How did we get here? Options
tpractice
#1 Posted: : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:38:25 AM
Rank: Fuckstick

Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin

Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 775
Points: 381

There is a lot of talk out there about how we came to where we are in today's economy.  Most of what you will hear is basically cover your ass explanations.  So I will try to cut through the talk and give some facts.

Most competent financial experts agree that the root cause of the problem started with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

1.) Fannie Mae was created by President Roosevelt in 1938 to provide funds for affordable home ownership as part of the New Deal.

2.) Fannie Mae was privatized 30 years later by President Johnson and created Freddie Mac.

3.) To increase the number of people who qualify for these types of loans President Clinton had the lending requirements loosened in 1999.

4.) The Bush administration continued these loosened standards in the following years.

5.) The Fannie Mae scandal broke in 2004.  Neither the Democrats or Republicans including the Bush Administration took steps to correct the problem.  Why, Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae knew how to spread the cash to Congress and Bush cronies, see chart below.

6.) In 2005 Bill 190 Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act of 2005 was introduced and never made it pass the "Bill" status. Why see #4 above.

7.) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sells off these high risk loans to greedy fast profit Wall street corporations which looked good on the books but hid the fact that this could be reduced to worthless paper in a heartbeat.  The risk factor could be hidden because of the lack of regulation.  Again see #4 above.

8.) Most of the risky loans(Ninja loans) had 3 year index rules, meaning the payment would stay low for 3 years then adjust, typically 3 fold.  People defaulted, home prices dropped and here we are.  How did these type of loans ever get approved?  See #4 above.

How much money and who? So next time you here a politician speak on this issue, you will be a little more informed. Sorry it's so long, but I wanted to include them all.

 

 

Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008 Name Office State Party Grand Total Total from
PACs
Total from
Individuals
Dodd, Christopher J S CT D $165,400 $48,500 $116,900 Obama, Barack S IL D $126,349 $6,000 $120,349 Kerry, John S MA D $111,000 $2,000 $109,000 Bennett, Robert F S UT R $107,999 $71,499 $36,500 Bachus, Spencer H AL R $103,300 $70,500 $32,800 Blunt, Roy H MO R $96,950 $78,500 $18,450 Kanjorski, Paul E H PA D $96,000 $57,500 $38,500 Bond, Christopher S 'Kit' S MO R $95,400 $64,000 $31,400 Shelby, Richard C S AL R $80,000 $23,000 $57,000 Reed, Jack S RI D $78,250 $43,500 $34,750 Reid, Harry S NV D $77,000 $60,500 $16,500 Clinton, Hillary S NY D $76,050 $8,000 $68,050 Davis, Tom H VA R $75,499 $13,999 $61,500 Boehner, John H OH R $67,750 $60,500 $7,250 Conrad, Kent S ND D $64,491 $22,000 $42,491 Reynolds, Tom H NY R $62,200 $53,000 $9,200 Johnson, Tim S SD D $61,000 $20,000 $41,000 Pelosi, Nancy H CA D $56,250 $47,000 $9,250 Carper, Tom S DE D $55,889 $31,350 $24,539 Hoyer, Steny H H MD D $55,500 $51,500 $4,000 Pryce, Deborah H OH R $55,500 $45,000 $10,500 Emanuel, Rahm H IL D $51,750 $16,000 $35,750 Isakson, Johnny S GA R $49,200 $35,500 $13,700 Cantor, Eric H VA R $48,500 $46,500 $2,000 Crapo, Mike S ID R $47,250 $40,500 $6,750 Frank, Barney H MA D $42,350 $30,500 $11,850 Bean, Melissa H IL D $41,249 $34,999 $6,250 Bayh, Evan S IN D $41,100 $16,500 $24,600 McConnell, Mitch S KY R $41,000 $40,000 $1,000 Maloney, Carolyn B H NY D $39,750 $16,500 $23,250 Dorgan, Byron L S ND D $38,750 $30,500 $8,250 Miller, Gary H CA R $38,000 $31,500 $6,500 Rangel, Charles B H NY D $38,000 $14,750 $23,250 Tiberi, Patrick J H OH R $35,700 $32,600 $3,100 Bunning, Jim S KY R $33,802 $29,650 $4,152 Stabenow, Debbie S MI D $33,450 $32,000 $1,450 Chambliss, Saxby S GA R $33,250 $22,500 $10,750 Menendez, Robert S NJ D $31,250 $30,500 $750 Enzi, Mike S WY R $31,000 $27,500 $3,500 Van Hollen, Chris H MD D $30,700 $11,000 $19,700 Landrieu, Mary L S LA D $30,600 $20,000 $10,600 Murray, Patty S WA D $30,000 $23,000 $7,000 Clyburn, James E H SC D $29,750 $26,000 $3,750 Crowley, Joseph H NY D $29,700 $25,500 $4,200 Sessions, Pete H TX R $29,472 $24,000 $5,472 McCrery, Jim H LA R $29,000 $26,000 $3,000 Hooley, Darlene H OR D $28,750 $19,500 $9,250 Royce, Ed H CA R $28,600 $4,000 $24,600 Renzi, Rick H AZ R $28,250 $28,000 $250 Lieberman, Joe S CT I $28,250 $11,500 $16,750 Baucus, Max S MT D $27,500 $21,000 $6,500 Moore, Dennis H KS D $26,550 $25,500 $1,050 Coleman, Norm S MN R $24,690 $12,000 $12,690 Matheson, Jim H UT D $24,500 $24,000 $500 Schumer, Charles E S NY D $24,250 $1,500 $22,750 Durbin, Dick S IL D $23,750 $14,000 $9,750 Rogers, Mike H MI R $22,750 $21,000 $1,750 Lynch, Stephen F H MA D $22,500 $13,500 $9,000 Rockefeller, Jay S WV D $22,250 $5,000 $17,250 Smith, Gordon H S OR R $22,000 $20,000 $2,000 Mikulski, Barbara A S MD D $21,750 $16,500 $5,250 McCain, John S AZ R $21,550 $0 $21,550 Spratt, John M Jr H SC D $21,500 $17,000 $4,500 Brown-Waite, Ginny H FL R $21,000 $21,000 $0 Davis, Geoff H KY R $21,000 $19,500 $1,500 Velazquez, Nydia M H NY D $20,750 $16,750 $4,000 Baca, Joe H CA D $20,500 $20,200 $300 Alexander, Lamar S TN R $20,500 $20,000 $500 Allard, Wayne S CO R $20,250 $0 $20,250 Neugebauer, Randy H TX R $20,000 $20,000 $0 Nelson, Ben S NE D $20,000 $19,000 $1,000 Salazar, Ken S CO D $19,900 $17,000 $2,900 Jefferson, William J H LA D $19,250 $8,500 $10,750 Byrd, Robert C S WV D $18,500 $8,000 $10,500 Hatch, Orrin G S UT R $18,250 $12,500 $5,750 Miller, Brad H NC D $18,000 $16,500 $1,500 Sherman, Brad H CA D $18,000 $12,500

Business
#2 Posted: : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 1:25:23 AM
Rank: Dutchess of Doodoo



Groups: Registered User, Server Admin, WDFNews.com Official Mapper

Joined: 6/3/2006
Posts: 2,239
Points: 330
Location: $L
probably a good place to start investigating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
You wanna take this to Fuck Town?
Oh gadzooks, yes!
Gunslinger
#3 Posted: : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 1:27:17 AM
Rank: Pooter Scooter

Groups: Registered User, Server Admin

Joined: 11/8/2006
Posts: 2,468
Points: 2,103
Location: San Antonio, Texas
i swore i saw a loan for zero dollars
In an hour of Darkness a blind man is the best guide. In an age of Insanity look to the madman to lead the way.

endyss
#4 Posted: : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 1:51:52 AM
Rank: Administration



Groups: Administration, Newsie, Registered User, Server Admin

Joined: 11/6/2007
Posts: 987
Points: 783
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'll get in before someone accuses me of belittling their views by telling them they're wrong (can you be pre-emptively belittling?)... THE ANSWER IS NOT MORE REGULATION!

More regulation means more hands in the pot controlling your money.  More regulation means fallible human beings in control of the valves (and subsequent bailouts), ever susceptible to corruption.  And as long as they exist to regulate, anyone with an interest in the type and amount of regulation will be lobbying for terms more in their favor.  When you're talking about an industry as far reaching as investment banking, that makes for a lot of interested parties, and a lot of lobbying dollars.

What's there to say about the alternative -- less regulation?  As put by Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institution:  "The fundamental problem with most regulation is that the regulatory agency does not have sufficient information, flexibility and immunity from political pressure to regulate firms' behavior effectively. Fortunately, the market, and in some cases the liability system, provide sufficient incentives for firms to behave in a socially beneficial manner."

Yes, companies could take advantage of their customers.  Yes, the chickens will eventually come home to roost.  And yes, businesses will fail (and take their hapless investors down with them).  But why would they want to do that?

As DickCheney has been so quick to point out as a pejorative, companies only exist to create profit for their shareholders.  They are going to do that in spite of, not because of, any regulations thrown at them.  Obviously the investment banks under the gun now haven't done that very well, but their failure is due to mistakes by the companies themselves.  If the corporation managers whose only job is to create wealth failed to foresee and prevent this, what makes anyone think that partisan, corruptable politicians who are influenced by everything from lobbying dollars to election seasons, would have been able to do any better?  Sure, you can stifle growth to such a crawl that companies can neither succeed nor fail, but that's not really doing anyone any good either.  No one wants to invest in an industry that isn't growing because it's stifled under government regulation, and with investment dollars goes the ability to try new things, innovate, and bring new products and services to the market.  The end of that road isn't helping the consumer either.


HolyJaw wrote:
In the end, everything Endyss said.


Murdy
#5 Posted: : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:03:54 PM
Rank: Polio Power!


Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, WDFNews.com Official Mapper

Joined: 5/10/2006
Posts: 666
Points: 54
Location: Mapping hell

So endyss your saying we shound stay on the some road we are haeded on and keep deRegulating?

 

Yes its time again to Play WTF did Murdy Just type
Robot Hell is real and i cant spell

yes im dyslexic
WDF? wrote:
lol fuck you, Murdy.

BadHorsie wrote:
I love it!
Rikaelus
#6 Posted: : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:19:06 PM
Rank: Administration



Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration

Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 1,793
Points: 3,380
Location: Arizona
Regulations are like laws; they empower the few to monitor the many. It's easier for the public to keep an eye on "The Few" than it is "The Many". That's fundamentally what a republic government is all about: select the few to lead us rather than us collectively leading ourselves.

Clinton opened the valve to make it easier for people to buy homes, which was probably right for the economy at that time. It probably wasn't a good thing to keep in place for a long time, though. Eventually people would learn how to misuse the freedom and it seems to have lead to where we are now.

Business
#7 Posted: : Tuesday, September 23, 2008 7:23:37 PM
Rank: Dutchess of Doodoo



Groups: Registered User, Server Admin, WDFNews.com Official Mapper

Joined: 6/3/2006
Posts: 2,239
Points: 330
Location: $L
endyss wrote:
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'll get in before someone accuses me of belittling their views by telling them they're wrong (can you be pre-emptively belittling?)... THE ANSWER IS NOT MORE REGULATION!

More regulation means more hands in the pot controlling your money.  More regulation means fallible human beings in control of the valves (and subsequent bailouts), ever susceptible to corruption.  And as long as they exist to regulate, anyone with an interest in the type and amount of regulation will be lobbying for terms more in their favor.  When you're talking about an industry as far reaching as investment banking, that makes for a lot of interested parties, and a lot of lobbying dollars.

What's there to say about the alternative -- less regulation?  As put by Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institution:  "The fundamental problem with most regulation is that the regulatory agency does not have sufficient information, flexibility and immunity from political pressure to regulate firms' behavior effectively. Fortunately, the market, and in some cases the liability system, provide sufficient incentives for firms to behave in a socially beneficial manner."

Yes, companies could take advantage of their customers.  Yes, the chickens will eventually come home to roost.  And yes, businesses will fail (and take their hapless investors down with them).  But why would they want to do that?

As DickCheney has been so quick to point out as a pejorative, companies only exist to create profit for their shareholders.  They are going to do that in spite of, not because of, any regulations thrown at them.  Obviously the investment banks under the gun now haven't done that very well, but their failure is due to mistakes by the companies themselves.  If the corporation managers whose only job is to create wealth failed to foresee and prevent this, what makes anyone think that partisan, corruptable politicians who are influenced by everything from lobbying dollars to election seasons, would have been able to do any better?  Sure, you can stifle growth to such a crawl that companies can neither succeed nor fail, but that's not really doing anyone any good either.  No one wants to invest in an industry that isn't growing because it's stifled under government regulation, and with investment dollars goes the ability to try new things, innovate, and bring new products and services to the market.  The end of that road isn't helping the consumer either.


I would have to agree with you. Free market theory makes the most sense to me.

Do we let these companies fail now and have them affect 50 million people, or do we prolong their failure to the point that they affect 500 million?
You wanna take this to Fuck Town?
Oh gadzooks, yes!
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.