|
|
| Post Number: 31
|
gijoeman 
H-E-Double Hockey Sticks
Group: Members
Posts: 694
Joined: Apr. 2010
|
 |
Posted on: Aug. 16 2010,3:06 pm |
|
   |
Clinton was more fiscally conservative than either Bush and the record while in office proves it.
Libertarians don't like either party per say, but the idea that the GOP are spendthrifts is flatly incorrect.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 32
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 16 2010,6:01 pm |
|
 |
Alki QUOTE One of the approaches, the American Dream Down Payment Act, will help low-income Americans afford the down payment and closing costs on their first home. Bush is asking Congress to provide $200 million a year for the program. He also proposes to make zero down-payment loans available to first-time buyers whose mortgages are guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration. $200 million a year is peanuts compared to Obambi's losses.
QUOTE In addition, Bush is proposing a tax credit to encourage builders to provide 200,000 affordable homes over five years for low-income families. Was that ever enacted?
QUOTE These and other steps, he said, will push the nation toward his goal of adding 5.5 million new minority home owners by the end of the decade.
But housing advocates say assistance for renters is just as critical a component to addressing the housing needs of families with limited financial resources. You don't like Bush's programs--but even THESE programs were not enough for committed lefty spenders! 
As Bush visited his state Friday, Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico said the administration is proposing cuts to key housing programs such as the Section 8 voucher program that helps low-income people defray rental costs, “the first rung on the ladder” to home ownership. By your own quote--Bush was proposing CUTS.
Is there anything in your quotes about forcing banks to make loans to people that couldn't pay them back--then backing them with Fannie and Freddie? 
So far, you've identified $200 million in government programs. That hardly rises to the level of the losses by Fannie and Freddie, does it? 
Obama spends more than that flying around on Air Force One giving speeches admonishing the "little people" to be "green."
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 33
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 16 2010,6:12 pm |
|
|
(Liberal @ Aug. 15 2010,6:11 pm)
QUOTE QUOTE Liberal--and liberals--would have us believe that the government pressure on banks to make loans to people that otherwise wouldn't qualify--upon possible penalty for NOT doing so--had no effect on the banking crisis--that these bankers WANTED to make those kinds of loans. These liberals(?) don't seem to agree with you, or Limbaugh. QUOTE
2008 Nobel Prize in Economics winner Paul Krugman states that the notion "has been refuted up, down, and sideways."[104] He also noted in November 2009 that 55% of commercial real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being completely unaffected by the CRA.[105] According to San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank Governor Randall Kroszner, the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending" was contrary to their experience, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim.[100] In a Bank for International Settlements (BIS) working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust", relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event.[106] Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair,[101] Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan,[107] Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress,[108] Robert Gordon of the American Prospect,[109] Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation[/b],[110] Daniel Gross of Slate,[111] and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.[112]
Paul Krugman? The last person to believe in Keynes theory of economics? 
Once AGAIN, you have "cherry picked"--from the very same article. Here it is AGAIN QUOTE Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charges the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[95] In a commentary for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee on Financial Services, charged the CRA with "forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."[102] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Austrian school economist Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized low-income housing by pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country
You cite YOUR source, I used the very same article to cite MINE. The only difference--MINE turned out to be RIGHT!
I'll state it AGAIN--since you refuse to address the issues:
Liberal--and liberals--would have us believe that the government pressure on banks to make loans to people that otherwise wouldn't qualify--upon possible penalty for NOT doing so--had no effect on the banking crisis--that these bankers WANTED to make those kinds of loans.
They would also have us believe that REQUIRING Fannie and Freddie to UNDERWRITE these loans had no effect on the runup (and subsequent downturn) in the housing market.
Those assumptions would have us believe that Fannie and Freddie have taken (and continue to take) those horrible losses for no good reason.
No--this issue can be laid right at the foot of government meddling. And the liberal response to the failure of government? OF COURSE--MORE GOVERNMENT!
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 34
|
|
|
| Post Number: 35
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 16 2010,6:40 pm |
|
|
I have cherry picked?
The only people that blame the CRA for the housing market collapse is the talk radio clowns, Stan Liebowitz, Ron Paul, and you. 
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 36
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 16 2010,7:07 pm |
|
|
You DIDN'T include the people in the same article that say Fannie and Freddie were to blame. Is that not cherry-picking?
Check it again--I even HIGHLIGHTED them for you!
Is it NOT true that the policy during the CLINTON administration was altered to force banks to make loans to people that wouldn't otherwise qualify?
Is it NOT true that to compensate for these bad loans, Fannie and Freddie bought or guaranteed them?
Is it NOT true tha Fannie and Freddie have sustained huge losses--losses that WE have had to pick up?
Why do YOU think banks made NINJA (No Income, No Job or Assets) loans--loans that would not be made EXCEPT for government mandates and guarantees.
Sorry, Libbie--the facts don't support Mr. Krugman--even if you WISH it were so.
If you can't bother to READ--maybe you would learn by looking at PICTURES! nullMy Webpage
WHO turned out to be right on the issue? Hint: it was not Slobbering Barney or "Friend of Countrywide" Chris Dodd.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 37
|
|
|
| Post Number: 38
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 17 2010,5:42 pm |
|
|
I expect you not to "cherry pick"--publishing only SELECTED points in the article.
QUOTE You just keep walking around mumbling about Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barney Franks, and the CRA causing the housing market collapse, it won't change anyone's mind. It's far more than just me--Googling the subject will return any number of articles on it. Conspicuously absent--anything from MSNBC or See--BS. Even THEY couldn't hold out forever. From today's MSNBC nullMy Webpage QUOTE So far, rescuing mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has cost the government more than $148 billion. That number is expected to grow. QUOTE The Obama administration's management of Fannie and Freddie has been under fire for months from Republicans on Capitol Hill. In December, the Treasury Department eliminated a $400 billion cap on how much money it would give the mortgage giants to keep them from failing And that's just Fannie and Freddies loss! It doesn't include the losses by smaller banks or individuals.
QUOTE Fannie and Freddie buy mortgages and package them into securities with a guarantee against default. They have ensured that millions of Americans can get home loans — even after the housing market collapsed.
From the always-liberal NY Times My Webpage QUOTE Fannie and Freddie amplified the housing boom by buying mortgages from lenders, allowing them to originate even more loans. They grew into behemoths because they lobbied aggressively and played the Washington political game to a T. But after both companies bought boatloads of risky mortgages, they required a federal rescue.
Perhaps the best explanation of how misguided government policies created the financial crisis is found HERE. My Webpage I invite any liberal to find fault with it.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 39
|
irisheyes
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 17 2010,6:06 pm |
|
|
What about all the luxury homes that wound up in foreclosure as well? I really doubt the government was pressing banks to loan money to rich people. They loaned money for the highest value possible because... Wait for it, wait...
They make more money that way!
If you walk into a shoe store, doesn't the salesperson hope you buy the more expensive pair? Or are they just as pleased if you buy something reasonably priced for your income. 
--------------
You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 40
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Aug. 17 2010,7:43 pm |
|
|
There is no doubt that MANY people bought into "the housing market goes noplace but UP."
The flaw in your theory is that the people that bought luxury homes were WEALTHY. Obviously, they were NOT! If they WERE, they could have paid off the mortgage.
People bought far more house than they could afford, based on the BFM principle--"Bigger Fool than Me"--the idea that they could flip the house for a profit. That worked in an UP market--but not a DOWN market.
In Florida, you could buy a $700,000 condo for $5000 down--$25,000 when they broke ground--finance even the down payment with good credit. Some people made a lot of money with that--until the bubble burst.
People bought into it because good banking principles were not followed with government intervention. No money down--limited creditworthiness--those aren't good banking principles, but those concerns go out the window when the GOVERNMENT IS THE GUARANTOR.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
