Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 04 Jan '10 04:13 / 5 edits
    http://www.bloomburg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2Z5GnTAPcuo

    Taxpayer losses from supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will top $400 billion, according to Peter Wallisaon, a former general counsel at the Treasury. In fact, the Treasury department recognized last week that the losses will be more than $400 billion when it raised its limit on federal support for the 2 government-sponsored enterprises. The US seized the 2 mortgage finaciers in 2008 as the government struggled to prevent a meltdown of the financial system. Their debt grew at an average of $184 billion annually form 1998 to 2008, helping fuel a bubble that drove home prices up by 107% between 2000 and 2006. In fact, the Treasury said on Christmas Eve that it would provide, "An unlimited amount of assistance to the companies as needed for the next 3 years to alleviate the market concern that the government lifeline for Fannie and Freddie, the largest source of money for the US home loans, could lapse or be exhausted. Lax regulation of Fannie and Freddie led to the mortgage companies taking too many risky loans, says Peter Wallson. He goes on to say, "It turns out it was impossible to regulate them. They were too powerful." He also says that no one knows how much $$$ will be needed to keep the two companies solvent.

    So any predictions as to how much money will dissappear into these credit bohemoths that helped triggor the credit crisis? In addition, who in government is to blame? After all, both of these companies were started by the government and later overseen by the government. Where is the outcry for accountability within government?
  2. 04 Jan '10 07:27
    wiki Franklin Raines.
  3. 04 Jan '10 13:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    wiki Franklin Raines.
    Thanks. It led me to this article:

    http://www.agweb.com/DiscussionBoard/topic.asp.?TOPIC_ID=3146

    In the aticle, it says how Raines scammed millions of dollars from Fanny with a mild slap on the wrist. It also points the finger at the Clinton administration for the whole credit crisis.

    "Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime related bankruptcies on the free market system, and specifically the "trickle down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend. But it was the Clinton Administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated when mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Streets most revered institutions. Tough new regulations forced lenders into high risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practicies had previously guarded aginst making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties. The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steriods the Community Redevelopment Act, a well intended Carter era law designed to encourage minority home ownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for risky subprime loans that he and democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory". Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis morgaged backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the 90's by Clinton andhis social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow motion financial train wreck. And it was the Clinton Administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America. As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud. Other cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million. Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior execcutives could earn big business. In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk. But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America. At the time, the Clinton Administration was pushing for Fannie and her brother Freddie to buy more mortgages from low income households. The Clinton era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable housing lobbyists, resulted in todays nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie.......(and now for my favority line)......But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just does not get it. They will not acknowledge the law of unentended consequences from well meaning, if misguided acts."
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Jan '10 14:22
    Originally posted by whodey
    Thanks. It led me to this article:

    http://www.agweb.com/DiscussionBoard/topic.asp.?TOPIC_ID=3146
    Did you read it?

    I get a steadfast "404 - File or directory not found" message. Which is odd.

    Where did you get the cut and paste from? Is it an "article" as you claim or is it a blogger's rant on a 'Discussion Board'?
  5. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    04 Jan '10 14:34
    Originally posted by FMF
    Did you read it?

    I get a steadfast "404 - File or directory not found" message. Which is odd.

    Where did you get the cut and paste from? Is it an "article" as you claim or is it a blogger's rant on a 'Discussion Board'?
    Take out the period before the question mark in the URL and it will work.
  6. 04 Jan '10 14:59
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Take out the period before the question mark in the URL and it will work.
    It was posted by "Beaner" in September 2008.
  7. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    04 Jan '10 21:16
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://www.bloomburg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2Z5GnTAPcuo

    Taxpayer losses from supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will top $400 billion, according to Peter Wallisaon, a former general counsel at the Treasury. In fact, the Treasury department recognized last week that the losses will be more than $400 billion when it raised its limit on federal s ...[text shortened]... later overseen by the government. Where is the outcry for accountability within government?
    Government screwing around almost inevitably makes things more expensive.

    So when the government said, "Hey! Let's fund mortgages!!!" It was more or less inevitable that the price of a home would start a steady, upward, irrational march.

    Have you noticed a parallel? For some time now, the government has been providing "student loans" so that people could pay for higher education. Have you noticed anything about the cost of tuition?

    Same thing.
  8. 04 Jan '10 21:30
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    Government screwing around almost inevitably makes things more expensive.

    So when the government said, "Hey! Let's fund mortgages!!!" It was more or less inevitable that the price of a home would start a steady, upward, irrational march.

    Have you noticed a parallel? For some time now, the government has been providing "student loans" so that peopl ...[text shortened]... y for higher education. Have you noticed anything about the cost of tuition?

    Same thing.
    In e.g. Finland there are student loans and tuition is $0.
  9. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    04 Jan '10 21:57
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    In e.g. Finland there are student loans and tuition is $0.
    That just means the cost of tuition has been hidden. What is the real cost per student per year?
  10. 04 Jan '10 23:56
    Originally posted by FMF
    Did you read it?

    I get a steadfast "404 - File or directory not found" message. Which is odd.

    Where did you get the cut and paste from? Is it an "article" as you claim or is it a blogger's rant on a 'Discussion Board'?
    I went to the wiki site that Zeemister sent me to. I then looked up the citation used in wiki. So now go have a look.
  11. 05 Jan '10 00:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    Government screwing around almost inevitably makes things more expensive.

    So when the government said, "Hey! Let's fund mortgages!!!" It was more or less inevitable that the price of a home would start a steady, upward, irrational march.

    Have you noticed a parallel? For some time now, the government has been providing "student loans" so that peopl ...[text shortened]... y for higher education. Have you noticed anything about the cost of tuition?

    Same thing.
    There is a fundamental difference between the government providing loans to college students over providing loans to the "poor". The college student is more likely to be good for the loan. The "poor", however, will me more likely to default. That is why the government had to step in and demand mortgages be given to the "poor". Otherwise, they would not have had access to mortgages. Of course, it would also mean that we would never have had a credit crisis. So which is worse I wonder? I suppose it depends on which side of the political spectrum you are on. Currently, with high unemployment and many people losing their homes as a result, my guess is that most would be, or should be, opposed to this form of entitlement.

    I agree with your assessment in terms of government money flowing into the system that jacks up prices. Just wait for the new NHC.
  12. 05 Jan '10 00:08
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    In e.g. Finland there are student loans and tuition is $0.
    College education is just another way to distinguish the "haves" from the "haves nots". In fact, the more prestigious, ie the more expensive, the college the better the job outlook generally when you get out. That is why people like Obama who graduate from Harvard later have access to such position as the President of the US. Now if the cost was $0 for an education at Harvard, then it would be next to meaningless in terms of job salary and prospects when people graduate.
  13. 05 Jan '10 11:49
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    That just means the cost of tuition has been hidden. What is the real cost per student per year?
    Pretty high, Finland, having few natural resources, decided a few decades ago to invest heavily in education. It's worked out very well for them. Finland spends about $1500 per capita annually on education.

    "The Finnish education system is an egalitarian Nordic system, with no tuition fees for full-time students. Attendance is compulsory for nine years starting at age seven, and free meals are served to pupils at primary and secondary levels, where the pupils go to their local school. In the OECD's international assessment of student performance, PISA, Finland has consistently been among the highest scorers worldwide; in 2006 Finnish 15-year-olds came first in science and second in mathematics and reading literacy, in 2003 Finnish came first in reading literacy, mathematics, and science, while placing second in problem solving. In tertiary education, the World Economic Forum ranks Finland #1 in the world in enrollment and quality and #2 in maths and science education."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_finland
  14. 05 Jan '10 11:54
    Originally posted by whodey
    College education is just another way to distinguish the "haves" from the "haves nots". In fact, the more prestigious, ie the more expensive, the college the better the job outlook generally when you get out. That is why people like Obama who graduate from Harvard later have access to such position as the President of the US. Now if the cost was $0 for an ...[text shortened]... n it would be next to meaningless in terms of job salary and prospects when people graduate.
    It does not need to be "a way to distinguish the haves from the have-nots". You can have a tuition fee of $0 but select students based on their talent rather than the pockets of their parents. Having a tuition fee of $0 does not mean you get a degree for free, for example in my year about 60% of students have dropped out since starting because they could not deliver the goods (tuition here is about $2000 but that's affordable for anyone with a student loan). There are also easier university courses than applied physics, of course, but that's another matter.
  15. Standard member monster truck
    Walleye Guy
    05 Jan '10 13:04
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Pretty high, Finland, having few natural resources, decided a few decades ago to invest heavily in education. It's worked out very well for them. Finland spends about $1500 per capita annually on education.

    "The Finnish education system is an egalitarian Nordic system, with no tuition fees for full-time students. Attendance is compulsory for nine yea ...[text shortened]... and #2 in maths and science education."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_finland
    Sounds good.
    Where do all these super smart Fins work?