the mortgage crisis – lets break it down, shall we?

Alright, so I’m getting political, but I can’t help myself. I think that it’s important for my reader(s) to be educated. I also believe that this article is of interest to anyone who pays taxes – Republicans and Democrats alike. I will say that I’m hoping you read this with an open mind, as open as it can get. I’m not pointing fingers, I’m stating facts. Cold. Hard. Facts.

Today, the “bailout” bill was voted down 228-205 in the House. Regardless of the fingers being pointed and who is at fault for the “failure”, I know just one thing – I couldn’t be more excited about the “failure” of this bill.

Here’s why.

Boys and girls, I’m going to take you back in time to the days of good ol’ Willie in the White House. Don’t stop reading, that’ll be the last snark you hear from me about him.

At least, it’ll be the last intentional snark. He really just makes it so easy.

Ok seriously, done.

Those of you who have ever worked in a bank or for a credit card issuer probably have some generally understanding of Regulation B or the Equal Opportunity Credit Act.

For the most part this regulation is about discrimination regarding religion, race, gender, blah, blah blah. But the sneaky little line in there that has cause so much chaos is:

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act [ECOA], 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, because an applicant receives income from a public assistance program, or because an applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. (source)

Did you read that? Do you understand it? “….because an applicant receives income from a public assistance program…..” That means welfare. Or unemployment. Seems silly, right? Why can’ta bank refuse to issue a mortgage/loan/credit card to someone who’s sole or even partial income is that of welfare or unemployment? It’s not their money to begin with! But, enough yahoos in Washington thought it was a brilliant enough idea that it was passed.

Fast forward about 20-ish years. To the Clinton era. (That bill was initially passed in the 70’s) See, Regulation B’s portion about lending to people on welfare wasn’t exactly being followed by banks. Because it’s a stupid idea. But Clinton didn’t like that. He wanted these unqualified people to have loans and mortgages that they couldn’t afford. And so…..

Under Clinton, the entire federal government put massive pressure on banks to grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities. Clinton’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination and proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low- to moderate-income borrowers by the year 2001.

Instead of looking at “outdated criteria,” such as the mortgage applicant’s credit history and ability to make a down payment, banks were encouraged to consider nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness, such as having a good jump shot or having a missing child named “Caylee.” (not my snark)

Threatening lawsuits, Clinton’s Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. That isn’t a joke — it’s a fact.  (source)

Do you get it? Clinton and his cronies forced lenders to give mortgages to these under/un qualified people, or else. What’s worse, he wanted 50% of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s entire portfolios made up of these unqualified buyers. Initially, the market wasn’t affected. It’s the whole “supply/demand” thing.

Making it possible for otherwise unqualified people to buy homes increased demand and increased the price of houses. As long as housing prices rose, the problems inherent in not requiring down payments or relaxing other standards were hidden. While prices rose, no one had to default. Instead, if someone was unable to pay the mortgage, the obvious option was to sell the house at a profit. As long as prices continued to rise, people could accurately claim that the new standards did not have an appreciably different default rate than the old standards. (source)

This is basically saying that, as long as the housing market was hot! hot! hot! this lowering of the standards relating to lending money wasn’t an issue. People could just sell the houses they couldn’t afford (for profit!) rather than defaulting on their mortgage. The problem is, that market never lasts forever. Real Estate is cyclical like that. Sometimes it’s a buyers market, other times, it’s a sellers market. Sometimes the market is crappy for both, like it is now. Otherwise known as “the bubble has burst”.

So now, the houses can’t be sold at all, much less for profit, and now these people who shouldn’t have been allowed mortgages in the first place have defaulted, and banks have had to foreclose, which has caused our current predicament. Because it’s not just one or 2 people who have defaulted. It’s many.

This situation, try as you might, cannot be blamed on President Bush. It’s not his fault at all. He is not responsible for the Equal Opportunity Credit Act and he is certainly not responsible for it’s specific enforcement in the Clinton Era. 

Shift your blame elsewhere – To the man who enforced it and then got out of office unscathed, and is now watching the rest of us writhe and wriggle uncomfortably, as we live from paycheck to paycheck from the comfort of his, no doubt, multi-million dollar home.


8 Responses to “the mortgage crisis – lets break it down, shall we?”

  1. 1 Juanita's Mom September 29, 2008 at 7:56 pm

    and people say you are blonde… I think not!

  2. 4 DDTM September 30, 2008 at 12:04 pm

    She is a blonde – but that doesn’t mean she isn’t right.

    (Even a blonde squirrel gets a nut some of the time)


  3. 5 Kristi September 30, 2008 at 9:46 pm

    I simply could not resist commenting on this one… AMEN, girl! I’m so sick and tired of people blaming President Bush for this predicament. And on a side note, please thank your husband for all of us for his service to our country. It is because of people like him that we have all the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans. :)

  4. 6 fancythis October 1, 2008 at 11:22 am

    Well, Thank you Kristi! I’ll be sure to pass the message along!

  5. 7 Lee October 5, 2008 at 8:01 pm

    And exactly where are the actual, primary sources for this info? Citing Ann Coulter’s home page is not going to cut it.

    What regulation or law “required” that bank’s give mortgages to people who weren’t creditworthy?

    The law cited by most conservatives making your outrageous claims is the Community Reinvestment Act, but I’ve checked that Act aAND its regulations–no where are banks ordered or even encouraged to give loans to people whose credit histories indicate they are bad risks. No where.

    In fact, the Community Reinvestment Act specifically calls for banks which fall under that law to continue to operate “consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institution.” See Title 12 of the United States Code, sections 2901, 2903. The regulations incorporate the same standard; see 12 Code of Federal Regulations, sections 228.11, 228.21.

    The claim that banks were “forced” to consider “welfare benefits, unemployment benefits” and the like comes from….where? I don’t find it when I search the law and the regulations. The only place I see anything resembling that pretty unbelievable claim is in the FHA Section 8 housing assistance programs. And there, the welfare benefits and unemployment benefits are considered against the applicant, i.e., as evidence that you do not need section 8 housing assistance.

    If you have any legitimate sources for your claims, by all means tell me. You can e-mail me directly if you have them.

  6. 8 lagvff October 6, 2008 at 8:26 pm

    Bravo Lee … fancy’s politics are just that … politics – twisting facts isn’t the same as stating them. Her singular perspective is evidence of her inability to look at an issue from a multidimensional approach – much like Coulter. Its sad – it really is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 34 other followers


follow me

grab a button! spread the word!

what’s goin on?

looking back



%d bloggers like this: