Gov Bailouts
09-17-2008, 12:40 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: 757/767 FO
Posts: 847
That is funny Bill Clinton had more to do with what's going on with the Banking industry and mortgage banking, you need to check your facts.
Clinton signs banking overhaul measure
November 12, 1999
Web posted at: 3:28 p.m. EST (2028 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The biggest change in the nation's banking system since the Great Depression became law Friday, when President Bill Clinton signed a measure overhauling federal rules governing the way financial institutions operate.
"This legislation is truly historic and it indicates what can happen when Republicans and Democrats work together in a spirit of genuine cooperation," Clinton said at a White House signing ceremony. The event brought together the president and several Republican members of Congress who have been among Clinton's sternest critics -- a sign of the bipartisan support that eventually developed for the package.
Congress passed the bipartisan measure November 5, opening the way for a blossoming of financial "supermarkets" selling loans, investments and insurance. Proponents had pushed the legislation in Congress for two decades, and Wall Street and the banking and insurance industries had poured millions of dollars into lobbying for it in the past few years.
Clinton signs banking overhaul measure
November 12, 1999
Web posted at: 3:28 p.m. EST (2028 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The biggest change in the nation's banking system since the Great Depression became law Friday, when President Bill Clinton signed a measure overhauling federal rules governing the way financial institutions operate.
"This legislation is truly historic and it indicates what can happen when Republicans and Democrats work together in a spirit of genuine cooperation," Clinton said at a White House signing ceremony. The event brought together the president and several Republican members of Congress who have been among Clinton's sternest critics -- a sign of the bipartisan support that eventually developed for the package.
Congress passed the bipartisan measure November 5, opening the way for a blossoming of financial "supermarkets" selling loans, investments and insurance. Proponents had pushed the legislation in Congress for two decades, and Wall Street and the banking and insurance industries had poured millions of dollars into lobbying for it in the past few years.
We have a winner!
09-17-2008, 12:50 PM
#12
Thx Age 65
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: MD11CAP
Posts: 1,041
Lots of people at fault here, going all the way back to LBJ.
From the wikipedia (I know, but its the most condensed version) on the Community Redevelopment Act.
Basically lending money to people who can't pay it back is poor business, and the government shouldn't make banks do it under some misguided sense of fairnness.
Clinton Administration's Changes of 1995
The Clinton Administration's regulatory revisions [1] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997. [2]
[edit] George W. Bush Administration's Proposed Changes of 2003
In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." [3] This change, which did not pertain to the Community Reinvestment Act, was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. However, it did not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enabled them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. The changes were generally opposed along Party lines and eventually failed to happen. Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."
From the wikipedia (I know, but its the most condensed version) on the Community Redevelopment Act.
Basically lending money to people who can't pay it back is poor business, and the government shouldn't make banks do it under some misguided sense of fairnness.
Clinton Administration's Changes of 1995
The Clinton Administration's regulatory revisions [1] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997. [2]
[edit] George W. Bush Administration's Proposed Changes of 2003
In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." [3] This change, which did not pertain to the Community Reinvestment Act, was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. However, it did not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enabled them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. The changes were generally opposed along Party lines and eventually failed to happen. Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."
09-17-2008, 12:54 PM
#13
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Posts: 82
Lots of people at fault here, going all the way back to LBJ.
From the wikipedia (I know, but its the most condensed version) on the Community Redevelopment Act.
Basically lending money to people who can't pay it back is poor business, and the government shouldn't make banks do it under some misguided sense of fairnness.
Clinton Administration's Changes of 1995
The Clinton Administration's regulatory revisions [1] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997. [2]
[edit] George W. Bush Administration's Proposed Changes of 2003
In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." [3] This change, which did not pertain to the Community Reinvestment Act, was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. However, it did not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enabled them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. The changes were generally opposed along Party lines and eventually failed to happen. Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."
From the wikipedia (I know, but its the most condensed version) on the Community Redevelopment Act.
Basically lending money to people who can't pay it back is poor business, and the government shouldn't make banks do it under some misguided sense of fairnness.
Clinton Administration's Changes of 1995
The Clinton Administration's regulatory revisions [1] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997. [2]
[edit] George W. Bush Administration's Proposed Changes of 2003
In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." [3] This change, which did not pertain to the Community Reinvestment Act, was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. However, it did not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enabled them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. The changes were generally opposed along Party lines and eventually failed to happen. Representative Barney Frank(D-MA) claimed of the thrifts "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."
History
Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to provide liquidity to the mortgage market. For the next 30 years, Fannie Mae held a virtual monopoly on the secondary mortgage market in the United States.
History
Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to provide liquidity to the mortgage market. For the next 30 years, Fannie Mae held a virtual monopoly on the secondary mortgage market in the United States.
09-17-2008, 12:56 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 862
I smell another thread closure
09-17-2008, 01:00 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 116
The talk always sounds good. Laissez faire, less regulation, hands off business. Then all of a sudden, the largest mortgage broker is gone, the gov is bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the tune of 100B each if need be. And now 85B for AIG. I wonder if a little more regulation could have prevented this? Eight years of failed policy culminating in one big bill for the taxpayer. Fiscally responsible my arse.
09-17-2008, 01:00 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Fannie Mai was created by the Democrats and Democratic party. Just another form of entitlement and to obtain more votes for the Democrats. Sound familiar, because Obama is preaching the same BS now. Vote for me and I will give you a tax cut. Right, just go look back at history. 98% of the time Democrats will raise your taxes.
History
Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to provide liquidity to the mortgage market. For the next 30 years, Fannie Mae held a virtual monopoly on the secondary mortgage market in the United States.
History
Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to provide liquidity to the mortgage market. For the next 30 years, Fannie Mae held a virtual monopoly on the secondary mortgage market in the United States.
History
Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to provide liquidity to the mortgage market. For the next 30 years, Fannie Mae held a virtual monopoly on the secondary mortgage market in the United States.
History
Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to provide liquidity to the mortgage market. For the next 30 years, Fannie Mae held a virtual monopoly on the secondary mortgage market in the United States.
09-17-2008, 01:05 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,002
Fannie Mai was created by the Democrats and Democratic party. Just another form of entitlement and to obtain more votes for the Democrats. Sound familiar, because Obama is preaching the same BS now. Vote for me and I will give you a tax cut. Right, just go look back at history. 98% of the time Democrats will raise your taxes.
History
Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to provide liquidity to the mortgage market. For the next 30 years, Fannie Mae held a virtual monopoly on the secondary mortgage market in the United States.
History
Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to provide liquidity to the mortgage market. For the next 30 years, Fannie Mae held a virtual monopoly on the secondary mortgage market in the United States.
History
Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to provide liquidity to the mortgage market. For the next 30 years, Fannie Mae held a virtual monopoly on the secondary mortgage market in the United States.
History
Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to provide liquidity to the mortgage market. For the next 30 years, Fannie Mae held a virtual monopoly on the secondary mortgage market in the United States.
09-17-2008, 02:57 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: 88B - Loud Pipes Save Lives
Posts: 1,597
Let's see, $5 trillion for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buyout, $85 billion to AIG. This whole "their too big to fail" is a croc. If they are to big to fail why isn't the government breaking them up like Ma Bell. Mark my words, by failing to let the market take its course we have not had these corporations take responsibility for their actions. As a result, they can get into further trouble, perhaps even more expensive trouble than they are now and then what happens. I am amazed by the hypocrisy on the hill. The politicians were up in arms when DAL/NWA announced their merger. It was going to raise prices they clamored. We have to endure a DOJ review, etc. Bank of America buys Merrill and now controls a large portion of the financial system and their isn't so much a whisper of protest on the hill. Talk about to big to fail. Pathetic. Welcome to the capitalist society when we make profits and the socialist society when we take losses. What I'm curious about is if the government is run by the people, if AIG makes money, how does that go back to the taxpayer?
