Can't Reform Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac - (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Sanity -> Can't Reform Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac - (5/11/2010 8:00:11 PM)


Its "too complicated".

(From House Republican Leader John Bohner's web site, with Video):


quote:

CNBC’s Rick Santelli Rips Key Democrat For Ignoring Fannie/Freddie Reform


Dems’ Financial “Reform” Leaves Taxpayers on the Hook for Government Mortgage Giants


Democrats still don’t get it, and they refuse to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government mortgage companies that sparked the meltdown by giving high-risk loans to people who couldn’t afford it.   Standing up for American taxpayers, CNBC’s on-air editor, Rick Santelli teed off on Rep. Paul Kanjorski’s (D-PA) claim that Democrats’ couldn’t reform Fannie & Freddie in their financial regulation bill because it was “too complicated,” asking: It’s too complicated?  You think taxpayers that go to work to pay the money you are subsidizing, it will end up a half a trillion, do you think they think complicated is an excuse?




Some here may know that Rick Santelli is the very man responsible for igniting the Tea Party movement.

It goes on:

quote:


The exchange couldn’t have come at a worse time for Rep. Kanjorski and Congressional Democrats, because Fannie and Freddie simply won’t go away.  As the Financial Times reported today:

“Fannie Mae said on Monday it would need an additional $8.4bn in aid, as the US government-controlled mortgage finance company continued to suffer heavy losses on its bad loans…Fannie Mae’s appeal for help comes on the heels of a similar plea last week by smaller rival Freddie Mac, which asked for an additional $10.6bn cash infusion.  The latest requests for aid bring the total amount of taxpayer dollars drawn down by these companies to $148bn since the 2008 government-led bail-out.

“Anthony Sanders, a senior scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, called Fannie and Freddie ‘our own Greek tragedy.’  Mr. Sanders estimated that total taxpayer liability was about $8,000bn for the combined companies, including public debt and loan guarantees
.”


But the unlimited bailout that the Administration has bestowed on Fannie and Freddie doesn’t seem to bother Democrats, though the latest giveaway may come at an “inconvenient time,” as the New York Times noted today:

“Fannie Mae’s request on Monday for another $8.4 billion in federal aid comes at a politically inconvenient time for the Obama administration, which is pressing to pass sweeping financial legislation without resolving the company’s future…. Democrats want to defer an overhaul of federal housing policy until next year, after the midterm elections. But Republicans have seized on the continuing losses to argue that a plan for the two companies should be a priority of the current legislation.”






DomKen -> RE: Can't Reform Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac - (5/11/2010 8:41:51 PM)

Yeah let's get rid of Fannie and Freddie. Of course that means that virtually no banks will offer home loans and those that do will only offer 5 or 10 year loans to those with superb credit. Which means of course the creation of a wealthy landed gentry and a lower class of renters permanently unable to control their own destiny. Another great idea from the cons. One whose time came and went in about 1890.




Sanity -> RE: Can't Reform Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac - (5/12/2010 5:34:18 AM)


Nobody has advocated "getting rid of" Fannie and Freddie.




rulemylife -> RE: Can't Reform Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac - (5/12/2010 5:38:07 AM)

How quickly we forget.

Especially when it is politically expedient.


Fannie And Freddie's Bailout Cost - Forbes.com

Now we know why U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was reluctant to reveal to lawmakers last week the potential cost of the Bush administration's rescue plan for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It's going to be a mind-popping $25 billion over fiscal 2009 and 2010, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which released its estimate of the rescue plan Tuesday morning.





Sanity -> RE: Can't Reform Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac - (5/12/2010 6:19:20 AM)


Fast Reply -

The Bush administration (along with John McCain) tried for years to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, beginning at least as far back as 2003, but Congressional Dems blocked him each time.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print


http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush-mccain-tried-to-reform-housing-finance#comments







Louve00 -> RE: Can't Reform Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac - (5/12/2010 6:40:33 AM)

So, you're saying that Dem's have so much power they were able to beat our former presidents financial morals down (along with McCain's) into the ground without so much as a fight being given by that president, or his do-boy repubs.  Sorry...don't buy it.  Nope.

**Editted to add....Annnnnd, if you are implying the democrats have that much power, I say we start voting in those powerful democrats who we like.  And start training the ones we don't.  Since they have so much more clout over the repubs.  [8|]




Sanity -> RE: Can't Reform Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac - (5/12/2010 6:54:44 AM)


Actually, it was the New York Times etc. which reported that, not I.

And the reality isn't your twisted version at all, as inconvenient as that may be.








Louve00 -> RE: Can't Reform Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac - (5/12/2010 6:55:59 AM)

Well, you may have used someone else's words to get your point across.  I used my own.  And my response may have sounded twisted, but it was a response to yours...and while you may claim a newspaper or link as your sources, if you're posting them, then I can only assume you believe them.




Fellow -> RE: Can't Reform Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac - (5/12/2010 12:44:18 PM)

Special "bailout tax" should be introduced for homeowners only if bailouts are necessary. 




Louve00 -> RE: Can't Reform Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac - (5/12/2010 1:08:33 PM)

Thats an interesting concept.  Of course, you'd have to determine certain criteria and scrutinize any loan that failed because I believe its a fine line between a homeowner getting screwed and one taking advantage of a broken system.  If a homeowner can afford the loan, but not the escalating interest rates, and because of that fact affecting their FICO score, that would be a viable way out. 

Lets hope they come up with something fair and good.  yea, right  [8D]




rulemylife -> RE: Can't Reform Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac - (5/12/2010 3:56:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Fast Reply -

The Bush administration (along with John McCain) tried for years to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, beginning at least as far back as 2003, but Congressional Dems blocked him each time.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print


http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush-mccain-tried-to-reform-housing-finance#comments




Let me ask you this, you have said repeatedly on here that the government should not interfere in business and federal regulation caused the economic crisis.

Yet you post two links that are pro-regulation.







luckydawg -> RE: Can't Reform Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac - (5/13/2010 5:34:31 PM)

I don't think I have ever seen Sanity say those things.

Care to offer up some proof?

And actually those links are opposed to the current regulatory regiem.




Termyn8or -> RE: Can't Reform Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac - (5/13/2010 8:11:49 PM)

FR

Even FHA and maybe VA loans should've never happened. People bought houses before the inception of either. Each allowed people to buy more house than they could afford. All of this worked somewhat like a Ponzi scheme. As long as the economy worked, the people worked and inflation worked, it worked. But I believe that the housing bubble such things created was one of the major causes for the collapse.

What's more, neither of these institutions insured the consumer, they insured the banks. They were not even a loan guarantee, they guaranteed the interest chiefly, not even the principle. They charged the consumer what was called PMI, Private Mortgage Insurance payments built into every month's payment. How is that "private" BTW ?

The borrower could get off of it once accruing 10% equity. However many didn't take note and paid needlessly. And that 10% was based on the loan value. What it boils down to is we got nothing for something.

T




flcouple2009 -> RE: Can't Reform Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac - (5/14/2010 8:06:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

I don't think I have ever seen Sanity say those things.

Care to offer up some proof?

And actually those links are opposed to the current regulatory regiem.


No actually what the link was about was Bush suggesting another regulatory board to do the oversight instead of congress.

Also leaving out the part in the article stating that during most of that time the Congress and White House were controlled by the Republicans and if they has actually wanted change they could have done it.




flcouple2009 -> RE: Can't Reform Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac - (5/14/2010 8:11:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Actually, it was the New York Times etc. which reported that, not I.

And the reality isn't your twisted version at all, as inconvenient as that may be.


As usual your the one doing the twisting.  Since you posted the links and said see Bush wanted to do it the Democrats wouldn't let him, please find one mention of that in either link.

"-For 6 of the last 8 years we have had a Republican White House and Congress, and in the last 2 years we have had a divided government. If the Republicans had wanted to change things, they have had the chance."

That was straight from the article you posted claiming the Democrats held Bush back.  Do you actually read what you post?




luckydawg -> RE: Can't Reform Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac - (5/14/2010 5:30:00 PM)

FLcouple, perhaps you have heard of this crazy thing called a filibuster.....having a slim majoriity does not give "controll"


So proposing a different way of regulating is not opposing the current Regulatory regiem?


Talk about twisting.....




flcouple2009 -> RE: Can't Reform Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac - (5/14/2010 5:52:11 PM)

"a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry."

"The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws."


A new board using the same rules.  That's a change how?

This is also from Sept,2003.  What happened?  When exactly did the Republicans bring this to the floor and the Democrats run a filibuster on it?  Come on let's just not make things up. 

Again all of this is in the two articles that Sanity posted.  Your getting your points from where?




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875