Re: Well... it's finally over...
Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 2:21 pm
Don't get your hopes up. It's not as interesting as you think.
The Pageantry Discussion Group
http://worldofpageantry.com/forums/
http://worldofpageantry.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15582
I realize you may be a young person, and may lack experience in life, but that doesn't excuse the incredibly condescending nature of your remark above. Who are you to lecture others on overcoming misfortunes or economic disenfranchisement? And please for a minute don't think that I don't recognize phrases such as "inner city" or "downtrodden" as code words for ethnic minorities. I would invite you to consider how your conservative party has divided this country and how economic disparities have been magnified, not minimized, by supply-side policies first implemented by Reagan.pittech wrote: To any inner city or downtrodden person out there, this should show that anything and everything is possible if you work at it (wait... isnt that a CONERTIVATE value and ideal... ) anyways, here is to the next 4 years of change. Moreover, here is to the second coming of Regan maybe it will be a black man.
Do government programs fail due to flaws in concept (rarely) or flaws in execution (more common)? Just because the government mismanages a program does NOT mean the program is a bad idea or flawed in design. Yes, I think socialized medicine is a good idea. Yes, I agree that government overhaul would be needed to make it effective/efficient.crfrey71 wrote:I give up sometimes. We have countless examples where govt programs fail and fail miserably. Why in the world do you want govt in control of healthcare?
The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA, or "Fannie Mae") was founded in 1938 as part of FDR's "New Deal," but became a stockholder-owned company in 1968. A lot of people are missing this point: Fannie Mae, AIG, and all the other companies failed because of capitalistic greed. They took on riskier and riskier debts in order to maintain record profits and appease shareholders. Fannie Mae, pre-takeover, was *NOT* funded or backed by the U.S. government.crfrey71 wrote:Did we not just have a very huge example of a failure of a democratic party program, Freddie and Fannie, that drove us into this economic mess? And we want to turn over our healthcare to the same people who screwed that up
Gonzofoto wrote:I realize you may be a young person, and may lack experience in life, but that doesn't excuse the incredibly condescending nature of your remark above. Who are you to lecture others on overcoming misfortunes or economic disenfranchisement? And please for a minute don't think that I don't recognize phrases such as "inner city" or "downtrodden" as code words for ethnic minorities. I would invite you to consider how your conservative party has divided this country and how economic disparities have been magnified, not minimized, by supply-side policies first implemented by Reagan.pittech wrote: To any inner city or downtrodden person out there, this should show that anything and everything is possible if you work at it (wait... isnt that a CONERTIVATE value and ideal... ) anyways, here is to the next 4 years of change. Moreover, here is to the second coming of Regan maybe it will be a black man.
When we consider where the county was when Reagan completed his second term, with the country watching hearings regarding the Iran-Contra affair, in which private operatives within the White House were operating with the tacit approval of the political hierarchy to fund mercenary activities in Central America, and where we were shortly to confront the Saving and Loan debacle (another costly fiasco attributable to deregulation), and where the public debt exploded while government functionaries were involved in an agenda of social conservatism ("Just say no"), I wonder how far revisionist history can come that people can honestly look back to Reagan with pride. I'm sure the revisionist histories of the Bush years are not far behind.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! It is govt sponsored! The govt had everything to do with it's failure. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, Clinton, and also some republicans. They pressured them to issue more home loans to low or moderate income home buyers (in other words, people who really couldn't afford a home).Hostrauser wrote:Fannie Mae, pre-takeover, was *NOT* funded or backed by the U.S. government.
So, actually, you're wrong: this was not a case of bureaucratic mismanagement. Ironically, in fact, you have things backward: the Fannie/Freddie debacle was a case of capitalism failing and the rescue coming in the form of socialism (government takeover).
Capitalism DID NOT FAIL, it was corupted by those that wanted sub-prime loans made to folks, that under a properly run capitalist system, would have never been approved for the loans! They even had Acorn protesting and picketing in front of banks that would not get with the program. Then Wall Street figured, that since Washington wanted it so bad, what the heck and ran wild with it! Capitalism, if allowed to run properly, works just fine. If you break the rules you WILL break the system!Hostrauser wrote:Fannie Mae, pre-takeover, was *NOT* funded or backed by the U.S. government.
So, actually, you're wrong: this was not a case of bureaucratic mismanagement. Ironically, in fact, you have things backward: the Fannie/Freddie debacle was a case of capitalism failing and the rescue coming in the form of socialism (government takeover).
Charles, you're wrong. There's no other way to say it: you don't understand what you're talking about.crfrey71 wrote:WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! It is govt sponsored! The govt had everything to do with it's failure. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, Clinton, and also some republicans. They pressured them to issue more home loans to low or moderate income home buyers (in other words, people who really couldn't afford a home).Hostrauser wrote:Fannie Mae, pre-takeover, was *NOT* funded or backed by the U.S. government.
So, actually, you're wrong: this was not a case of bureaucratic mismanagement. Ironically, in fact, you have things backward: the Fannie/Freddie debacle was a case of capitalism failing and the rescue coming in the form of socialism (government takeover).
Hostrauser,Hostrauser wrote:Charles, you're wrong. There's no other way to say it: you don't understand what you're talking about.crfrey71 wrote:WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! It is govt sponsored! The govt had everything to do with it's failure. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, Clinton, and also some republicans. They pressured them to issue more home loans to low or moderate income home buyers (in other words, people who really couldn't afford a home).Hostrauser wrote:Fannie Mae, pre-takeover, was *NOT* funded or backed by the U.S. government.
So, actually, you're wrong: this was not a case of bureaucratic mismanagement. Ironically, in fact, you have things backward: the Fannie/Freddie debacle was a case of capitalism failing and the rescue coming in the form of socialism (government takeover).
FNMA was founded as a government organization in 1938. In 1968, Congress set it free and it became a stockholder-owned company ("public"). You can go out and buy shares in Fannie Mae right now. Government-run organizations are not traded on the New York Stock Exchange.
Now, when FNMA was made public, because of it's federal origins and its deep involvement in the U.S. economy, it was given the designation of a GSE: "Government Sponsored Enterprise." I know you just said, "A-ha! See?", but hold on a minute. The phrase "government sponsored enterprise" is extremely misleading:
1) GSEs receive NO funding from the federal government
2) GSEs are NOT backed or insured by the federal government
3) GSEs are NOT run or controlled by the government (in excess of the normal financial laws that apply to every other corporation)
4) GSEs carry NO federal guarantees of support or solvency.
What do GSEs get?
1) Exemptions from FDIC-mandated capital requirements. Specifically, regulations exist through the FDIC Bank Holding Company Act that govern the solvency of financial institutions. The regulations require normal financial institutions to maintain a capital/asset ratio greater than or equal to 3%. Fannie and Freddie are exempt from this.
2) Exemptions from state and local (but NOT federal) taxes.
3) Ability to borrow money at lower rates than regular companies.
The governmental "perks" result in about $6.5 billion per year in extra profit. In turn, the government expects GSEs to conduct business "for the public good." The HUD "regulates" Fannie and Freddie in that every four years the HUD audits the two companies' finances to insure they are purchasing enough CMOs of "affordable" mortgages made to under-served (low-income) borrowers. By itself, this is not a bad thing. But we get back to this later.
Your statement "They pressured them to issue more home loans to low or moderate income home buyers" is evidence that you don't understand how Fannie Mae works. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have never issued a single loan to a single person. That's not their business. To simplify as much as I can, Fannie and Freddie purchase mortgages and turn them into securities that can be traded on the stock market. Or, to make it even simpler, Fannie and Freddie are more or less legal loan sharks for our banking system.
Here's how it basically works (without turning this into a thesis): mortgage-lenders (like Countrywide) will group together bundles of loans into a package called a "Collateralized Mortgage Obligation" (CMO). Fannie purchases these CMOs from the lenders at a lower interest rate and dices them up into many pieces, and sells them as securities or bonds on the stock market. Fannie profits from the interest differential, which racks up quickly (you'd be amazed at how easy it is to turn a 1% interest differential on bundles of $500k loan into billions of dollars in profit). The banks/mortgage lenders lose some of their profit on the interest due to the sale of these CMOs, but because home-loans usually have such long life-spans before being paid in full, the banks gain immediate liquidity from Fannie Mae (which much more important, as this allows them to go out immediately and make more loans for more profit, instead of waiting 30-years for the first loan to be paid off). Banks expect a certain amount of defaults and loans paid-off-early: bundling them into large groups (and, in turn, selling them as many bonds) reduces the risk on the CMOs. The public buys CMO-based securities from Fannie Mae, which gives Fannie Mae more liquidity to purchase CMOs from the mortgage lenders, which gives the mortgage lenders more liquidity to make loans to the public.
The problem with this scheme is that securities and bonds can't be defaulted on: they have a guaranteed payment schedule to the purchasers. So, when the default rate got too high on the mortgages, banks started losing money on their loans, and Fannie Mae lost money on the CMOs they purchased from the banks. However, Fannie then had to take another hit by paying off the guaranteed securities, which left them without enough money to keep purchasing the same amount of CMOs from the banks; the banks, now simultaneously eating bad loans and NOT receiving an influx of cash from Fannie and Freddie, couldn't maintain and collapsed. Now ALL of the banks loans were bad, causing Fannie to eat even MORE money, and again when they were forced to pay off even more securities. I know the federal take-over of Fannie and Freddie was not popular (I, initially, was against it), but America was seriously and without exaggeration staring at a run-away, financial chain reaction that--if left unchecked--very possibly would have led to the complete and total collapse of the American economy, from the stock market down to the ATMs.
Now, Fannie Mae had rules and requirements for CMOs just like banks and mortgage lenders had for the loans themselves. In 1999, President Bill Clinton urged Fannie Mae to loosen their requirements on the types of CMOs they would purchase from the banks, and gave the HUD (Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development) leeway to help make this happen. Technically, Fannie Mae, being a public company not controlled by the government, could have told Clinton to go take a flying leap if they wanted to. However, the economy was booming and Fannie Mae's stockholders saw the potential for even more profit, so they demanded the executives of Fannie Mae listen to Clinton. The HUD announced to Fannie Mae's execs that they could count subprime loans as "affordable" in their reporting to the federal government.
When the mortgage lenders heard of this, they must have felt like they just found the goose that laid the golden egg. Now knowing that Fannie would be purchasing more and more high-profit, high-risk CMOs based on high-profit, high-risk subprime loans, the mortgage lenders completely abandoned good business practices in an effort to essentially rape the market for as much profit as possible. By the early 2000s the mortgage lenders were screwing consumers with monstrously unfair loans and getting away with it entirely.
In 2000 the HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals. Consumer advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers with low "teaser" interest rates and ignoring borrowers' qualifications. Clinton's HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for "affordable" loans when the loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay. Freddie and Fannie adopted policies not to buy some high-cost loans.
But greed struck again. Fannie and Freddie were making so much profit on these risky loans that they started misrepresenting the financial numbers they reported to the HUD. The HUD, in turn, did not audit the two companies NEARLY as deeply as they should have.
In 2004 the HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals again, a perfect opportunity to stop the madness. Astonishingly, President Bush and his HUD just poured more fuel on the fire: President Bush, alarmed by an economy that was starting to lag due to wars overseas, suggested the HUD bump up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent, to spur the economy even further.
And now, in 2008, total collapse.
Who's to blame? If you want my opinion, it breaks down thusly:
5% - Bill Clinton. He inadvertently started the whole mess by encouraging a risky business practice. In his defense, in only a year Clinton and his advisers realized the propensity for abuse in the system and put restrictions on Fannie and Freddie during his last year in office.
40% - Fannie and Freddie. Bad business practices are bad business practices. Lying about them is even worse. Blinded by greed, the GSEs were enablers in this whole deal.
45% - Mortgage Lenders. It's not realistic to expect every citizen to have an accounting degree. Some people in America right now want to blame the citizenry for accepting loans they knew they couldn't afford. The problem is that in many cases, they DIDN'T know they couldn't afford them. The mortgage lenders would create numbers (with unrealistically low interest rates) that they COULD afford, and not disclose how much could change during the life of the loan: they'd simply put in a line about how the interest rates and payments were "subject to change" without including any specifics. Banks and other mortgage-lenders were setting their customers up for failure and they knew it. They were sacrificing people's livelihood in the name of fast and furious profit. It's some of the most reprehensible, vampiric business practices every witnessed in the history of this country.
10% - George Bush. Yeah, I know, you blame the criminals for committing the crime, not the police for failing to prevent it. But when 9-1-1 is goes unanswered for eight years? Bush had two terms to address this issue and he did nothing at all [tangent: Bush's 2003 attempt to reform the process by which the HUD regulated Fannie and Freddie did not directly address the issue at hand (indeed, this was more a response to Fannie's lying to the government, not the underlying bad business practices), and was more a cheap attempt to wash his hands of the issue, since it would have REMOVED the President's ability to appoint HUD regulators]. Either he chose not to act on the underlying problem (negligence) or he refused to acknowledge there was an underlying problem (incompetence). Take your pick.
Lastly, NO ONE in Congress, from either party, has the right to say "I told you so" on this situation. By the time the McCain became a co-sponsor of Hagel's bill and addressed Congress in 2006 (again, in response to a HUD report that Fannie was lying to the government, not addressing the underlying bad business practices) it was akin to someone standing in Rancho Bernardo on October 22, 2007 and saying, "hey, wow, a fire!"
Final tangent: Hagel's bill, S.190 (which wouldn't have prevented the current economic crisis, although that's another topic for another day), passed committee in amended form 11 to 9. From there, it was the committee chair's responsibility (that would be Senator Rick Santorum, R-PA) to bring suggest the bill for voting. The Senate Majority Leader (at that time, Senator Bill Frist, R-TN) determines the order of the voting. This never happened. Why? You'd have to ask them. The Summer of 2006 forced Congress to deal with Hurricane Katrina; it's possible S.190 fell off the radar. It's possible Senators Santorum and Frist felt the bill didn't have the necessary support to pass. Regardless, while some partisans like to state that Senate Democrats "blocked" the bill's passage, this is not the case. There was no Democratic filibuster because the bill was never brought to vote by the Republicans. The bill died from Congressional apathy on January 3rd, 2007, at the close of the 109th Congress.
Class. Dismissed.