Those people who always cry about govt intervention ought to listen a little to an expert like Bill Gross.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38737484
Those people who always cry about govt intervention ought to listen a little to an expert like Bill Gross.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38737484
One of his key points is that interest rates would soar. And? Yes, they should. Interest rates should match the risk banks take by giving a loan. We've learned enough about the visible hand of government in free markets - haven't we?
So you oppose Bill Gross's prescription?
So this is his prescription?
"He suggested the administration push for the automatic refinancing of millions of Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac's borrowers at the lowest mortgage rates in decades.
That would give Americans more money, boost consumer spending by $50 billion to $60 billion and lift housing prices by as much as 10 percent, he said."
The link below suggests the worst is well behind us in terms of foreclosures, and employment is the key driver.
http://www.housingpredictor.com/fore...eforecast.html
So do you oppose Bill Gross's prescriptions?
All of the above and the part that the headline of this thread describes?
You do remember the quote i provided with you from the former federal reserve bank President out of St. Louis? Well he said private companies actually brought on the financial crisis though he also said fannie and freddie participated.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong
By the way he is no Obama supporter. Still prefer to spout talking points and ignore the facts?
$150,000,000,000 dollars already. That's greater than the output of 21 States and can clean up CA's balance sheet 6X over.
At least Tim G. had it right, "we are paying for past sins over the years" -- yes sir, like these for example.
1,) In 1977, the Carter Administration and the United States Congress passed and signed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA. The CRA provided that federally insured banks, as a quid pro quo for being covered in the FDIC agreed to “help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations.” Essentially what the CRA was intended to do was to end the practice of redlining, where banks were willing to take deposits in certain areas but refuse lending in those same communities. That is to require banks to provide the same services to all who are equally situated and equally qualified in the communities in which they operate. Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 ("CRA"), 12 U.S.C. § 2901.
2,) In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the CRA of 1977.[10] Because of the increased ratio requirements, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans. Shareholders also pressured Fannie Mae to maintain its record profits.
3.) On September 10, 2003, the Bush Administration recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. Under the plan, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set capital-reserve requirements for the company and to determine whether the company is adequately managing the risks of its portfolios. The New York Times reported that the plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is broken. The Times also reported Democratic opposition to Bush's plan: "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Suffice to say that I'm still mulling over his prescription.
Oh i see your still mullin over his prescriptions. Waiting to see if they jibe with your talking points (govt all bad. Fannie and freddie the cause of all problems. :D) Its painful isnt when you cant call the guy an Obama socialist (just like the Fed President from St. Louis)
I will await your announcement.
P.S. We should all know there must be reform of the system on the govt side and the private side. Only there are some people who think its only the govt that is the problem. It defies all rationality.
Both are run by people.
You left out the part about Republicans and Bush opposing reform of the whole financial system.
There you go again thinking you fix fannie and freddie the way Republicans want to and all the housing problems would have been solved. Absolutely ridiculous.
How does one confuse facts for talking points? LMFAO.
And don't put words into my mouth. The government isn't all bad, just a lot bad LOL. We need a strong military LOL, well maintained federal highways and national parks.... And of course we need a good federal court system to uphold the Constitution. Just to name a few.
"just a lot bad". Kind of like all institutions and businesses run by people?
When its painful to hear experts from your side dispute your facts. Thats how we know you are spouting talking points. LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong
Hint: Think William Poole.
OK one more. These are indeed factual events Lloyd. Explain to me how they are not??
1,) In 1977, the Carter Administration and the United States Congress passed and signed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA. The CRA provided that federally insured banks, as a quid pro quo for being covered in the FDIC agreed to “help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations.” Essentially what the CRA was intended to do was to end the practice of redlining, where banks were willing to take deposits in certain areas but refuse lending in those same communities. That is to require banks to provide the same services to all who are equally situated and equally qualified in the communities in which they operate. Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 ("CRA"), 12 U.S.C. § 2901.
2,) In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the CRA of 1977.[10] Because of the increased ratio requirements, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans. Shareholders also pressured Fannie Mae to maintain its record profits.
3.) On September 10, 2003, the Bush Administration recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. Under the plan, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set capital-reserve requirements for the company and to determine whether the company is adequately managing the risks of its portfolios. The New York Times reported that the plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is broken. The Times also reported Democratic opposition to Bush's plan: "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
I have to tell you S&L that there are many other "facts" which you wont hear on these very same points. If only everything was as simple as you say. (who did you get your statements from by the way? :))
I will be awaiting your response to Bill Gross's suggestions on Fannie and Freddie.
"affordable home ownership was a key goal of the Clinton administration and
one enthusiastically carried forward by President Bush. A laudable aim- but there is evidence that it led to severe political pressure on mortgage providers to lower their lending standards."
S&L: Notice Clinton and Bush are mentioned. LOL.
"The political pressure, as well as rock-bottom interest rates and unscrupulous lending pratictices, helped to inflate the sub-prime housing bubble."
S&L: Bush opposed reigning in those unscrupulous lending practices. Remember Greenspan (mr. Bush's fed reserve choice) kept rates low and said there was no housing bubble and that tax cuts would not create deficits. He has admitted he was wrong since that time.
"President bush must take his share of blame. There is NO doubt that he is a natural supporter of deregulationa and that his administration DID NOTHING to stop all sorts of questionable financial activities in the private sector.As President, he bears the ultimate political responsibility and his party paid the utlimate price. "
"BUT THIS FINANCIAL CRISIS HAS MANY CAUSES, BEING- AS IT IS -THE PRODUCT OF CONFLICITING HUMAN EMOTIONS AND IMPERFECT MARKETS AND ORGANIZATIONS."
Some facts S&L you seem to leave out in your analysis. As i said before if only it was as simple as you say.
Thanks, I was trying to find a quote for Bush's continuation of the lunacy, but only found his lame attempt to fix it with Barney Frank telling him it wasn't broken. I had planned on throwing you a bone.
The "unscrupulous lending pratictices" and "questionable financial activities in the private sector" were aided and enabled by Frannie and Freddie, but you REFUSE to get it. In fact they created them. Do you understand the concept of first things first. Take away the guarentees and watch what happens.
This kind of "waste" happens to government programs all the time. But you're ok with that. In fact, you like it so much, you want MORE. Hey, let's send first time homebuyer checks to prisoners. Let's send SS checks to dead people. Let's build a bridge to no where. Let's investigate monkey's on cocaine. Let's make the fat cats on Wall St. fatter. It's all the same. The Government is the biggest mark on the planet. Here, I'll throw you another bone; let's subsidize big oil LOL.
"BUT THIS FINANCIAL CRISIS HAS MANY CAUSES, BEING- AS IT IS -THE PRODUCT OF CONFLICITING HUMAN EMOTIONS AND IMPERFECT MARKETS AND ORGANIZATIONS."
That's a great fact!!
There are lots of quotes about Bush's responsibility. i posted one earlier for you to read. I can find more if you need.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong
Do you want me to find the quote from the former fed reserve president? Again no Obama fan. in which he says the private sector caused the financial mess (aided and abetted by fannie and freddie) What dont you get? Unbelievable. You want only to blame govt and you repeat a talking point mantra. i also listened to an expert last night talk about the fact that fannie and freddie were at one time a very successful program My point in stating this is simply to remind you that you keep coming up with these simplistic points about fannies and freddie being to blame and ignore private enterprise principal role in it.
No one is ok with waste and incompetence and corruption from govt OR private enterprise. But as you can clearly see even bank executives recognize that Govt has an important role in the mortgage market.
So we can agree it aint fannie and freddie got us into this financial crisis? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong
"fannie and freddie were at one time a very successful program"
Yeah, and Lehman Bros was first rate company.
"So we can agree it aint fannie and freddie got us into this financial crisis?"
Funny.
As explained somewhere else in this forum, federal policy was put in place to PROMOTE home ownership. Look at the result of that policy (here, I'll borrow one of Obama's talking points "failed policies of the past")
Again, imagine a market with minimal policy. What would it look like? I'll make a guess, home loans would be made to those who could afford them. Hmmm, imagine that?