Printable View
If I read that right, you're saying:
I borrow money from bank -> who sells the loan to FNM & FRE -> who is sponsored by the government?
So essentially no one should be careful about who they loan money too since they can always get bailed out?
Isn't that exactly why there's a housing crisis? Isn't that exactly why it should be privatized? Wouldn't banks be much more careful about who they loan money too if they themselves were at risk?
In a sense, yes. In recent years, FNM and FRE eased their own previously stringent requirements in order to accomodate some of these exotic loans which were being created by banks. They really had no choice. The real estate 'boom' which was triggered by low rates (Greenspan), speculators (flippers), and greedy, unscrupulous mortgage brokers created a self fulfilling prophecy.
They (FNM, FRE) held off doom as long as they could. However, somewhere along the way, they started serving two masters, the shareholders and the government (remember...GSE) They could have raised a flag earlier, banks could have been more stringent, flippers could...well...not flip, etc. At the end of the day, you really don't want the entire mortgage market to crumble. Period. That, fellow FKers, is something you CAN take to the bank. ;)
In which case imho we need less government. Less programs, less institutions and more private business. Ya know that whole capitalism thing would work without loaded decks.
I thought you were for Obama?
Obviously he is, considering the Republicans have brought us larger government, more waste, and bigger debt than any Democrat ever has... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
McSh*t is leading over Obama with 4 points. Americans like to be tortured and need a Domina.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
Yearning for Deutschland yet?
Didn't Austria try to elect a Nazi a few years back?
The only Nazi I know from Austria went to CA.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
His name was ... Schwarzenegger? He may be up for recall, he he.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BAT312P1M6.DTL
Ah yes...Jorg Haider, right? Isn't that the Austrian Nazi guy?
@Frets - FNM and FRE are trading down 40-50% in German markets this morning. As I said, I don't stand to gain from this...it's all for the kids, yo!
Shareholders, in this kind of situation - as previously stated - are pretty much ****ed out of their dividends, et al. But, it seems like the Feds seizing control over both Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac will ultimately be beneficial to the taxpayer.
The plan might minimize tax payer damage.
Anyway... my whole start to this thread wasn't about the effects of shareholders and taxpayers; it was about the weak ass economy and how far reaching and longterm the slowdown has been for some people, and how some of the so-called "strong economy" rhetoric by a lot of people just show me how damn clueless or out of touch these politicians truly are.
I'm for Ron Paul and his desire to reduce the government back to its original definition. BUT, givin the choices, and considering the republicans threaten more of a socialist empire than the Dems and the fact that the country has historically been more prosperous with Democratic administrations, I'm for Obama. He may not be less, but at least it would be smarter.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
the Democrats have congress. But no matter who controls congress, and therefore the economy more than the executive, action against the Federal Reserve Board would probably sink the dollar more than any amount of rate cuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
I'm not disputing the last half of your premise, but you're really too intelligent, and knowledgable about how the congress works to repeat that falsehood about the Dems having congress like they can pass any legislation they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
You and I both know that right now there are 49 Dems, 49 Repubs, and 2 Inds in the Senate.
It takes 60 Senators (filibuster) to invoke cloture and force a vote to pass any bill.
2 years ago, Trent Lott laid out the Republican strategy to obstruct any and all legislation and then run against the Dems in 2008 as a "do nothing" congress.
So far the Republicans are following thru on that promise and have now filibustered and blocked any votes on legislation more times (90+) than any other congress in history by almost double.
They, not the Dems, are blocking congress from getting any work done and are throwing the entire country under the bus for cheap and shameful politics.
</rant>
I'm not sure how you figure that the Republicans running on school choice and the Democrats running on socialized health care equates to Republicans "threaten more of a socialist empire."Quote:
Originally Posted by jAQUAN
Ron Paul is super conservative. McCain is questionably conservative. Obama is proudly ANTI conservative.
[QUOTE=Loyal Rogue]I'm not disputing the last half of your premise, but you're really too intelligent, and knowledgable about how the congress works to repeat that falsehood about the Dems having congress like they can pass any legislation they want.
[/qutoe]
well that just shows you how much you know.. har har.. ohh wait..
So when did republicans have 60 senators in the senate?Quote:
You and I both know that right now there are 49 Dems, 49 Repubs, and 2 Inds in the Senate.
It takes 60 Senators (filibuster) to invoke cloture and force a vote to pass any bill.
So what is the great dem bill that would strengthen the dollar that the repubs have stalled and blocked?Quote:
2 years ago, Trent Lott laid out the Republican strategy to obstruct any and all legislation and then run against the Dems in 2008 as a "do nothing" congress.
So far the Republicans are following thru on that promise and have now filibustered and blocked any votes on legislation more times (90+) than any other congress in history by almost double.
They, not the Dems, are blocking congress from getting any work done and are throwing the entire country under the bus for cheap and shameful politics.
</rant>
...you may want to let the potential future VP know those little details. (about 53 secs in - Mac and Mae have already cost us tax payers too much, apparently...)Quote:
Originally Posted by hanratty21
I am not sure why she thinks that it's cost the taxpayers money so far...there's been fed funds available (for borrowing) for FNM and FRE, but that's not a tax hit. Honestly, I could care less about what she thinks that McCain has thought about Fannie Mae. That's like me telling you that I think Silver quoted Gerbick in a thread in another forum about how Tom Brady has big thumbs.
Bottom line - real estate is overvalued. Prices need to drop for the average American citizen to be able to afford where they live. That's the end of it. Most people who've not been turned upside down yet on their mortgage probably couldn't afford to buy the place they live in right now if they wanted to. This is a really bad situation. Flippers, developers and greedy, unscrupulous mortgage brokers have exacerbated an already sh*tty situation. Greenspan didn't help by leaving the Fed rate at 1% for over 2 years...
from his Wikipedia entry:
So, is he still considered a non-causal entity by any of you in this thread? You don't need to be an economic genius to see that he basically laid out the carrot in front of the average American by promising the American dream only to pull the rug out from under the entire game. Economies don't change overnight. Everything is very cyclical...generally, you need to look 7-10 years in the past to really see causal factors in economic failure OR boom.Quote:
In a speech in February 2004,[6] Greenspan suggested that more homeowners should consider taking out Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) where the interest rate adjusts itself to the current interest in the market.[30] The fed own funds rate was at an all-time-low of 1%. A few months after his recommendation, Greenspan began raising interest rate, in a series of rate hikes that would bring the funds rate to 5.25% about two years later.
That doesn't have any bearing on my point or what's going on in congress right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
The dems never abused the filibuster as it is being done now to stall all legislation as a 2 yr long political ploy, and they certainly never came right out and stated that was their intention.
Also if you remember what happened under the last republican controlled congress, they basically took the filibuster power away from the dems by threatening what they termed "the nuclear option".
Meaning if the dems decided to filibuster any republican bills then the repubs would band together and eliminate the filibuster entirely by a simple majority vote of 51, which they had more than enough to do.
Again, that has no bearing on my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
I just don't like seeing such a false talking point continuing to be spread, promoting the repubs whole "do nothing congress" ploy without it being debunked by the facts.