Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - $700 billion from us to save the banks. Good?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed$700 billion from us to save the banks. Good?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 11>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2008 at 10:31
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by BroSpence BroSpence wrote:



I found this commentary quite interesting: Another different look on the situation.


Good article.  Still I can't help but wonder how many of those who got the crappy subprime loans might not have defaulted if they had been given decent fixed rate loans.


My understanding is that it was adjustable-rate loans with ridiculously low intro "teaser" rates that allowed most people to get into a house - fixed rate stuff would have been at too high an interest rate for them to afford it.  Of course, either they didn't understand what they were getting into, or were duped, but either way when the rate skyrocketed after the teaser period they were obviously screwed.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2008 at 06:59
Originally posted by BroSpence BroSpence wrote:



I found this commentary quite interesting: Another different look on the situation.


Good article.  Still I can't help but wonder how many of those who got the crappy subprime loans might not have defaulted if they had been given decent fixed rate loans.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
npjnpj View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2008 at 04:13
I find that article to possibly be the most sensible and level-headed thing I've read about the crisis in a long time.
Back to Top
BroSpence View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2008 at 02:51
Originally posted by npjnpj npjnpj wrote:

Secureties, protection, segregated payments?
 

It's just double-talk, the same lot of bull, unchanged since last week, camouflaged ever so slightly to fool people into thinking there's a bit more substance to it.

 

I like the way George W. is using the age old weapon of scare tactics to get the public convinced that this is the only way to go. Old, but apparently still very effective. Smooth!


Yes the admin does love to tell people the sky is falling every time it wants something.

I also love the new "developing story" of everyone shoving the blame around as to why the bill didn't pass. It was a poor bill, fear is in the heart of wall st. hence the big point drop, and Congress sucks.

I found this commentary quite interesting: Another different look on the situation.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 29 2008 at 17:23
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Thank God.  This enormous chunk of change is not something that should be rushed through.  And the options that spare the taxpayers the burden are really needing serious consideratio.


Agreed.  Still think something must be done, but this bill wasn't it.


I just noticed I misspelled consideration.  Is consideratio anything like fellatio? Tongue

It is refreshing that politicians on both sides of the spectrum united to put a smack down on this.





September 29, 2008
Jonathan Schwarz:

This is Abraham Lincoln, then an Illinois state representative, speaking in the legislature on January 11, 1837. He’s referring to a dispute between private shareholders of the Illinois State Bank:

It is an old maxim and a very sound one, that he that dances should always pay the fiddler. Now, sir, in the present case, if any gentlemen, whose money is a burden to them, choose to lead off a dance, I am decidedly opposed to the people’s money being used to pay the fiddler…all this to settle a question in which the people have no interest, and about which they care nothing. These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece the people, and now, that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people’s money to settle the quarrel.

Lincoln’s speech was given just as one of the greatest speculative bubbles in US history was bursting. This was followed by the Panic of 1837, which led to a six-year contraction described by Milton Friedman as “the only depression on record comparable in severity and scope to the Great Depression.”

Uncategorized | -->

posted by Jonathan Schwarz at 8:26 AM | link




Edited by Slartibartfast - September 29 2008 at 21:20
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
Eddy View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 22 2004
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 637
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 29 2008 at 17:03
f**k the bailout.... it will go to the fatcats and theyll be sipping on a martini in athe bahamas while were suffer a major depression........ How many of you guys know that this is a ll part of the new world order??? Fuk the neocons and the democrats both parties are corrupt. obamas forin policy is almost the same as mcains its all a big lie guys....
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 29 2008 at 15:24
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Thank God.  This enormous chunk of change is not something that should be rushed through.  And the options that spare the taxpayers the burden are really needing serious consideratio.


Agreed.  Still think something must be done, but this bill wasn't it.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 29 2008 at 15:18
Thank God.  This enormous chunk of change is not something that should be rushed through.  And the options that spare the taxpayers the burden are really needing serious consideratio.

Edited by Slartibartfast - September 29 2008 at 23:18
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 29 2008 at 14:41
Back to Top
Tapfret View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8581
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 29 2008 at 12:19
Its simply just another Bush era corporate welfare program. The difference is, Bush is leaving office so he won't need to fork out another "economic stimulus check" to each taxpayer to make them forget about the previous round of corporate welfare programs. The American people have bent over and took it for this administration, and this is just one more shot for the road.
Back to Top
npjnpj View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 29 2008 at 08:02
Since the great unveiling of the rescue plan yesterday, has anyone seen the presidential candidates clamouring for the glory?
 
It seems that they're not too keen to be associated with this package, strange really, as both of them seemed very eager to be hailed as saviours of the economy last week.
 
__________________________________
 
Apart from that: Why is everybody acting as if pumping 700 billion into the system will make the whole thing go away? The general opinion is that the banking crisis is far from over, we're possibly in the middle stage with other banking and insurance institutions' collapse still to follow. And what then?


Edited by npjnpj - September 29 2008 at 08:17
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 29 2008 at 07:38
This is interesting:
>

"How to Bail Out Wall St. at No Cost to the Taxpayers

Thom Hartmann wrote an interesting piece on how to bail out Wall St. without costing the taxpayers a dime. The idea is to create a new government agency to manage the bailout. The treasury would then loan it money to bail out Wall St. firms that are in trouble. The government would then institute a Securities Turnover Excise Tax of 0.25% on stock trades with revenues going to the new agency. For long-term investors who buy stock in companies they believe in and keep it for years adding a quarter of 1% to the cost hardly matters, and even to speculators it is not huge. It is estimated that such a tax would generate at least $150 billion a year, so the $700 billion load would be paid off in 5 years. The US has had such a tax in the past and used it to finance the Civil War, Spanish-American War, WWI and WWII. Many other countries have a similar tax. This proposal is clearly a viable alternative to either giving Wall St. $700 billion as a freebie or even getting stock in return for the money. Wall St. managers might even prefer it to a plan that limited their future compensation. Mother Jones lists yet five more alternative bailout plans."

The Votemaster

But the president's on TV right now.  They've apparently come to an agreement on the bailout.  That can only mean one thing.  We're going to get screwed again. Cry



Edited by Slartibartfast - September 29 2008 at 23:18
Back to Top
npjnpj View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 29 2008 at 04:01
Secureties, protection, segregated payments?
 
It's just double-talk, the same lot of bull, unchanged since last week, camouflaged ever so slightly to fool people into thinking there's a bit more substance to it.
 
I like the way George W. is using the age old weapon of scare tactics to get the public convinced that this is the only way to go. Old, but apparently still very effective. Smooth!


Edited by npjnpj - September 29 2008 at 04:09
Back to Top
BroSpence View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 29 2008 at 02:38
So the "new" proposal has been released. Sounds like they took the same plan and split it into segments and supposedly added protections to it, for us? Still has to be passed though. And I guess its quite true. We have absolutely no say where our money is going.
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 29 2008 at 00:03
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Saddest Thing About This Mess: Congress Had Chance To Stop It

 BY TERRY JONES

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
 

Could the crisis at Fannie Mae (FNM) - Freddie Mac (FRE) and the subprime meltdown have been avoided?

The answer is yes.

As early as 1992, alarm bells were going off on the threat Fannie and Freddie posed to our financial system and our economy. Intervention at any point could have staved off today's crisis. But Democrats in Congress stood in the way.

As the president recently said, Democrats have been "resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me . . . to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

No, it wasn't President Bush who said that; it was President Clinton, Democrat, speaking just last week.

Interesting, because it was his administration's relentless focus on multiculturalism that led to looser lending standards and regulatory pressure on banks to make mortgage loans to shaky borrowers.

Freddie and Fannie, backed by an "implicit" taxpayer guarantee, bought hundreds of billions of dollars of those subprime loans.

The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials (and some Republicans), worked with Wall Street to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors.

As the housing market continued to fall in 2007, subprime loan portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on — though it was 15 years in the making.

Democrats Blocked Reform

Just as Republicans got blamed for Enron, WorldCom and other early-2000s scandals that were actually due to the anything-goes Clinton era, the media are now blaming them for the mortgage meltdown.

But Republicans tried repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie. Democrats opposed them, especially Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, who now run Congress' key banking panels.

History is utterly clear on this.

After Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned Congress in 1999 of the "systemic risk" posed by Fannie and Freddie, Congress held hearings the next year.

But nothing was done. Why? Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place.

"We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama adviser, bragged to investors in 1999.

In November 2000, Clinton's HUD hailed "new regulations to provide $2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families." It made Fannie and Freddie take part in the biggest federal expansion of housing aid ever.

Soon after taking office, Bush had his hands full with the Clinton recession and 9/11. But by 2003, he proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

The plan included a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie, one that could boost capital mandates and look at how they managed risk.

Even after regulators in 2003 uncovered a scheme by Fannie and Freddie executives to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost bonuses, Democrats killed reform.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Frank, then-ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

North Carolina Democrat Melvin Watt accused the White House of "weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."

In 2005, then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk."

McCain Urged Changes

That year, Sen. John McCain, one of three sponsors of a Fannie-Freddie reform bill, said: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."

Sen. Harry Reid — now Majority Leader — accused the GOP of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership."

The bill went nowhere.

This year, the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. Well, McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the mortgage giants. The White House has repeatedly warned Congress. This year alone, Bush urged reform 17 times.

Some GOP members are complicit. But Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats.

That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion.

 
 


So can you tell me why exactly when the Republicans had control of the house and senate and then the house, senate, and the presidency (not to mention the supreme court) they didn't bother to take action to correct this? 
For the same exatc reason the Democrats don't bother to take action today.
 
And since I have no ideological preferences (unlike you) I can expand on the subject a bit more. If the Republicans were the patriots they claim they are, they would have stood up to this crap and put an end to this orgy long ago. But being the hypocritical pigs they are they could not stop this feast (which action would be immensely unpopular) for the fear of being voted out of office for the next few centuries. So they went along. After all it was good for bisiness, big business that is, who they are big supporters of, the fact they have the guts to admit sometimes. On the other hand the Democrats being the hypoctitical swine they are possess all nice qualities of the Republicans plus they have the temerity to claim they care about the common man.
 
 
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Lord knows they rammed through plenty of crap that wasn't good for this country.  Oh, I get it, they were too busy pushing through crap that wasn't good for the country to attend to this matter. LOL
When you point the finger you just may have three pointing back at you.
Your sarcasm sounds bitter. Not to worry. That article is biased and full of half-truths.  For example, most likely Clinton's statement is bullsh*t. He's a great president-in-retrospect, could-have, would-have. And McCain received some contributions from Fannie or Freddie I've heard. You really have to read between the lines. But the roots of the problem are obvious. We will be paying for Clinton's presidency for years to come.
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 28 2008 at 12:21
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Saddest Thing About This Mess: Congress Had Chance To Stop It

 BY TERRY JONES

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
 

Could the crisis at Fannie Mae (FNM) - Freddie Mac (FRE) and the subprime meltdown have been avoided?

The answer is yes.

As early as 1992, alarm bells were going off on the threat Fannie and Freddie posed to our financial system and our economy. Intervention at any point could have staved off today's crisis. But Democrats in Congress stood in the way.

As the president recently said, Democrats have been "resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me . . . to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

No, it wasn't President Bush who said that; it was President Clinton, Democrat, speaking just last week.

Interesting, because it was his administration's relentless focus on multiculturalism that led to looser lending standards and regulatory pressure on banks to make mortgage loans to shaky borrowers.

Freddie and Fannie, backed by an "implicit" taxpayer guarantee, bought hundreds of billions of dollars of those subprime loans.

The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials (and some Republicans), worked with Wall Street to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors.

As the housing market continued to fall in 2007, subprime loan portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on — though it was 15 years in the making.

Democrats Blocked Reform

Just as Republicans got blamed for Enron, WorldCom and other early-2000s scandals that were actually due to the anything-goes Clinton era, the media are now blaming them for the mortgage meltdown.

But Republicans tried repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie. Democrats opposed them, especially Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, who now run Congress' key banking panels.

History is utterly clear on this.

After Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned Congress in 1999 of the "systemic risk" posed by Fannie and Freddie, Congress held hearings the next year.

But nothing was done. Why? Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place.

"We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama adviser, bragged to investors in 1999.

In November 2000, Clinton's HUD hailed "new regulations to provide $2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families." It made Fannie and Freddie take part in the biggest federal expansion of housing aid ever.

Soon after taking office, Bush had his hands full with the Clinton recession and 9/11. But by 2003, he proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

The plan included a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie, one that could boost capital mandates and look at how they managed risk.

Even after regulators in 2003 uncovered a scheme by Fannie and Freddie executives to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost bonuses, Democrats killed reform.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Frank, then-ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

North Carolina Democrat Melvin Watt accused the White House of "weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."

In 2005, then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk."

McCain Urged Changes

That year, Sen. John McCain, one of three sponsors of a Fannie-Freddie reform bill, said: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."

Sen. Harry Reid — now Majority Leader — accused the GOP of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership."

The bill went nowhere.

This year, the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. Well, McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the mortgage giants. The White House has repeatedly warned Congress. This year alone, Bush urged reform 17 times.

Some GOP members are complicit. But Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats.

That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion.

 
 


So can you tell me why exactly when the Republicans had control of the house and senate and then the house, senate, and the presidency (not to mention the supreme court) they didn't bother to take action to correct this?  Lord knows they rammed through plenty of crap that wasn't good for this country.  Oh, I get it, they were too busy pushing through crap that wasn't good for the country to attend to this matter. LOL
When you point the finger you just may have three pointing back at you.


IS it a good guess on my part Slartibartfast, that you didn't have to Google-cheat to know this info ? Unlike some people here (myself included Embarrassed)


"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 28 2008 at 07:55
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Saddest Thing About This Mess: Congress Had Chance To Stop It

 BY TERRY JONES

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
 

Could the crisis at Fannie Mae (FNM) - Freddie Mac (FRE) and the subprime meltdown have been avoided?

The answer is yes.

As early as 1992, alarm bells were going off on the threat Fannie and Freddie posed to our financial system and our economy. Intervention at any point could have staved off today's crisis. But Democrats in Congress stood in the way.

As the president recently said, Democrats have been "resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me . . . to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

No, it wasn't President Bush who said that; it was President Clinton, Democrat, speaking just last week.

Interesting, because it was his administration's relentless focus on multiculturalism that led to looser lending standards and regulatory pressure on banks to make mortgage loans to shaky borrowers.

Freddie and Fannie, backed by an "implicit" taxpayer guarantee, bought hundreds of billions of dollars of those subprime loans.

The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials (and some Republicans), worked with Wall Street to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors.

As the housing market continued to fall in 2007, subprime loan portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on — though it was 15 years in the making.

Democrats Blocked Reform

Just as Republicans got blamed for Enron, WorldCom and other early-2000s scandals that were actually due to the anything-goes Clinton era, the media are now blaming them for the mortgage meltdown.

But Republicans tried repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie. Democrats opposed them, especially Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, who now run Congress' key banking panels.

History is utterly clear on this.

After Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned Congress in 1999 of the "systemic risk" posed by Fannie and Freddie, Congress held hearings the next year.

But nothing was done. Why? Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place.

"We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama adviser, bragged to investors in 1999.

In November 2000, Clinton's HUD hailed "new regulations to provide $2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families." It made Fannie and Freddie take part in the biggest federal expansion of housing aid ever.

Soon after taking office, Bush had his hands full with the Clinton recession and 9/11. But by 2003, he proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

The plan included a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie, one that could boost capital mandates and look at how they managed risk.

Even after regulators in 2003 uncovered a scheme by Fannie and Freddie executives to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost bonuses, Democrats killed reform.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Frank, then-ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

North Carolina Democrat Melvin Watt accused the White House of "weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."

In 2005, then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk."

McCain Urged Changes

That year, Sen. John McCain, one of three sponsors of a Fannie-Freddie reform bill, said: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."

Sen. Harry Reid — now Majority Leader — accused the GOP of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership."

The bill went nowhere.

This year, the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. Well, McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the mortgage giants. The White House has repeatedly warned Congress. This year alone, Bush urged reform 17 times.

Some GOP members are complicit. But Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats.

That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion.

 
 


So can you tell me why exactly when the Republicans had control of the house and senate and then the house, senate, and the presidency (not to mention the supreme court) they didn't bother to take action to correct this?  Lord knows they rammed through plenty of crap that wasn't good for this country.  Oh, I get it, they were too busy pushing through crap that wasn't good for the country to attend to this matter. LOL
When you point the finger you just may have three pointing back at you.


Edited by Slartibartfast - September 28 2008 at 07:58
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 27 2008 at 23:20
It WOULD be a good idea.....
but the government will f*ck it up.
Either accidentaly or on purpose (^ looking at crimhead's post)
 
Every week I see something else that pisses me off more
I want Socialism!!!!!
Back to Top
crimhead View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 27 2008 at 18:48

Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 27 2008 at 13:05

Saddest Thing About This Mess: Congress Had Chance To Stop It

 BY TERRY JONES

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
 

Could the crisis at Fannie Mae (FNM) - Freddie Mac (FRE) and the subprime meltdown have been avoided?

The answer is yes.

As early as 1992, alarm bells were going off on the threat Fannie and Freddie posed to our financial system and our economy. Intervention at any point could have staved off today's crisis. But Democrats in Congress stood in the way.

As the president recently said, Democrats have been "resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me . . . to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

No, it wasn't President Bush who said that; it was President Clinton, Democrat, speaking just last week.

Interesting, because it was his administration's relentless focus on multiculturalism that led to looser lending standards and regulatory pressure on banks to make mortgage loans to shaky borrowers.

Freddie and Fannie, backed by an "implicit" taxpayer guarantee, bought hundreds of billions of dollars of those subprime loans.

The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials (and some Republicans), worked with Wall Street to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors.

As the housing market continued to fall in 2007, subprime loan portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on — though it was 15 years in the making.

Democrats Blocked Reform

Just as Republicans got blamed for Enron, WorldCom and other early-2000s scandals that were actually due to the anything-goes Clinton era, the media are now blaming them for the mortgage meltdown.

But Republicans tried repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie. Democrats opposed them, especially Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, who now run Congress' key banking panels.

History is utterly clear on this.

After Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned Congress in 1999 of the "systemic risk" posed by Fannie and Freddie, Congress held hearings the next year.

But nothing was done. Why? Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place.

"We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama adviser, bragged to investors in 1999.

In November 2000, Clinton's HUD hailed "new regulations to provide $2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families." It made Fannie and Freddie take part in the biggest federal expansion of housing aid ever.

Soon after taking office, Bush had his hands full with the Clinton recession and 9/11. But by 2003, he proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

The plan included a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie, one that could boost capital mandates and look at how they managed risk.

Even after regulators in 2003 uncovered a scheme by Fannie and Freddie executives to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost bonuses, Democrats killed reform.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Frank, then-ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

North Carolina Democrat Melvin Watt accused the White House of "weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."

In 2005, then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk."

McCain Urged Changes

That year, Sen. John McCain, one of three sponsors of a Fannie-Freddie reform bill, said: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."

Sen. Harry Reid — now Majority Leader — accused the GOP of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership."

The bill went nowhere.

This year, the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. Well, McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the mortgage giants. The White House has repeatedly warned Congress. This year alone, Bush urged reform 17 times.

Some GOP members are complicit. But Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats.

That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion.

 
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 11>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.250 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.