economy growing

[Foxrac]

There's one question, why does Bush Admin and republicans don't impose the regulation on bank to prevent from fail in several years later.

I'm favor for bipartisanship to form the regulation for bank because I doesn't want bank to fail like happened in 2008.

 

[TXgolfer]

I think a rather lengthy post just answered your questions about both. Bills were signed. It takes more than a simple majority to overturn them. Besides Bush had to deal with the worst terrorist attack ever seen here, two wars and one of the most devastating storms at the same time. Hurricanes Charlie, Francis, Katrina, Rita and Ike were all major storms during the Bush Presidency. I am not a Bush supporter and I don't think Jirro is either but we have both pointed this out many times. Bush had to deal with more unexpected things yhan any President in History. He voiced his concern on these issues. Congress didn't follow through.

 

[netrox]

Do you understand how the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac institutions worked? And how these two quasi-governmental institutions were the lynchpins that held everything together in the housing industry? The kind of practices they did? And how Bush in his last 7 years warned Congress to try and do something about this?

More mumbo jumbo - what does it have to do with Obama?

Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not once did it mention Obama. Enough of your B.S.

"The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008—passed by the United States Congress on July 24, 2008 and signed into law by President George W. Bush on July 30, 2008 — enabled expanded regulatory authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the newly established FHFA, and gave the U.S. Treasury the authority to advance funds for the purpose of stabilizing Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac, limited only by the amount of debt that the entire federal government is permitted by law to commit to."

And what caused them to fall apart?

United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See what's so wrong with this image? And it started right when Bush took office when people start to raise the prices of real estate to astronomically highs.

And you think private sectors would do better with loans? Not when you compare government loans to private loans for housing:

"As of March 31, 2009, seriously delinquent loans accounted for 2.3 percent of single- family mortgages owned or guaranteed for Freddie Mac and 3.2 percent for Fannie Mae. While those are historically high levels, they compare favorably to industry averages of 4.7 percent for all prime loans, 7.2 percent for all single-family mortgages, 24.9 percent for all subprime mortgages, and 36.5 percent for subprime adjustable rate mortgages"

So, say again, exactly what were you saying? Where's Obama in it? Was

Bush signed a law to EXPAND more government regulations for those loans... don't you want less government.. oh golly, this country would be a LOT worse if not for government bailing us out.

 

[netrox]

people who whine about government bailing us out have no clue, period. Without the bailout, we'd be MUCH worse. But it doesn't matter to them - never mind that many of them are PAID by our tax money. =)

 

[TXgolfer]

More mumbo jumbo - what does it have to do with Obama?

Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not once did it mention Obama. Enough of your B.S.

"The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008—passed by the United States Congress on July 24, 2008 and signed into law by President George W. Bush on July 30, 2008 — enabled expanded regulatory authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the newly established FHFA, and gave the U.S. Treasury the authority to advance funds for the purpose of stabilizing Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac, limited only by the amount of debt that the entire federal government is permitted by law to commit to."

And what caused them to fall apart?

United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See what's so wrong with this image? And it started right when Bush took office when people start to raise the prices of real estate to astronomically highs.

And you think private sectors would do better with loans? Not when you compare government loans to private loans for housing:

"As of March 31, 2009, seriously delinquent loans accounted for 2.3 percent of single- family mortgages owned or guaranteed for Freddie Mac and 3.2 percent for Fannie Mae. While those are historically high levels, they compare favorably to industry averages of 4.7 percent for all prime loans, 7.2 percent for all single-family mortgages, 24.9 percent for all subprime mortgages, and 36.5 percent for subprime adjustable rate mortgages"

So, say again, exactly what were you saying? Where's Obama in it? Was

Bush signed a law to EXPAND more government regulations for those loans... don't you want less government.. oh golly, this country would be a LOT worse if not for government bailing us out.

Maybe you should read the whole post and it's attachments first before you respond. It is obvious that you didn't. Either way no biggie, your guy is in and there is nothing stopping him from doing what he wants. We will see what happens.

 

[kokonut]

Maybe you should read the whole post and it's attachments first before you respond. It is obvious that you didn't. Either way no biggie, your guy is in and there is nothing stopping him from doing what he wants. We will see what happens.

It means he doesn't understand. It's not that overly complicated. Start with Jimmy Carter, then Bill Clinton, then you force banks to make unsound business loans to those who cannot really afford a home or is a major credit risk using the subprime rate, subprime rate goes up, people are unable to afford their mortgages, massive number of foreclosures ensue, housing value drops, the bubble bursts....

Really, it's quite simple though I've omitted a few things but that the gist of it. Read up on my links and learn these things. Being ignorant is not an excuse.

 

[netrox]

"Start with Jimmy Carter, then Bill Clinton, then you force banks to make unsound business loans to those who cannot really afford a home or is a major credit risk using the subprime rate, subprime rate goes up, people are unable to afford their mortgages, massive number of foreclosures ensue, housing value drops, the bubble bursts...."

How convenient that Reagan, Bush, and Bush are left out in your argument. Democrats are ALWAYS to be blamed for any economic mess.. ok... how much more constructive can you be?

 

[kokonut]

You don't understand then on how this Community Re-investment Act got started. Jimmy Carter started it. Bill Clinton made it worse by introducing and making available subprime rates to high risk people and those who could not afford it under the CRA. I told you, Bush II warned Congress about FM & FM for several years and that they needed to be reigned in and controlled. They didn't listen and we saw what happened to the housing industry. It collapsed.

 

[netrox]

You don't understand then on how this Community Re-investment Act got started. Jimmy Carter started it. Bill Clinton made it worse by introducing and making available subprime rates to high risk people and those who could not afford it under the CRA. I told you, Bush II warned Congress about FM & FM for several years and that they needed to be reigned in and controlled. They didn't listen and we saw what happened to the housing industry. It collapsed.

Are you forgetting that private sector IS THE MAIN PROBLEM? We bailed out Bear Stearns and AIG and many banks. All in private sectors. You never mentioned them, interesting.

Just amazing HOW you want to blame on FM and FM which are dedicated to helping the poor and lower income families get their homes:

FRB: Speech--Bernanke, Four Questions about the Financial Crisis--April 14, 2009

But the private banks abused CRA:

"In October 1997, First Union Capital Markets and Bear, Stearns & Co launched the first publicly available securitization of Community Reinvestment Act loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. The securities were guaranteed by Freddie Mac and had an implied "AAA" rating. The public offering was several times oversubscribed, predominantly by money managers and insurance companies who were not buying them for CRA credit.

Speaking in 2007, the 30th anniversary of the CRA, Ben Bernanke, Chair of the Federal Reserve System since 2006, stated that the high costs of gathering information, "may have created a 'first-mover' problem, in which each financial institution has an incentive to let one of its competitors be the first to enter an underserved market." Bernanke notes that at least in some instances, "the CRA has served as a catalyst, inducing banks to enter underserved markets that they might otherwise have ignored"."

That's the private banks causing the collapse of the housing industry because they ABUSED the system.

But remember, "During a 2008 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the financial crisis, including in relation to the Community Reinvestment Act, asked if the CRA provided the “fuel” for increasing subprime loans, former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines said it might have been a catalyst encouraging bad behavior, but it was difficult to know. Raines also cited information that only a small percentage of risky loans originated as a result of the CRA."

Only SMALL... insignificant.

You are the one that magnify that SMALL problem into a MAJOR problem when in fact, the majority of housing problems occur in the PRIVATE SECTOR that abused the CRA and went asking for bailouts.

If your own daughter is broke, wouldn't you want to help her get back on her feet and support her while she looks for a job? Of course, you would!

But you don't feel that way with the rest of America. That's why I find Republicans to be extremely self-centered - they only care about themselves and their OWN KIND.

 

[TXgolfer]

No we believe government help is expensive and inefficient. We prefer to help those in need through streamlined charitable orgs that don't have the overhead and red tape of government.

Obama made 4.2 million in 2007 and gave a paltry $240,000 to charity. The most Biden has given to charity in any of the last ten years is $995 or less that half what the average American donates. His average for that 10 year period is under $400. Your leaders pay lip service to the needs of the poor because they want their vote but they don't pull out their wallet.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-financial_N.htm

 

[netrox]

No we believe government help is expensive and inefficient. We prefer to help those in need through streamlined charitable orgs that don't have the overhead and red tape of government.

Your leaders pay lip service to the needs of the poor because they want their vote but they don't pull out their wallet.

Um, let's see... CEO's do the talking and they get megabucks while the hard working employees below them do the action.

Ok.

 

[TXgolfer]

Um, let's see... CEO's do the talking and they get megabucks while the hard working employees below them do the action.

Ok.

Don't seen any connection between your post and mine. But, speaking of action, Where is the action when it is time for your party's leaders to pull out their wallet?????

If the "hardworking employees" are not happy with their situation they should change it. Take a risk......start a business....go to college. Worked for me. Slavery is illegal. Everyone has the opportunity for success. If people don't apply themselves that's their problem.

There are a few that just can't make it. That's why company gave 10% of it's income to charity. Maybe your Dem leaders should give that a try.

 

[kokonut]

Netrox, it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) who are the ones that helped burst the housing bubble with the help of CRA. This took years for it to build to the point that FM and FM were unable to absorb the defaulted mortgage loans.

CRA and GSE Act promoted "innovative or flexible" lending practices such as downpayments of 5% or less, acceptance of impaired credit, higher debt ratios and creative definitions of income. This loosened underwriting resulted in total CRA originations and non-overlapping GSE AH acquisitions by the GSEs of $7 trillion over the period 1993-2007. This tsunami of high risk lending spawned and sustained a housing bubble unlike any this country has ever seen.

Why did GSE Act and CRA's mandated lending have such a huge impact? Historically home prices were determined by supply and demand at a local level. These two acts changed this local dynamic. Both operated nationally, due to the fact the Fannie and Freddie, along with the big banks responsible for the overwhelming majority of announced CRA commitments, were all national in scope. They were not only largely independent of local supply and demand pressures; their loosened credit standards created demand.

RealClearMarkets - How Did Paul Krugman Get It So Wrong?


The author of the link in the above:
Edward Pinto is a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry and was the chief credit officer at Fannie Mae in the 1980s.


The link above describes quite clearly on the relationships between FM & FM with that of the CRA mandate that was foisted on banks. This was done so that "affordable homes" be within reach of anybody even those who are at a high credit risk for defaulting. That didn't matter to banks since it was FM & FM (GREs) who would buy back these defaulted loans and by doing so helped keep housing prices at an unrealistic but inflated prices. When FM and FM couldn't keep up with the continuing defaulting of homes that's when the housing bubble began to collapse.

So, the CRA (along with FM & FM) did in fact played a *very significant* role that helped precipated the housing market glut by loosening credit requirements to get home loans, even with 0% down payment.

Read the link folks.

 

[Foxrac]

Netrox, it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) who are the ones that helped burst the housing bubble with the help of CRA. This took years for it to build to the point that FM and FM were unable to absorb the defaulted mortgage loans.


RealClearMarkets - How Did Paul Krugman Get It So Wrong?


The author of the link in the above:
Edward Pinto is a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry and was the chief credit officer at Fannie Mae in the 1980s.


The link above describes quite clearly on the relationships between FM & FM with that of the CRA mandate that was foisted on banks. This was done so that "affordable homes" be within reach of anybody even those who are at a high credit risk for defaulting. That didn't matter to banks since it was FM & FM (GREs) who would buy back these defaulted loans and by doing so helped keep housing prices at an unrealistic but inflated prices. When FM and FM couldn't keep up with the continuing defaulting of homes that's when the housing bubble began to collapse.

So, the CRA (along with FM & FM) did in fact played a *very significant* role that helped precipated the housing market glut by loosening credit requirements to get home loans, even with 0% down payment.

Read the link folks.

Are you favor in skyrocketing of real estate price like during early to mid 2000s?

 

[Foxrac]

No we believe government help is expensive and inefficient. We prefer to help those in need through streamlined charitable orgs that don't have the overhead and red tape of government.

Obama made 4.2 million in 2007 and gave a paltry $240,000 to charity. The most Biden has given to charity in any of the last ten years is $995 or less that half what the average American donates. His average for that 10 year period is under $400. Your leaders pay lip service to the needs of the poor because they want their vote but they don't pull out their wallet.

Biden gave average of $369 to charity a year - USATODAY.com

Oh, that's so interesting post.

 

[chucky69]

A Bridge to Nowhere

Amen to that Jiro!

Even if the economy grew 1% - I'd like to know where - because it sure ain't here in MI!

I find it funny how Obummer seemed excited by that inflated #

-charles

 

[Foxrac]

Don't seen any connection between your post and mine. But, speaking of action, Where is the action when it is time for your party's leaders to pull out their wallet?????

If the "hardworking employees" are not happy with their situation they should change it. Take a risk......start a business....go to college. Worked for me. Slavery is illegal. Everyone has the opportunity for success. If people don't apply themselves that's their problem.

There are a few that just can't make it. That's why company gave 10% of it's income to charity. Maybe your Dem leaders should give that a try.

Agreed, I'm hardworking American and not happy with situation from wal mart so that why I rather go to school to receive a college degree so I could find high paying job in eventually and don't want deal with shitty bosses, I just found about my life has been improved after cut the job hours at wal mart then finally resigned today, it is pretty worthful for me to be college student so I wouldn't apply to work at retail, fast food and restaurants in future.

I'm pro-union on low paying job but I'm personally support employee's choice to join union if they are interested or not so I believe that companies shouldn't make anti-union remark since it is up to employees to join, in my opinion and union has good and bad sides, depends on organization.

 

[deafskeptic]

There's one question, why does Bush Admin and republicans don't impose the regulation on bank to prevent from fail in several years later.

I'm favor for bipartisanship to form the regulation for bank because I doesn't want bank to fail like happened in 2008.

I was in favor of bipartisanship on the Heath care thing but the Republicans made it clear they weren't interested in bipartisanhip and I doubt they'll be cooperative this time around.

 

[TXgolfer]

I was in favor of bipartisanship on the Heath care thing but the Republicans made it clear they weren't interested in bipartisanhip and I doubt they'll be cooperative this time around.

The negotiations were held behind closed doors between Dems and Obama. That is Democrats making it clear that THEY were not interested in bipartisanship Republicans didn't even matter. There were enough democrats to pass the bill without a single republican vote.

Here is a google search so you can see the articles of Dems meeting in private. Not just one source

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...cratic+leaders+health+care&aq=f&aql=&aqi=&oq=

 

[deafskeptic]

The negotiations were held behind closed doors between Dems and Obama. That is Democrats making it clear that THEY were not interested in bipartisanship Republicans didn't even matter. There were enough democrats to pass the bill without a single republican vote.

Here is a google search so you can see the articles of Dems meeting in private. Not just one source

Obama meets with Democratic leaders health care - Google Search

And?

I'd say they wanted an ear from Obama regarding their concerns. I have no doubt that the Republicans leaders would have wanted to speak in private with the Republican Whip Canto or House minority leader Joe Boehner. Note the date; if they had done this last spring, you might have a stronger case. Over the summer, it became clear that the Republicans had no intention of working in a bipartisan manner. I will give Democrats credit for trying to work in a bipartisan manner long after I gave up hope.


Oh, look what I found at the top of your link: Healthcare: Obama meets with Republicans. Granted, it's an opinion blog and one that I agree on many points.

So I decided to google the meeting to get the facts; I think netrox or someone else posted about that meeting elsewhere. The ball is in their court - like it or not. If no one has posted about it, I will do so others can get all the facts. I note that Obama hasn't placed the blame entirely on the Republicans: "But on the specifics, I think both sides can take some blame for a sour climate on Capitol Hill. What I can do maybe to help is to try to bring Republican and Democratic leadership together on a more regular basis with me. That's, I think, a failure on my part, is to try to foster better communications even if there's disagreement. And I will try to see if we can do more of that this year. That's on the sort of the general issue."