securitization mortgages defaulted at more than six times the rate of those originated for Fannie and Freddie securitization."
etc.
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 2:55PM
What you do not or refuse to get is that Freddie Mac set the lending standards for the rest of industry and made it their business to buy a significant % of subprime loans which they would not have done before Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines continually lowered their lending standards and paid themselves big bucks in the process. Franklin Raines paid himself almost $100 million over a 5 year period from 99-04 and committed outright fraud in the process that is well documented. He would be in jail if he was in a real private company and was not protected by his political overlords.
Gretchen Morgenson wrote the definitive book chronically the prime role that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played in the financial meltdown though her colleagues at the NYT's refuse to acknowledge it but we know what guys like Paul Krugman do. Question is do you want to accept the conclusion of what a very respected financial reporter who did her due diligence research or a paid liberal propagandists like Paul Krugman wants you to believe? That is a rhetorical question for you Jack
Jack London| 4.2.12 @ 3:38PM
Sorry - Morgensen did soem good things in the book but the part about subprime crisis was wrong. This review tells you why.
http://prospect.org/article/fannie-backwards
"But most disappointing -- disgraceful -- -is a [part] that blames the entire financial collapse on misguided efforts to increase homeownership among minority and moderate-income Americans and places Fannie Mae at the center of that enterprise. "Fannie Mae led the way in relaxing loan underwriting standards," Morgenson and Rosner write, "a shift that was quickly followed by private lenders." They have that backward.
The public record is unequivocal: The private lenders led the deterioration of mortgage standards; Wall Street financed them; and Fannie resisted and then belatedly followed. This part of the book, from the first pages in the opening chapter, is overheated in its prose, sloppy with its facts, and disingenuous in its story line. It is a serious disservice to a fair understanding of the crash and its origins."
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 3:57PM
Yeah, I am suppose to believe some Soros funded leftist site as an unbiased assessment. Nice try Jack
Jack London| 4.2.12 @ 4:18PM
Well Todd, when 99% of analysts say one thing and you're in the 1% camp (like the climate deniers) you could usefully ask yourself whether you are missing something. In this case, what do yo think Morgensen meant when she said:
"Of all the partners in the homeownership push, no industry contributed more to the corruption of the lending process than Wall Street."
As the reviewer says: "So which is it -- Fannie or Goldman? Inconsistency like this pervades the book."
And one thing we can agree on possibly. Government was seriously at fault for lack of regulation. Kuttner puts the main culprits as:
– Alan Greenspan's Federal Reserve, which lowered interest rates without increasing regulation, refused to enforce a 1994 law requiring prudent underwriting standards and turned a blind eye to abuses in the process of loan securitization.
– The Office of Thrift Supervision, which let savings banks under its supervision engage in outlandishly risky practices.
– The Wall Street firms that bankrolled subprime lenders and turned their high-risk loans into securities
– The credit-rating agencies that blessed toxic subprime securities with Triple-A ratings.
– The SEC's failure to police those agencies.
– And, of course, the subprime lenders themselves.
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 4:38PM
I actually read the book though have a little bit to go to finish while you just read some review from you leftist propaganda site. The prime cause was Jim Johnson at Fannie Mae along with the Clinton administration suing banks for redlining that really got the ball moving on the subprime disaster. Everything else just fed into the monster including the Fed keeping rates too low for too long which by the way Bernake has not learned anything from. The SEC is a bureaucratic joke, too busy surfing porn to actually do their jobs properly. They never catch anything until it is too late.
To say more regulation is the answer for incompetent government officials to enforce ignores reality. The answer is to get the government out of housing policies (shut down and privatize FM) and the "too big to fail model" that is what Dodd/Frank sets into law whatever they try to tell us otherwise. To let those clowns be in charge of banking regulation when they had a huge responsibility for the crisis itself shows everything that is wrong with DC and liberalism in general.
Oldefarte| 4.2.12 @ 5:08PM
None of them ORIGINATED this crisis.....it all goes back to the CRA of 1977 which liberal Democrats legislated!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Occam's Tool| 4.2.12 @ 7:07PM
I am not so sure 99% of scientists believe that there is AGW going on. The data and the honesty of the researchers is highly suspect.
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 7:26PM
Just another of the "Big Lie"
weaverofdreams_2000| 4.2.12 @ 8:31PM
Delirium tremons at work.
Cheers!
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 4:24PM
An it is not like she does not put any blame on Wall Street, she has plenty for them as well. Not too mention Countrywides role led by a huge Democrat supporter Angelo Mozilo who was giving all kinds of sweetheart loans to his Democrat politico friends like Chris Dodd. They were joined by the hip with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in lowering credit standards to sell mortgages to Wall Street or FM. That is a fact of documented history as much as liberal hacks try to cover it up and blame the "greedy banks". To say FM resisted is a total crock and a lie being told from liberal political hacks like that article you referenced.
Jack London| 4.2.12 @ 5:01PM
'That is a fact of documented history'
From your sole source, Wallison, who got his figures from Pinto, which are absurdly wrong. We can discount the mess that Morgensen made with her book.
Documented history, in your eyes, is about as worthy as a monogrammed roll of toilet tissue, initials TS.
Oldefarte| 4.2.12 @ 5:06PM
No fool it's TRUTH, and the liberal Democrats [starting in 1977] began their war on banks by politically manipulating their loan underwriting practices. The only lie is YOU and Wallison's editorial is pure truth/fact!!!!
weaverofdreams_2000| 4.2.12 @ 8:30PM
Truth for you apparently comes out of a bottle.
Cheers!
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 5:26PM
My sole source is Wallison? Reckless Endangerment confirms Wallison's account and is much better documented than any rubbish from the left on the financial crisis. Typical of a leftist to simply discount anything that does not fit their narrative just like we see with the Trayton shooting debacle. NBC edits the audio to try to make the "white Hispanic" look like a racist and ABC makes a foolish claim based on some grainy video. The "Big Lie" the left accuses the right of is a clear example of projection, just like their accusations of "astro-turf".
Jack London| 4.2.12 @ 6:30PM
It's all right Todd - I get the message. It's all a commie plot to get you. Back to your bunker!
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 6:47PM
Typical of a leftist to resort to ridicule once they lost a reasoned argument
Jack London| 4.2.12 @ 6:54PM
You lost it when you started talking about Trayvon Martin in a discussion about subprime mortgages.
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 7:28PM
It is the same liberal media pushing that the greedy banks and Republicans deregulated is too blame for the financial crisis that is lying about the Trayvon Martin case and whipping up race hysteria. Just another example of how the liberal media operates with total disregard for the truth.
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 7:29PM
deregulation
cvrgrl| 4.2.12 @ 11:00PM
todd s... winner!
ooh so apt, it needs to be repeated:
"To say more regulation is the answer for incompetent government officials to enforce ignores reality. The answer is to get the government out of housing policies (shut down and privatize FM) and the "too big to fail model" that is what Dodd/Frank sets into law whatever they try to tell us otherwise. To let those clowns be in charge of banking regulation when they had a huge responsibility for the crisis itself shows everything that is wrong with DC and liberalism in general."
Oldefarte| 4.2.12 @ 5:19PM
Let me SPLAIN IT TO YA FOOL. The CRA of 1977 forced banks etc to relax their lending requirements, then CREATIVE FINANCING was created to counter the government's demand of relaxed standards. Alternatively the government established AFFORDABLE HOMES policies [ie welfare] through HUD and eventually got the GSE's involved in same. The end result was today's collapsed real estate market after financial indigents previously welfarically given homes they could not pay for walked away and left the American taxpayer to pay for same. End of story!!!! [oh thank Dodd, Frank etc Democrats for same]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
weaverofdreams_2000| 4.2.12 @ 8:29PM
Do you actually think about what you write? Or read it? Or think about how nonsensical it is?
So the mortgage market collapsed in 2006-2007 and the reason is to be found in 1977? Really? I imagine (indeed, am quite sure) that a few other things happened.
But in case that doesn't fly, you alternatively posit that "welfare" is to blame. Really? Hmmm... Who was running the ship when the bubble built up? Seems that R's had control of the whole ship at that point.
And then blame Dodd-Frank for the problem?? You can criticize that bill, but that was a response to the bubble bursting -- not the cause. The problem was greed and a complete lack of appropriate rules to limit the ability of greedy people to line their own pockets (and, in the end, having the rest of us plebs paying for it). A better regulated ("boo" word for you, no doubt) market, like that in Canada, could have prevented the worst of it.
Dodd-Frank was a rather feeble and limited effort to do that. People who play poker with other people's money should not be allowed to go "all in" on a fool's hand.
Cheers!
From the Desk of Media Matters| 4.2.12 @ 5:08PM
Jacqueline-Briana-Pierre-Linda Greenhouse-Pelosi-Cutteridge-Moscow,
Stop discrediting us.
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots know the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission was part of an Act that was created and established and passed and signed in 2009 which was passed by the House of Representatives led by Pelosi and which was passed by the Senate led by Reid and which was signed by the President lied by Obama.
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots know you are a delusional stupid lying depraved idiot even by their retarded standards.
Stop being a discredit to humanity itself.
- MM staff
Oldefarte| 4.2.12 @ 5:13PM
Fannie and Freddie don't ORIGINATE mortgages, they purchase retail brokered ones. It didn't start with the GSE's, but with the CRA of 1977!!!!!!!!!
DRed| 4.2.12 @ 6:00PM
I'm getting tired of pointing this out, but the CRA didn't apply to the institutions that issued the vast majority of the sub-prime loans. That's something that should be a fairly easy fact to grasp, and the fact that this escapes so many of you says a lot about the conservative mortgage crisis narrative.
Reprobate Charlatan DRedful| 4.3.12 @ 12:12AM
I'm Dredful and I'm getting tired of pointing this out that I'm not getting tired of being a dreadful liar.
* * * * * *
DRed:
"17 [Bush housing financial bubble warnings] during his last year in office? You mean, after the housing market had already imploded? Nice thinking again"
Nice Thinking Again:
"Cato Institute:"
"As late as the fourth quarter of 2008, home prices remained stable in many parts of the country."
"When financial markets melted down in October 2008"
* * * * * *
DRed:
"But reporting in Jakarta, Indonesia, and Washington D.C., shows the allegations that Obama attended a madrassa to be false."
"CNN dispatched Senior International Correspondent John Vause to Jakarta to investigate."
"How deeply stupid do you have to be to read that article and conclude that Obama went to a madrassa?"
Nice Thinking Again:
"It is notable that the notable liar emotionally prattles it is extremely stupid to doubt the reporting of CNN and CNN correspondent John Vause on the Muslim school the liar in chief attended."
"It is notable that the CNN correspondent John Vause is the CNN correspondent who in late July last year reported on the U.S. debt, and showed through bar charts how Bush was responsible for $5.070 trillion of this debt, while Obama was responsible for $1.440 trillion of this debt."
* * * * * *
DRed:
"First off, Obama never said that he wanted everyone in America to go to college."
Nice Thinking Again:
"That is why it will be the goal of this administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education - from the day that they are born to the day they start their career."
* * * * * *
DRed:
"If you look at the data here it looks like our effective corporate tax rate is basically middle of the pack."
Nice Thinking Again:
"Your link has nothing to do with the U.S. corporate tax rate."
"Your link does not show the corporate tax rates of OECD nations."
"The U.S. corporate tax rate is second highest among OECD nations."
"Effective April 1 the U.S. corporate tax rate will be the highest among OECD nations."
DRed:
"Well no, it doesn't show the rates, it shows how much corporations actually pay in taxes as a percentage of gdp."
Nice Thinking Again:
"Your link does not show the corporate taxes paid of the U.S."
"Your link does not show the corporate taxes paid of OECD nations."
* * * * * *
DRed:
"Wow. The article claimed that the rich paid a disproportionate share of income taxes in America. Taxes. Not federal income taxes. I wasn't saying that the claim that the rich paid 40% of income taxes was inaccurate. I'm saying that using that to claim that the rich pay a disproportionate share of taxes in America is inaccurate. Why? Because it's not true."
Nice Thinking Again:
"[DRed:] Here's the inaccurate part. Mr. Ferrara states that the top 1% of income earners paid 40% of federal income taxes in 2007."
"It is notable the notable liar time and again ignores:
in 2007 the top 1% paid 40.42% of federal income taxes;
in 2007 the bottom 95% - combined - paid 39.37% of federal income taxes;
in 2007 the top 1% paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95% combined."
* * * * * *
Oldefarte| 4.2.12 @ 5:09PM
Unlike you, Wallison tells the TRUTH!!!!
CJohnson| 4.2.12 @ 1:30PM
In the meanwhile the fed is preying on people with prime loans, extorting massive fees for flood insurance, enviro compliance, unnecessary inspections, upgrades, permits, etc.
cicero| 4.2.12 @ 2:21PM
Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, and Jaimie Gorelick were at the helm of Fannie Mae for about 5-6 years. During that time, they took 10s of millions of dollars each. Their salaries and bonuses were based on asset accumulation. They left just before the Feds concluded their report that clearly showed that the books had been cooked to produce the desired results. Fannie was fined about $400,000.00, if my memories serves me right. And still, no one goes to jail. Amazing!
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 2:33PM
Right on the mark about that though Mark in LA is willfully oblivious to the criminal activity at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. What was done under Franklin Raines watch is just as bad as anything that went on at Enron and at least there only Enron shareholders and employees were hurt. Mark thinks 311 billion in losses is nothing to be concerned about and that they had very little to do with it though because that is what he read in the NYT's and Washington Post.
Mark in LA| 4.2.12 @ 4:37PM
I am well aware of the criminal activity at Freddie and Fanny. However, what about the criminal activity at Goldman Sachs and the rest of the Wall Street thieves or the thieves in the private mortgage industry, or maybe you also believe "Nobody could possibly see this comming", as well.
You are so tied to you Reagan era BS that the government is always the problem that you allow yourself to believe this nonsense about how a 50 billion dollar a year hit to the economy caused by GSEs can cause losses in the trilllions. Try doing some long division and see how puny the amount going to bail out the GSEs is.
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 4:45PM
I guess I should take your word for it than respected non-ideological financial reporters that actually know what they are talking about. I mentioned in another post about Countrywide and their partnership with Fannie Mae that proved to be so destructive. The Wall Street firms just saw an easy way to make money while the music was playing and the especially foolish ones like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch ended up paying a big price for their lack of risk management. I don't think TARP was a good idea and the lack of transparency was disgusting. I also believe the backdoor bailout through AIG was a travesty as well and should never had happened but you can ask Tim Geithner about that.
Oldefarte| 4.2.12 @ 5:34PM
Again, it's not the GSE's but the liberal Democrats that legislated the CRA of 1977 that originated this crisis. Thereafter it was simply a snowball rolling down hill....the financials created CREATIVE FINANCING to deal with the government's CRA demands, the GSE's etc rolled up mortgages into bonds etc. It all started with liberal Democrats running the government in 1977!!!!!!
J.P. Travis | 4.2.12 @ 2:53PM
Kudos, Mr. Wallison. I salute you. I have your "Dissent from the Majority Report" on both my Kindle and my laptop, and I've recommended it to liberals many times without one taker. The left is simply not interested in facts which they find uncomfortable.
Oldefarte| 4.2.12 @ 5:35PM
Kudos to you as well for understanding Wallison's TRUTH as few other here apparently do!!!!!!!
Westie| 4.2.12 @ 6:41PM
I also found Wallison's "Dissent from the Majority Report" to be very factual and his other writings about the makeup of the Commission is also very informative.
Tommy Frisco| 4.2.12 @ 3:39PM
We can look back and say that run on the Money Markets on Sept 17, 2008 was the MacDaddy of October surprises. McCain/Palin was ahead in the polls at the time, but it was all Obama after that.
Bill| 4.2.12 @ 3:45PM
Obama dosen't live in America, he lives in "Obamaville." It ain't gonna works in 2012. where's Jeremiah Wright?
Nick| 4.2.12 @ 8:55PM
"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill the Bigot, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403
You're a moron and a racist, Bigot Bill.
GO AWAY!
martin j smith| 4.2.12 @ 3:50PM
Over many years of observing the NYT and other MSM " news" outlets in a gradual way I have concluded that all of them including FOX are nearly
entirely unreliable in telling the truth. In the case of FOX the percentage of hearing the truth might be as good as 50: 50 but in the case of all other outlets it is at best 0.01 % or perhaps 0.001%.
universal mind| 4.2.12 @ 4:24PM
Think it's hard to talk to liberals now, wait till romney is the nominee. He isn't expected to stand up for us. & in reality romney is another four for obama. Try talking to them then.
Oldefarte| 4.2.12 @ 4:58PM
Dud, yeah man we nees a real conservative. Right on, none of that liberals excrement, huh? Do away with those Commie bastards anyway. Theres only one true conservative right and he's one of them there Catholics with labor union support. Lets defeat that Muslim with labor union suport and replace him with the Catholic!!!!
weaverofdreams_2000| 4.2.12 @ 7:46PM
It's amazing looking through you comments over the hours the deterioration of your writing/language. Up to your second fifth for the day?
Cheers!
Marc Jeric| 4.2.12 @ 4:44PM
THERE IS NO REASONING WITH DEDICATED MARXISTS; they should be confronted with the 80 years of truth: marxism brings terror, utter poverty, and mass murder - inevitably. POUND THEM INTO THE GROUND!
weaverofdreams_2000| 4.2.12 @ 7:52PM
I agree.
But I don't think you have the slightest idea what a dedicated Marxist (or socialist, or communist -- all terms thrown around lightly by the unintellectual group here) is. There isn't a single one in the elected branches of government (Bernie Sanders maybe the closest, but even he doesn't even measure up to a moderate European "socialist").
If you want to be taken as credible, you should refrain from showing your ignorance. If you don't like Obama, fine, but don't hurl around labels as epithets whose meaning you don't understand.
Cheers!
From the Desk of Media Matters| 4.2.12 @ 11:23PM
Stop being unable to stupidly refrain from showing your ignorance.
Even MM staff doesn't think you have the slightest idea PhD scientist Marc Jeric immigrated from a marxist slash socialist slash communist country.
Even MM staff thinks this is all because you spout nonsense without throwing out a single fact with every post in which you are not able to stupidly refrain from showing your ignorance.
Even MM staff thinks there isn't a single democrat in either the executive, legislative, and judicial branch that isn't attempting to exert government socialist control over our lives.
Even MM staff thinks you are a discredit to the marxist socialist communist socialist progressive socialist liberal socialist cause because you simply are not able to stupidly refrain from showing your ignorance.
Even MM staff know only a stupid lying idiot would state:
"the balloon burst in 2006/07" and "the mortgage market collapsed in 2006-2007",
when a simple search on that computerthingy you typed your stupid lying idiocy on would reveal one of those factsthingys you stupidly are able to refrain from using while being unable to stupidly refrain from showing your ignorance.
Stop stupidly toasting your inability to stupidly refrain from showing your ignorance.
- MM staff
Pat| 4.2.12 @ 4:50PM
“Lies my mainstream media told me” would make an intriguing title for a song but it shouldn't be an excuse to put money into the Left’s collective pockets. We know why Conservative pundits joust with the New York Times or the Washington Post but why do we readers have to acknowledge their legitimacy as honest media opponents? By encouraging Conservative writers to put the Mainstream Media on trial in their frequent published complaints, we are enticed into playing the Left's game. If they would lie at the drop of a hat, according to hardcore Conservatives, then why bother to repeat their slanders? And frequent visits to their websites for dubious “research” purposes simply pads their corporate bottom lines without advancing Conservatism.
Ask yourself if the various twits who defend Liberalism on TAS have impacted your beliefs or values in the slightest. If the answer is no then why would your righteous indignation bother feature editors at the New York Times? This war with the mainstream media is no family tiff over Thanksgiving Day dinner, it impacts your daily life – your health, wealth and security. And the way to fight back is to stop patronizing their outlets. Your visits only succeed in giving the Left’s online advertisers an impression of you as a satisfied customer.
Oldefarte| 4.2.12 @ 4:52PM
Peter Wallison's editorial is the TRUTH, THE WHOLE THUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, and it should be read and re-read by any/all as such!!!!!!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 4.2.12 @ 5:01PM
PS: the only thing that I would possibly disagree with his outstanding arguments would be to extend into history the fact that IMHO this all started with the CRA of 1977 [when banks began getting political pressure from the liberals in government to provide mortgage etc loans to financial indigents, and the rest as they say is history]!!!!!!!!!
weaverofdreams_2000| 4.2.12 @ 8:02PM
You are truly a delusional Oldefarte. Time to knock off the hootch. 1977?!!
By 2008 those mortgages would be all paid off. Get serious! The bubble occurred in the 2000's. Who was asleep at the switch then? Or, at least, who was in charge of the switch?? Things were showing signs of tanking in late 2006. It seems someone should have done something then. Someone seems to have been absorbed with other things at that time. Who and what could that have been?
Cheers!
cicero| 4.2.12 @ 5:09PM
Why are we playing the 'either or" game? When it is pointedd out that the masters of the universe at Fannie or Freddie were stealing money with both hands, Mark and his friends pop us and say, "What about Goldman Sachs and the others on Wall Street?". I say, they should all be under indictment, and they can all share the same wing of the Federal Prison. They should all be made to cough up the ill gotten gaines. It is their investment banks, and their stockholders who should be holding the bag. You can bet that they would have not been paid salary and bonus by their shareholders, like they were when they paid back TARP ONE with Fed money. I say that this whole sordid mess should have been, or should be investigated with the same intensity that our government goes after everybody elso, who is not politically connected. Until somebody goes to jail, and the thieves are made to pay the money back, it must all be looked at as a game, where the object is to pin the tail on the taxpayer, after which the thieves get to barbeque and roast the guys who got stuck with the bill.
Mark in LA| 4.2.12 @ 5:20PM
I am not disagreeing with you. I only pointed out Wall Street to add to who is responsible. Like you, I believe they should all go to jail. However, they learned during the S&L crisis that white collar crime cannot be prosecuted without "intent", unlike blue collar crime where intent is implied.
My view then and now was that all TARP money should have gone to FDIC and SIPC to make the account holders at the banks and brokerages whole while the brokerages and banks were stripped from their parent companies. The shareholders and bondholders of the parent companies would be in bankruptcy court where pastexecutive bonuses could be declared fruadulent conveyances and returned to the court. The banks and brokerages would be busted up and sold to those in the industry still solvent but in small enough chunks to stop the too big to fail nonsense.
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 5:58PM
There is plenty of blame to go around that is for sure. The point Wallison is making is what the prime cause of the crisis was and it is the push as a matter of Federal policy through Fannie Mae with HUD to increase home ownership to those with low credit scores i.e. subprime mortgages. When you put that with the threat of lawsuits of "redlining" under the Clinton administration, you had a disaster in the making.
Wall Street has securitized mortgages since the early 80's, it is not a new phenomena. The problem was there became a generally accepted theory that CDO's based on home mortgages were safe investments no matter the junk loans being made by mortgage companies like Countrywide. The government sponsored credit analysis firms like Moody's were asleep at the switch and the money was too good in Wall Street that warnings over the rapidly declining loan standards were overlooked. There was really not much clear evidence of criminal activity on Wall Street (though there was with a number of mortgage originators), just reckless risk management fueled by greed. Where there was clear examples of criminal activity was over at Fannie Mae under Franklin Raines leadership. I can't tell you how many articles I read in the WSJ warning of the reckless and criminal behavior at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac long before the crisis struck and taxpayers were left holding the bag.
I was working with a small foreign Investment Bank overseas in 2007 and saw how the CDO's were being sold as riskless investments while offering above average market returns, it really made little sense to me how that could be. It was all an illusion of course, no such thing exists. But since they got the Triple A rating, that is how they sold it.
The point is government regulation and more involvement is not the answer, take a look at Fannie Mae, the government sponsored rating agencies and the hapless SEC. Dodd/Frank is just making the situation worse and I have not yet heard one good thing about it from those who have to deal with the new regulations.
Jack London| 4.2.12 @ 6:33PM
How do do you explain the fact that the GSEs had only a small part of the delinquent market if they were mainly to blame?
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 6:53PM
Small part being about $300 billion and counting in taxpayer bailout money? Good one Jack. I have already explained how the GSE's got the ball rolling on rapidly increasing the subprime market (Countrywide and Fannie Mae were attached at the hip as documented in Reckless Endangerment) but you are not interesting in learning anyways.
Jack London| 4.2.12 @ 7:12PM
You can try and blame the government and FMs all you like but the facts are stubborn and you are wrong – this is the paper to read:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa.....id=1924831
Mark in LA| 4.2.12 @ 7:18PM
Faith in the marketto regulate itself should have been debunked with the S&L crisis in the 80's. We had the same phenomena - as more people entered the market standards lowered and bad deals got done. Michael Milken could pick and choose when he started and all those deals were good for both company and bond holders. After every brokerage got into the game every crap deal got done. Why should mortgages be any different.
Mark in LA| 4.2.12 @ 7:28PM
This also applied to thrifts and banks practically fighting each other to give a real estate developer a better deal with which to build a new office building that wasn't needed.
Prior to the crisis the developer needed a big stake (usually 20% or more) in the project and signed lease contracts to get financing. Near the end, the banks were lending 100% on a spec building with no lease contracs signed.
From the Desk of Media Matters| 4.4.12 @ 2:02PM
Jacqueline-Linda-Edwina Marcia-Rachel-Debbie Schultz-Wasseerman-Schultz Maddow-Olberrman-Moscow,
MM staff believes you two delusional retards are an embarrassment to the human race.
MM staff is on the verge of changing sides and outing every one of you bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots so that you can be ridiculed on the street and by everyone who knows you not just AmSpec readers.
MM staff knows the cause is lost and Obama is toast precisely because of the gibberish you two have spewed here.
MM staff is humuliated for our cause beyond belief when reading nonsense like
"The idea that Freddie and Fannie cause the massive losses that prompted the Fed to guarantee trillions in loans is ridiculous"
by fckewe in the city of demons
and
"You can try and blame the government and FMs all you like but the facts are stubborn and you are wrong - this is the paper to read"
by Jacqueline in the city of commies.
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots know that you two delusional retards are focusing on the effects that are a direct result of the cause while ignoring the cause that directly resulted in all the effects.
Even the parents with advanced stages of dementia of our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots are incredulous that the paper cited by Jacqueline Greenhouse-Sharpton-Schultz-Olberrman-Matthews-Maddow acknowledges that
"standards declined across the market"
and that the paper
"proposes reforms based on lessons from the recent financial crisis"
but that the paper ridiculously fails to address the ridiculously insane policy of ridiculously providing mortgages to those who can't afford them
not to mention the paper is written by one of the nation's premiere economic geniuses who is one of the mere twelve million associate professors of law in the nation.
Even the pre-school children of our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots easily understand the cause of all the effects of ridiculous financial government regulation was caused by providing mortgages to people who could not afford them.
MM staff wonders if it is possible you most delusionally retarded of all our bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots will stoop even lower.
Stop discrediting us and our cause.
- MM staff
Mark in LA| 4.2.12 @ 7:13PM
No the 300 billion figure is Cato's worst case estimate to 2014. As it stands now it is only 180 billion or so - which comes out to about 50 billion a year - far, far less than what waas handed out to banks and brokerage houses in the form of direct cash and loan guarantees.
Face it, the GSEs we not the driving factor in this mess. The problem is that the Republican party wants to deflect the blame away from Wall Street and this is their vehicle.
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 7:44PM
You mean the same Wall Street run by George Soros, Warren Buffet and John Paulson? Those are the 3 richest men on Wall Street, which party is it that they support and expect favors from? And formerly the crook ex-Democrat Governor of New Jersey Jon Corzine who was an expert financial adviser for Obama and Biden? Not exactly a secret that much of Wall Street is in bed with the Obama administration and always like to get Pelosi in on the sweet IPOs (see Visa). And let us not forget Bernie Maddof, which political party was he a supporter of? We know how powerful the Republican Party is in NYC right? Shouldn't forget Bloomturd either
Mark in LA| 4.2.12 @ 7:59PM
That there are clowns who call themselves Democrats is irrelevent.
The Republican Party has always carried out the wishes of Wall Street and followed policies designed to destroy the white working class in this country. Whether it is free trade, guest workers, or illegal immigration, the Republicans have been supporting it every step of the way as long as it hurts the white working class. At least with the Dems they don't try and hide their dislike of the white working class.
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 11:28PM
You realize what you said does not make any sense and that you contradict your own point? You just proved yourself to be a non thinking sheep for liberal bullcrap, congratulations
Mark in LA| 4.2.12 @ 7:04PM
How do you even make this statement with a straight face:
The government sponsored credit analysis firms like Moody's were asleep at the switch and the money was too good in Wall Street that warnings over the rapidly declining loan standards were overlooked.
So Moody's is government sponsored? This type of logic twisting being needed to keep your narrative of the government always being responsible for every calamity is pretty funny.
Todd S| 4.2.12 @ 7:34PM
Yes dummy, the government prevents any competition against the 3 credit firms (fact) so in effect they are sponsored by the government. I did not say the government owned them but they are certainly sponsored by the government. If the government suddenly decided there could only be three banks and no new entrants, would they not be sponsored by the government? I win again
Dagny Taggert| 4.2.12 @ 5:18PM
I read Nocera's book--one of a few on the financial crisis--and at the time I thought it fairly even-handed despite his NYT bona-fides. Trying to figure out where to place the blame is a silly waste of time. We're all complicit.
Listen to the HUD ads on the radio today: they talk of "the benefits of home ownership" in much the same way all players did up until 2006. The problem is correlation vs. causation: sure there are all kinds of metrics that look batter when one owns a home vs. not. But the simple point lost in all this is pre-CRA homeowners were the best savers and most personally financially responsible individuals in the country. So of course all those metrics looked better. Lowering the bar to get the "not as personally financially responsible individuals" into homes didn't make them more responsible, did it?
Face it--lowering the standards of mortgage lending to "get more Americans into homes" is simply financial affirmative action. And everybody bought into it.
Wall St. simply gamed the stress-test risks incorrectly. Highly levered bets with highly levered counter-parties, on highly levered paper based on a highly levered asset class is playing with fire--and we got burned--collectively.
Oldefarte| 4.2.12 @ 5:40PM
Bravo, another learned reader who understands Wallison's pointed truth. It is though one sourced reason why this all started......AS IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS [they were the originators of the CRA of 1977 to governmentally institute HOUSING WELFARE and should be blamed for this whole mess]!!!!!!
weaverofdreams_2000| 4.2.12 @ 8:14PM
I love you Dagny -- Hank.
Stupid, greedy and reckless lending has a lot to do with it. You agree with that, based on your last couple sentences. So much for greed is good.
Something to bear in mind is that the world of 1977 is much different from today's. Hence, those rules should have been updated to reflect a new reality. The proper response would have been "conservative" regulation (like Canada's) that would have limited the ability for such reckless lending policies.
In the late 70's, while the trend towards the breakdown of the solid two parent family was starting to build, there was still a solid core of two parent, middle class, families with just one income earner who could legitimately afford to buy -- or aspire to buy -- a home. Where has that world gone? Why has that world disappeared? Ask yourself.
Cheers!
albert constantine jr.| 4.2.12 @ 11:48PM
"It's always painful to take on the myths and ideological narratives of the left. The pundits of the liberal (excuse me, "progressive") media make a pretense of listening to reason, but when their views are challenged, they become abusive."
The opening two sentences of Mr. Wallison's article present his thesis. In every post, where you accuse those who disagree with you of alcohol abuse, you prove his point.
Unlike "proven science" from the left, a valid hypotheses can be tested by others in similar conditions with similar results. Thank you for partaking in the experiment, and dream on.
Bill| 4.2.12 @ 5:19PM
R-Resolute
O-Organization
M-Money
N-Natural
E-Energetic
Y-You asked for me
You welcome!
Nick| 4.2.12 @ 8:56PM
"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill the Bigot, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403
You're a moron and a racist, Bigot Bill.
GO AWAY!
Bill| 4.3.12 @ 11:30AM
Can you do something with "M" besides "Money?"
Marlowe| 4.2.12 @ 7:23PM
Peter:
I know you are fighting the good fight but here's the reality of fighting "city hall".
If you came down from Mt. Ararat with the facts written on granite tables it would make no difference to the Statists. Statists, no matter how brilliant they may or may not be, filter everything through the prism of their beliefs. Anything that does not fit the narrative is discarded, abused, destroyed or ignored.
They are psychologically incapable of even looking at your argument. Having said all that.............keep up the fight. Others, less dogmatic are listening.
SetOurChildrenFree | 4.3.12 @ 12:38AM
This isn't about Republican or Democrat, right or left, it's about truth vs. the lie. If your cause is unjust, you must lie, so they lie large and frequently. For the truth to prevail, it must be heard loud and often, because the media is against us, and people aren't paying attention.
Brian Richard Allen | 4.5.12 @ 3:05PM
.... This attitude and way of dealing with disagreement should have no place in our political system, but seems to have become the stock in trade of the spokesmen of the Left ....
It's not deliberate it's lizard brained.
And it's called pathological Projection and together with its twin morbidity, Denial, is but the definitive symptom of the (Fascis)Socialist Psychosis.
Marvin E. Fox | 4.6.12 @ 7:54PM
I admire the work of nearly everyone I read in this magazine. However, I would like to read one article that hits the basic problem with the democrat/socialist/etc group. They define everything in their own terms, possibly, because they began 180+ yrs ago redefinign our Republic as a democracy, and that may be their first deception. (Recall the Jackson revolution.)
I want to erase that deception! Our Republc is defined by its Constitution, all other definitions are wrong or incomplete. Our constitution is the results of the combined, compiled, and ratified principles of our Founders.
Destroy the democracy fraud, reopen the unamerican activites list and the present administration will cease to be our biggest problem. Stop telling your reader that the things the Democrats are doing are not democratic; of course they aren't. We are a Republic! A republic is an entirely different type of government than a democracy. We have, or should have, republican principles and moral values. The very things the Democrats have been pretending to take credit for before they destroy. I ask every conservative who believes our Republic is "our democracy." make a demand for the Democratic Party's standard official definition of the Democratic Party's democracy; the definition they give to elected and high level democrats, and those constituants who donate money to the Democratic Party.
Stop singing the Democrats "our democracy" song! Let them know we know we live in "our Republic"!