Liberal free for all coming to an end

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It's happening more and more with each election. The republicans have to not only get enough votes to win, but get enough votes to overcome all the cheating that goes on with the democrats. Illegals are voting more often, Acorn is still around under different names signing up ineligable people to vote, Black Panthers are intimidating voters, and now it seems even voting machines are rigged. People have signed in to voting machines in Nevada only to find Harry Ried's name is already checked. How desperate is this guy?

Oh My! The poor Republicans always abused by nasty Democrats and their evil buddies. We all know that Republicans always run fair honest campaigns, don't we?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Oh My! The poor Republicans always abused by nasty Democrats and their evil buddies. We all know that Republicans always run fair honest campaigns, don't we?

Of course. See even Randolph agrees!

[randolph]

My portfolio is back where it was two years ago, thanks to the stimulus program.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

My portfolio is back where it was two years ago, thanks to the stimulus program.

So is mime. Unfortunately it's two years behind where it would have been if it weren't for the democrats policies of forcing banks to give loans to people they knew wouldn't be able to ay them back. And unfortunately they won't be what they could be in the future because the stimulus packages were a bandaid, not a fix. And that nasty problem of giving out loans to uncreditworthy people... still a problem. So we will have to do all this again.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

So is mime. Unfortunately it's two years behind where it would have been if it weren't for the democrats policies of forcing banks to give loans to people they knew wouldn't be able to ay them back. And unfortunately they won't be what they could be in the future because the stimulus packages were a bandaid, not a fix. And that nasty problem of giving out loans to uncreditworthy people... still a problem. So we will have to do all this again.

Do you really think the "Democrats" deliberately "forced" banks to make loans that would fail. This is very simplistic thinking. The banks that retained a conservative policy of making loans are still here, they were not "forced" to make bad loans. Greenspan's free for all policies along with rampant manipulation of mortgages into bonds by Wall street investment banks, were the major cause of the meltdown.
The entire financial industry came to believe that we had figured out how to make prosperity permanent. Consequently, risk was minimalized and loans which used to be considered risky were now okay.
Greed rules!

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Do you really think the "Democrats" deliberately "forced" banks to make loans that would fail.

We already went over this.

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

The Wall Street Journal would beg to differ with them...

Many monumental errors and misjudgments contributed to the acute financial turmoil in which we now find ourselves. Nevertheless, the vast accumulation of toxic mortgage debt that poisoned the global financial system was driven by the aggressive buying of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, and mortgage-backed securities, by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The poor choices of these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) -- and their sponsors in Washington -- are largely to blame for our current mess.

How did we get here?
Let's review:

In order to curry congressional support after their accounting scandals in 2003 and 004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac committed to increased financing of "affordable housing." They became the largest buyers of subprime and Alt-A mortgages between 2004 and 2007, with total exposure eventually exceeding $1 trillion.

In doing so, they stimulated the growth of the subpar mortgage market and substantially magnified the costs of its collapse.

It is important to understand that, as GSEs, Fannie and Freddie were viewed in the capital markets as government-backed buyers (a belief that has now been reduced to fact). Thus they were able to borrow as much as they wanted for the purpose of buying mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. Their buying patterns and interests were followed closely in the markets. If Fannie and Freddie wanted subprime or Alt-A loans, the mortgage markets would produce them.

By late 2004, Fannie and Freddie very much wanted subprime and Alt-A loans. However, their accounting had just been revealed as fraudulent, and they were under pressure from Congress to demonstrate that they deserved their considerable privileges. Among other problems, economists at the Federal Reserve and Congressional Budget Office had begun to study them in detail, and found that -- despite their subsidized borrowing rates -- they did not significantly reduce mortgage interest rates.

In the wake of Freddie's 2003 accounting scandal, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan became a powerful opponent, and began to call for stricter regulation of the GSEs and limitations on the growth of their highly profitable, but risky, retained portfolios.

If they were not making mortgages cheaper and were creating risks for the taxpayers and the economy, what value were they providing?

The answer was their affordable-housing mission...

It was the CRA that had Fannie & Freddy backing loans to the poor. Banks would make the loans because Fannie & Freddy removed the risk. And also if they didn't, CRA would score then negatively and they wouldn't receive as much money from the government.

[TracyCoxx]

In the news: The Justice Department is sending a small pack of election observers to Arizona as Hispanic groups sound the alarm over an anti-illegal immigration group's mass e-mail seeking to recruit Election Day volunteers to help block illegal immigrants from voting.

Hey 'Hispanic groups'. Illegals have no right to vote... get over it!