Obama Sponsor of greed.
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Here is a FOX news poll, even FOX viewers think the republicans are hurting the economy
Fox News Poll: Majority Says Obama’s Economic Policies Are Good Ideas
thinkprogress.org — A majority of Americans think President Obama’s economic policies would have positive results if they were implemented, according to a new Fox News poll released Thursday. 52 percent of respondents said Obama’s “ideas are good, but he hasn’t been able to get them implemented,” against 37 percent who think his “ideas are bad, and too [...] Oct 28, 2011
8,093SaveBury
Fox News Poll: Majority Says Obama’s Economic Policies Are Good Ideas
thinkprogress.org — A majority of Americans think President Obama’s economic policies would have positive results if they were implemented, according to a new Fox News poll released Thursday. 52 percent of respondents said Obama’s “ideas are good, but he hasn’t been able to get them implemented,” against 37 percent who think his “ideas are bad, and too [...] Oct 28, 2011
8,093SaveBury
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Tom,
It appears that you are wasting your time, the American people can see who to blame!
**********
Poll: Americans blame Bush for bad economy by wide margin
By Stephen C. Webster
Thursday, July 14, 2011
*
By a wide margin, more Americans blame former President George W. Bush for the national economic outlook than they do President Barack Obama, according to a new poll.
Numbers out of Quinnipiac University Thursday morning indicated that 54 percent of Americans say Bush is to blame for exploding the federal deficit and swelling unemployment, whereas just 27 percent believe it is President Obama’s fault.
Those figures are bad news for Republicans, who are hoping to hang the nation’s poor economic state around the president to defeat him in 2012.
It appears that you are wasting your time, the American people can see who to blame!
**********
Poll: Americans blame Bush for bad economy by wide margin
By Stephen C. Webster
Thursday, July 14, 2011
*
By a wide margin, more Americans blame former President George W. Bush for the national economic outlook than they do President Barack Obama, according to a new poll.
Numbers out of Quinnipiac University Thursday morning indicated that 54 percent of Americans say Bush is to blame for exploding the federal deficit and swelling unemployment, whereas just 27 percent believe it is President Obama’s fault.
Those figures are bad news for Republicans, who are hoping to hang the nation’s poor economic state around the president to defeat him in 2012.
FWIW
Contrary to popular myth, it was not Margaret Thatcher who coined the phrase "property-owning democracy". She made it central to her creed, she sold more than a million council houses to their tenants, and since then politicians of many stripes have agreed that owning your home is a good thing.
But the copyright on the concept belongs to a much less famous Tory (Conservative) called Noel Skelton, an MP in the 1920s and 1930s. It was his idea – novel for the time – that extending property ownership beyond the rich would encourage a sense of independence, pride and responsibility among the masses.
An implication, which influenced Harold Macmillan's (Conservative Prime Minister) house-building programme in the 1950s as well as Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s, was that the working classes would turn away from socialism as property ownership infused them with conservative values.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4ne13Zft9Q
Contrary to popular myth, it was not Margaret Thatcher who coined the phrase "property-owning democracy". She made it central to her creed, she sold more than a million council houses to their tenants, and since then politicians of many stripes have agreed that owning your home is a good thing.
But the copyright on the concept belongs to a much less famous Tory (Conservative) called Noel Skelton, an MP in the 1920s and 1930s. It was his idea – novel for the time – that extending property ownership beyond the rich would encourage a sense of independence, pride and responsibility among the masses.
An implication, which influenced Harold Macmillan's (Conservative Prime Minister) house-building programme in the 1950s as well as Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s, was that the working classes would turn away from socialism as property ownership infused them with conservative values.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4ne13Zft9Q
Last edited:
Like the republican idea to approve the Keystone project with around 100K "shovel ready jobs" and oil from a friendly country with Iran doing exercises to close the Strait of Hormuz. No, "let's wait until after the election to look at that" No political games there! Hell, I'm ready for $6.00 a gallon gas, right!
Pat
Supporter
Your quotes from earlier: "For a 4-6 week period in 2008, you could not borrow money."
"... loans stopped being made."
Not true. Lending didn't stop as you assert, it certainly tightened in some markets. Your numbers support that. More problematic is the situation today. The "post TARP" lending requirements (loan classification requirements) and latest round of stress tests are forcing banks to divest of perfectly sound client relationships because those clients don't fit stress test and acceptable federal loan classification profiles. Go ask your banker about how the asset risk guidelines the stress tests used. (Hint: they are all over the place)
Your quote: "But nothing forced the banks to make these loans. They did so because they could and because they thought they would make money on it. And they did, for a while.
... NO ONE held a gun to the banks' heads. A lot of right wing mythology around the CRA that isn't correct."
Certainly many banks got carried away in the mid-decade real estate boom and got in over their heads. They deserve to fail. However, that would have been impossible if Fannie and Freddie had not underwritten the loans. As for CRA, you are vastly understating how aggressively it has been implemented. It isn’t just about fair credit (there are actually other laws about that). Under CRA, banks are required to put facilities in low income areas, fund loans in those areas or be held as "redlining" and incurring fines and other severe restrictions. CRA evaluates banks under an investment test and a service test that consider, respectively, the number and types of investments and services (branches and bank accounts) in low- and moderate-income communities. When conducting the evaluations, examiners are to consider the “performance context” of the lending institutions. This subjectivity has produced interesting results.
The noble original intent of the program to assure equitable lending to those in similar situations has been subverted to a sort of financial affirmative action program to place loans that were known future losses in low income areas. As an offset, Fannie and Freddie enabled the process as they bought the paper that was underwritten by the banks. They still own it. (Question: Why are Freddie and Fannie exempt from Dodd-Frank??)
CRA also enables a sort of extortion. "Community Groups" such as ACORN and the Rainbow Coalition can contest a CRA rating in order to get "concessions" from the institution. This is often done if a bank wants to acquire another institution and the CRA status is contested until the community group is "satisfied".
To quote senior member of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) in 2004, “We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Frank Raines.” Rep. Waters has also indicated that Fannie and Freddie do not need further regulation.
Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis - YouTube
It was on Mr. Raines' watch that Fannie Mae went bankrupt. Oh yea, that is the same “Frank” Raines that was the Head of the Clinton Budget office and vastly overstated Fannie Mae’s earnings in order to receive $90 million in bonuses. Where is he today you may ask? In prison? Nope. He's living well thank you on his rumored $240M golden parachute (Less the $50M) the government made him give back.
How about Mr. Raines predecessor at Fannie? That's James A. Johnson, tapped by the Obama campaign to help select a vice presidential running mate. He resigned however when it was discovered he received a $2M below market loan from Fannie partner Countrywide Financial. The fact that audits of Fannie after Mr. Johnson's departure showed that in 1998 (like Mr. Raines later), he manipulated earnings reports to receive a $1.9M bonus he was not entitled to didn't bother the Obama campaign in his selection. He’s rumored to have a $28M golden parachute.
But then Jamie Gorelick, rumored to be an attorney general candidate in an Obama administration, was vice chairman of Fannie Mae from 1997 to 2003. Penny Pritzker, Mr. Obama's national finance chairman, has been described as "the Michael Milken of the subprime mortgage crisis" for her pioneering of the packaging of bad loans with good ones at her now defunct Superior bank in suburban Chicago.
The Gambino family couldn't run as vast a criminal enterprise as Fannie or Freddie and you’re saying it’s not at the heart of the problem???
Root cause here is BIG Government and its self-serving interventions into the daily lives of Americans.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
A few nuggets: in September of 08, Freddie and Fannie were basically the only lenders able to make loans (90%!).
Freddie and Fannie actually were subject to much stricter government regulations on loans they could make than private banks.
The point? Freddie and FAnnie's guarantee of some loans certainly contribed to this mess. But the banks caused it, along with all of us (those who thought taking out these kinds of loans weas a good idea). ALL of us. Not "Big Government".
Not at the heart of the problem. And the comparison to the Gambino family is beyond silly.
Read and learn here:
By December 2007, when banks began to constrict their lending, Fannie and Freddie were really the only lender still operating, responsible for 90% of all mortgages. Government regulations precluded Fannie and Freddie from buying mortgages that didn't meet downpayment and credit requirements. However, as the mortgage market changed, so did their business. Between 2005-2007, few of the mortgages acquired were conventional,fixed-interest loans with 20% down. Fannie Mae's loan acquisitions were:
•62% negative amortization
•84% interest only
•58% subprime
•62% required less than 10% downpayment.
Freddie Mac's loans were even more risky, consisting of:•72% negative amortization
•97% interest only
•67% subprime
•68% required less than 10% downpayment.
It was the preponderance of exotic loans in addition to subprime borrowers that made Fannie and Freddie's loan acquisitions so toxic.
Fannie and Freddie Held Fewer Toxic Loans than Most Banks
It is critical to understand, however, that because of regulations, they took on less of these loans than most banks. According to several analysts, they increased their acquisition of these loans to maintain market share in what had become a very competitive market. (Source: (Source: SeekingAlpha, How Much Are Fannie and Freddie to Blame?, October 2, 2008; Washington Post Fannie and Freddie Become Hot Topic, October 10, 2008)
In 2005, the Senate sponsored a bill that sought to forbid them from holding mortgage-backed securities in their portfolio because it wanted to reduce the risk to the government. In total, the two GSEs owned or guaranteed a total of whopping $5.5 trillion of the $11.2 trillion mortgage market.
After the Senate bill failed, Fannie and Freddie actually increased their holdings of risky loans. That's because they could make more money from the loans high interest rates than from the fees they got from selling the loans. Again, they were seeking to maintain high stock prices during a very competitive housing market. Even so, by 2007 only 17% of their total portfolio was either either subprime or Alt-A loans. Due to regulations, their percentage of these loans are actually better than many banks. (Source: Barron's, Is Fannie Mae the Next Government Bailout?, March 10, 2008; IHT, Fannie and Freddie's blame game, August 24, 2008)
Freddie and Fannie actually were subject to much stricter government regulations on loans they could make than private banks.
The point? Freddie and FAnnie's guarantee of some loans certainly contribed to this mess. But the banks caused it, along with all of us (those who thought taking out these kinds of loans weas a good idea). ALL of us. Not "Big Government".
Not at the heart of the problem. And the comparison to the Gambino family is beyond silly.
Read and learn here:
By December 2007, when banks began to constrict their lending, Fannie and Freddie were really the only lender still operating, responsible for 90% of all mortgages. Government regulations precluded Fannie and Freddie from buying mortgages that didn't meet downpayment and credit requirements. However, as the mortgage market changed, so did their business. Between 2005-2007, few of the mortgages acquired were conventional,fixed-interest loans with 20% down. Fannie Mae's loan acquisitions were:
•62% negative amortization
•84% interest only
•58% subprime
•62% required less than 10% downpayment.
Freddie Mac's loans were even more risky, consisting of:•72% negative amortization
•97% interest only
•67% subprime
•68% required less than 10% downpayment.
It was the preponderance of exotic loans in addition to subprime borrowers that made Fannie and Freddie's loan acquisitions so toxic.
Fannie and Freddie Held Fewer Toxic Loans than Most Banks
It is critical to understand, however, that because of regulations, they took on less of these loans than most banks. According to several analysts, they increased their acquisition of these loans to maintain market share in what had become a very competitive market. (Source: (Source: SeekingAlpha, How Much Are Fannie and Freddie to Blame?, October 2, 2008; Washington Post Fannie and Freddie Become Hot Topic, October 10, 2008)
In 2005, the Senate sponsored a bill that sought to forbid them from holding mortgage-backed securities in their portfolio because it wanted to reduce the risk to the government. In total, the two GSEs owned or guaranteed a total of whopping $5.5 trillion of the $11.2 trillion mortgage market.
After the Senate bill failed, Fannie and Freddie actually increased their holdings of risky loans. That's because they could make more money from the loans high interest rates than from the fees they got from selling the loans. Again, they were seeking to maintain high stock prices during a very competitive housing market. Even so, by 2007 only 17% of their total portfolio was either either subprime or Alt-A loans. Due to regulations, their percentage of these loans are actually better than many banks. (Source: Barron's, Is Fannie Mae the Next Government Bailout?, March 10, 2008; IHT, Fannie and Freddie's blame game, August 24, 2008)
Pat
Supporter
Nonsense Jeff,
Read and learn here:
From Bloomberg THIS Morning:
Daniel Mudd, the former chief executive officer of Fannie Mae, and Richard Syron, ex-CEO of Freddie Mac, were sued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for understating by hundreds of billions of dollars the subprime loans held by the agencies. The lawsuits filed today in Manhattan federal court were followed by an SEC statement that it had entered into non- prosecution agreements with each lender
In the lawsuits, the SEC said Syron, Mudd and others understated the lenders’ exposure to subprime mortgage loans. From 2007 to 2008, Freddie Mac executives said the company’s exposure was between $2 billion and $6 billion when it was actually as high as $244 billion, according to one SEC complaint. From 2006 to 2008, Washington-based Fannie Mae executives said the firm’s exposure to subprime mortgage and reduced documentation loans was about $4.8 billion when it was nearly 10 times greater, according to the regulator.
“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives told the world that their subprime exposure was substantially smaller than it really was,” Robert Khuzami, director of the SEC’s enforcement division, said today in a statement. “These material misstatements occurred during a time of acute investor interest in financial institutions’ exposure to subprime loans, and misled the market about the amount of risk on the company’s books.”
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Speaking of "greed",
Veek,
I hear the Newt Gingrich took over $1,500,000 "Fannie/Freddie", to promote the brand in Washington.
After learning of all the money they lost, are you OK with that?
Newt Gingrich touted Freddie Mac business model
Updated<SCRIPT type=text/javascript>document.write(niceDateGSA("2011-12-01 9:30 PM"));</SCRIPT> 2011-12-01 9:30 PM
Newt Gingrich has said he offered strategic advice to Freddie Mac. By Richard Shiro, AP
Update at 7:20 p.m. ET
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich highlighted the benefits of Freddie Mac's business model in 2007 -- a position that appears to contradict his assertion that he warned the mortgage company of its "insane" business practices.
********
2007,
Isn't thay the year when it became obvious that Freddie was sinking?
Veek,
I hear the Newt Gingrich took over $1,500,000 "Fannie/Freddie", to promote the brand in Washington.
After learning of all the money they lost, are you OK with that?
Newt Gingrich touted Freddie Mac business model
Updated<SCRIPT type=text/javascript>document.write(niceDateGSA("2011-12-01 9:30 PM"));</SCRIPT> 2011-12-01 9:30 PM
Newt Gingrich has said he offered strategic advice to Freddie Mac. By Richard Shiro, AP Update at 7:20 p.m. ET
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich highlighted the benefits of Freddie Mac's business model in 2007 -- a position that appears to contradict his assertion that he warned the mortgage company of its "insane" business practices.
********
2007,
Isn't thay the year when it became obvious that Freddie was sinking?
Last edited:
This financial meltdown is obviously multifaceted. A couple of the factors have not been addressed at all;
1. Repeal of Glass Steagall in the 1990's allowed banks to invest in risky derivative trades. Seems we forgot why Glass Steagall was enacted after the Great Depression.
2. Leverage allowed in derivative and commodity trading is insane. If an individual can only buy stocks with at least 50% down, why can financial institutions leverage with 1% down? Requiring 50% down on all trading would reduce the risk magnitude a lot.
1. Repeal of Glass Steagall in the 1990's allowed banks to invest in risky derivative trades. Seems we forgot why Glass Steagall was enacted after the Great Depression.
2. Leverage allowed in derivative and commodity trading is insane. If an individual can only buy stocks with at least 50% down, why can financial institutions leverage with 1% down? Requiring 50% down on all trading would reduce the risk magnitude a lot.
It would appear that the head of House Financial Services Committee was not doing his job and fannie and freddie were major contributors to the bursting bubble.
Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae Ex-CEOs Sued for Understating Loans
Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae Ex-CEOs Sued for Understating Loans
"Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said the administration's position is driven by concerns about the financial safety and soundness of the companies "to the exclusion of concern about housing."
Discussion | Interactive Investor
Discussion | Interactive Investor
