ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

More Government Spending...

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Sep. 24 2011, 4:48 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 24 2011, 3:03 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 23 2011, 9:07 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 23 2011, 4:31 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 22 2011, 7:09 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 22 2011, 5:41 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 22 2011, 1:02 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 22 2011, 4:49 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 20 2011, 6:46 pm

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>Ah... yes, the "big enchilada" - defense spending....  Progressives always have to complain about that, even though defense is a Constitutionally mandated responsibility to the Federal government.  You didn't disappoint me that it made the first page....  (Although I doubt it, it does make it sound like you hate the military's role in defending the USA.)

>So I'll counter with the real "big enchilada" - at 60% of all Federal spending..... unConstitutional ENTITLEMENTS.  100% is waste!

>Now, should the government spend money like they were poor and had to actually be accountable for it?  Absolutely!  What's really cool is that DoD is moving many of their contracts to Firm Fixed Price (FFP), which puts the onus on the contractor so that they can't just bill time & materials as long as they want.

>

 

I do wish you would make up your mind about entitlements. Have most of them been earned by the payment of payroll taxes or haven't they?

I doubt that most seniors would consider social security to be 100% waste.

Hopefully, the feds will find ways to stop the big ripoffs within the Defense Department. Unlike your attitude about entitlements, I don't consider defense spending to be "100%...waste".  Much of what we spend on defense for homeland security is legitimate. We do need some capability of striking back at terrorists that are based in what use to be called Third World countries. I just suspect that we can provide all of that at a much lower cost than the price we now pay. 

Make up my mind about entitlements?  When have I not been clear that they are unConstititutional and illogical???

And most seniors, if they would have been allowed to save their own money (instead of having it taken from them,) they'd have a lot more for their retirement than what the government is handing out now.

A lot more?

Like 0% versus 100%?

Your standard, not mine.

 

If a person was allowed to keep all that money that the government took for entitlements and invested it themselves, they'd have a lot more to show for it.  The math shows that I'm already making a negative rate of return (if the entitlement system even exists by the time I'm old enough.)  And I think that I've talked about here that I assisted in a study of this person's estate (he had just died and had, for whatever reason, kept all of his financial papers - we showed that if he had been allowed to keep all of the money taken for entitlements and invested it with the rest of his investments, at retirement, his nestegg would be many times the entitlements he did receive throughout his retirement years.

But for some reason, the term "personal responsibility" is equated to "hate" in the minds of ProRegressives.

But the government stealing my money to fund unConstitutional entitlement programs is "your standard, not mine"...

Oh for gosh sakes, of course there are going to be some individual cases where you can make that case.

Let us see, if I had invested in IBM or Microsoft....

What if I had entrusted my money to Bernie Madoff?

Astonishing. The banks crash the economy because they don't know how to safely invest the money entrusted to them, get bailed out by the federal government, and now folks want to trust these same institutions with a privatised social security system.

Speaking of not being able to learn from history.

This guy invested almost exclusively in reputable mutual funds as he didn't understand the stock market.  But even if he was one of these people that chose his stocks well, that would be his choice.  If he chose well, he should be rewarded well.  Investing is risk - and different types of investing has different types of risk.  If someone chooses not to save for retirement, they should live with the consequences.

It's funny that you bring up Bernie Madoff - he went to jail for doing the exact same thing that the government is doing.

But since you want to talk about history and refuse to blame the correct group....   If people would think about it - for decades, investing in real estate was one of the SAFEST investments out there.  This is why banks had no problems for decades... it was almost automatic money.  That is until Barney Frank & Chris Dodd forced mortgage companies to give out loans to people who couldn't afford them.  And then combine it with the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates lower than the inflation rate.

Are you sure yu don't mean die as a consequence?

Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd forced mortgage companies to give loans to people who couldn't afford them?

Oh please stop, stop, my sides are aching from the laughter.

The Feds and the interest rates?

Go lecture the followers of Milton Friedman about that one.

If you'd actually read the record, you'd find that everything I've written is accurate.  It's just that since the facts don't fit into the ProRegressive agenda, they swap the story and blame capitalism.


I'm not at Friedman's level, but I'm learning.


caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Sep. 24 2011, 5:03 pm

ProRegressive. I like that. I almost mis-read that as "progressive".


Not at Friedman's level. Refreshingly honest.


So you don't really understand monetarist policy?


Keynes = fiscal policy


Friedman = monetarist policy


How to save capitalism  -  a combination of monetarist and fiscal policy.


Keynesians = liberals


Friedman followers = conservatives


Does that help?


The facts are that that liberal legislation forced lenders to lend to people who could not afford it =


 


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Sep. 26 2011, 8:39 pm

^^ Yes, I understand the policies, but your way over simplifying.


What do you mean "refreshingly honest"?  I have always been honest with everyone here - even though you may not like what I write.


Combining Keynsian with Austrian economics is like combining poison with food.


 


And yes, the ProRegressives in Congress did force lenders to lend to people that couldn't afford it.  Remember the quotes from Barney Frank:  "I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing and to set reasonable goals." He added: "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing."


Just check the record.


 


What people keep forgetting is that lending money to American homebuyers had been one of the least risky and most profitable businesses a bank could engage in for nearly a century.  What changed that was not the market but politicians like Barney Frank and his Senate counterpart Christopher Dodd, pushing the "affordable housing" crusade through government intervention, in disregard of the risks that they were repeatedly warned about by people inside and outside of government.


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Sep. 26 2011, 8:43 pm

Just saw Gallup came out with:


Americans Express Historic Negativity Toward U.S. Government


http://www.gallup.com/poll/149678/Americans-Express-Historic-Negativity-Toward-Government.aspx


 


Trend: Reaction to How the Nation Is Being Governed


caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Sep. 27 2011, 4:38 am

Remember the quotes from Barney Frank:  "I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing and to set reasonable goals."


caltrek:


1) In your own citation: "we have done too little".


2) To meet goals of affordable housing. Affordable...as in not making loans that people cannot afford.


3) To set reasonable goals. He didn't use the word mandates.


What people keep forgetting is that lending money to American homebuyers had been one of the least risky and most profitable businesses a bank could engage in for nearly a century.  What changed that was not the market but politicians like Barney Frank and his Senate counterpart Christopher Dodd, pushing the "affordable housing" crusade through government intervention, in disregard of the risks that they were repeatedly warned about by people inside and outside of government.


caltrek: Again, affordable - as in being able to make payments on loans.


I have looked at the record. Read Freefall by Joseph Stiglitz. Read Too Big to Fail by Andrew Ross Sorkin.


Point to me one enacted regulation that explicitly mandates a lending instituion to loan to somebody that cannot afford their loan.


Please, don't give me that crap about the CRA:


http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis


 


 


http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_community_reinvestment_act_r.php


 


 


http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html


 


 


 


http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS135259+07-Jan-2008+BW20080107


 


http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf


 


 


http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/07/krugman-on-gses.html


The record clearly shows it was the deregulation of the banking industry that led it to securatized debt instruments with toxic loan portfolios. It was Wall Street greed that overinflated their value. So please, enough with the funny jokes already.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Sep. 27 2011, 9:25 am

^^ Wrong CalTrek - the record clearly states that banks were being forced to give out loans to people who couldn't afford them.  Adding that to interest rates artificially lower than inflation, and having Fannie/Freddie buying up the mortgages and you have the government planned disaster.


And I really wish you understood the word "affordable" and its ramifications.  Government can't make anything "affordable" unless they transfer the cost - which means either forcing the seller to lower the price or subsidizing the cost at taxpayer expense.  Both are extremely bad ideas and completely illogical.


 


Article last year:


You would be hard pressed to find a politician who is less frank than Congressman Barney Frank. Even in an occupation where truth and candor are often lacking, Congressman Frank is in a class by himself when it comes to rewriting history in creative ways. Moreover, he has a lot of history to rewrite in his re-election campaign this year.


No one contributed more to the policies behind the housing boom and bust, which led to the economic disaster we are now in, than Congressman Barney Frank.


His powerful position on the House of Representatives' Committee on Financial Services gave him leverage to force through legislation and policies which pressured banks and other lenders to grant mortgage loans to people who would not qualify under the standards which had long prevailed, and had long made mortgage loans among the safest investments around.


All this was done in the name of promoting more home-ownership among people who had neither the income nor the credit history that would meet traditional mortgage lending standards.


To those who warned of the risks in the new policies, Congressman Frank replied in 2003 that critics "exaggerate a threat of safety" and "conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see." Far from being reluctant to promote risky practices, Barney Frank said, "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation."


With the federal regulators leaning on banks to make more loans to people who did not meet traditional qualifications — the "underserved population" in political Newspeak — and quotas being given to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy more of these riskier mortgages from the original lenders, critics pointed out the dangers in these pressures to meet arbitrary home ownership goals. But Barney Frank counter-attacked against these critics.


In 2004 he said: "I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing." He went further: "I would like to get Fannie and Freddie more deeply into helping low-income housing."


Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were crucial to these schemes to force lenders to lend to those whom politicians wanted them to lend to, rather than to those who were most likely to pay them back. So it is no surprise that Barney Frank was very protective towards these two government-sponsored enterprises that were buying up mortgages that banks were willing to make under political pressure, but were often unwilling to keep.


The risks which banks were passing on to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were ultimately risks to the taxpayers. Although there was no formal guarantee to these enterprises, everybody knew that the federal government would always bail them out, if necessary, to keep them from failing. Everybody except Barney Frank.


"There is no guarantee," according Congressman Frank in 2003, "there is no explicit guarantee, there is no implicit guarantee, there is no wink-and-nod guarantee." Barney Frank is a master of rhetoric, who does not let the facts cramp his style.


Fast forward now to 2008, after the risky mortgages had led to huge numbers of defaults, dragging down Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the financial markets in general — and with them the whole economy.


Barney Frank was all over the media, pointing the finger of blame at everybody else. When financial analyst Maria Bartiromo asked Congressman Frank who was responsible for the financial crisis, he said, "right-wing Republicans." It so happens that conservatives were the loudest critics who had warned for years against the policies that Barney Frank pushed, but why let facts get in the way?


Ms. Bartiromo did not just accept whatever Barney Frank said. She said: "With all due respect, congressman, I saw videotapes of you saying in the past: 'Oh, let's open up the lending. The housing market is fine.'" His reply? "No, you didn't see any such tapes."


"I did. I saw them on TV," she said. But Barney Frank did not budge. He understood that a good offense is the best defense. He also understands that rewriting history this election year is his best bet for keeping his long political career alive.


caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Sep. 28 2011, 4:35 am

"Wrong CalTrek - the record clearly states that banks were being forced to give out loans to people who couldn't afford them."


caltrek: The "record" as written by apologists and defenders of the big corporate lending institutions that were the main cause of the problem.


"And I really wish you understood the word "affordable" and its ramifications.  Government can't make anything "affordable" unless they transfer the cost - which means either forcing the seller to lower the price or subsidizing the cost at taxpayer expense.  Both are extremely bad ideas and completely illogical."


caltrek: In parts of California we have an affordable housing program. If a developer wants to build a subdivision of luxury homes, he (or she) must set aside a certain percent that is "affordable".  Those homes can be in a higher density area, smaller in size, etc. "Affordable" is often pegged to what people earning 80% to 120% of median income can afford. So it targets the middle class as customers as opposed to the low income people earning under 80% of median income. For those buying such housing, there are resale price restrictions to avoid flipping of house for the sake of a quick profit. In my opinion, quite logical.


As for Barney Frank, yes he, like a lot of other policy makers in both parties, were naive as to the dangers developing in the markets.


 


All this was done in the name of promoting more home-ownership among people who had neither the income nor the credit history that would meet traditional mortgage lending standards.


caltrek:  No real evidence to support that claim.


With the federal regulators leaning on banks to make more loans to people who did not meet traditional qualifications — the "underserved population" in political Newspeak —


caltrek: Again, no real evidence to support the claim.


and quotas being given to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy more of these riskier mortgages


caltrek:  Now we are getting closer to a more accurate understanding of what happened.


Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were crucial to these schemes to force lenders to lend to those whom politicians wanted them to lend to, rather than to those who were most likely to pay them back.


caltrek: A twisted version of what happened. Private sector mortgage companies out of their own lust and greed made toxic loans to vast swaths of the population. They collected much in processing fees and initial interst payments as a result. They then unloaded those loans upon Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That is where Barney Frank was asleep at the switch.


The risks which banks were passing on to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were ultimately risks to the taxpayers. Although there was no formal guarantee to these enterprises,


caltrek: Essentially correct. Private sector banks socialized the costs of their poor practices.


It so happens that conservatives were the loudest critics who had warned for years against the policies that Barney Frank pushed,


caltrek: Perhaps, although most were pushing for the deregulations that allowed for and encouraged the greedy practices of the private lending isntitutions. As Joseph Stiglitz writes on pages 82 and 83 of his book that I mentioned earlier:


"There are other reasons behind the bank's decisions to start making extremely risky loans and engage in other excessive risk-taking. Especially after the repeal of the Glass-Steragall Act in 1999, which had separated commerical and investment banking, the biggest banks had become bigger and bigger - too too big to fail, and they knew it"


Andrew Sorkin, on page 74 and 75 of his book titled  Too Big to Fail adds:


"A more injurious slight came after the $83 billion merger with Citicorp, the deal that rewrote the rules of the U.S. financial system as the last Depression-era barriers between commercial and investment banking - passed as the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 - were removed by a bill introduced by Republican senator Phil Gramm of Texas and Republican congressman Jim Leach of Iowa."


So really guys, who is it that is doing the re-writing of history?

caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Sep. 28 2011, 4:41 am

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/dear-gop-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-cause-financial-crisis-subprime-mortgage-gse


It's time to put to rest a lingering myth that, all evidence to the contrary, just won't die. On the Senate floor this morning, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) repeated, for the umpteenth time among Republicans and conservatives, a pernicious misconception that places most, if not all, of the blame for the financial crisis on the government-sponsored housing corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:



"[The financial reform bill] does nothing—nothing—as I indicated, to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the main protagonists in the financial meltdown. This is absolutely worse than irresponsible; it's the legislative equivalent of wrongful conviction."



Not only is McConnell's basic grasp of storytelling wrong—if Fannie and Freddie are to blame, shouldn't they be the antagonists?—but his understanding of what caused the financial crisis is deeply flawed. Sadly, this misconception is a longstanding meme among Republicans and conservatives. In 2008, then-Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Fannie and Freddie were "the catalyst for this housing crisis" and thus the spark that ignited the broader economic meltdown. House Majority Leader John Boehner has said, "How you can attempt to fix [the financial system] without going to the root of the problem, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is really beyond me." And a roster of conservative pundits has played the Fannie-Freddie blame game so many times it's hard to keep track.



But a look at the actual data shows that Fannie and Freddie—while certainly plagued with problems—are not the root causes of the subprime mortgage meltdown nor the financial collapse. First, context: Fannie and Freddie's roles, in part, consisted of buying up lots of mortgages in the secondary mortgage markets, i.e., taking them off the books of mortgage originators, and allowing those originators to extend more credit to potential homeowners. Over time, the two GSEs' positions as secondary purchasers of mortgages was used to try to expand homeownership to groups of Americans that traditionally didn't have access to this kind of credit—namely, low-income citizens. 


Now to Barry Ritholtz. An financial expert and wildly popular blogger, Ritholtz has written time and time again about the lunacy of blaming Fannie and Freddie. He's so sure of his position that he's offered $100,000 to anyone who can prove him wrong. Here's Ritholtz debunking the Fannie and Freddie meme:




The origination of subprime loans came primarily from non-bank lenders not covered by the [Community Reinvestment Act, a law pushing the two GSEs to purchase more loans in the secondary markets and thus expand access to housing loans to low-income neighborhoods];
The majority of the underwriting, at least for the first few years of the boom, were by these same non-bank lenders;
When the big banks began chasing subprime, it was due to the profit motive, not any mandate from the President (a Republican) or the Congress (Republican controlled) or the GSEs they oversaw;
Prior to 2005, nearly all of these sub-prime loans were bought by Wall Street—NOT Fannie & Freddie;
In fact, prior to 2005, the GSEs were not permitted to purchase non-conforming mortgages;
The change in FNM/FRE conforming mortgage purchases in 2005 was not due to any legislation or marching orders from the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled). It was the profit motive that led them to this action.


 


That's Ritholtz's perspective, which he backs up in more detail in his book, Bailout Nation. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who as then-chair of the House oversight and government reform committee, put it this way in 2008: "It is a myth to say they were the originators of the subprime crisis. Fundamentally, they were following the market, not leading it."


Here are three economists' takes:


Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner in economics and New York Times columnist: "[W]hile Fannie and Freddie are problematic institutions, they aren't responsible for the mess we're in."


University of Oregon economist and popular blogger Mark Thoma: "[B]est behavior of Fannie and Freddie would not have been enough to stop the bubble from inflating in other parts of the financial sector."


N. Gregory Mankiw, a former adviser to President George W. Bush: Fannie, Freddie "were only one element" of the financial crisis.


A report (pdf) by the Government Accountability Office, the non-partisan investigatory arm of Congress, supports all these arguments. According to the GAO report, Fannie and Freddie didn't go wild in the mid-2000s buying up mortgages in the secondary market because of some government mandate, like the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, to increase homeownership among low-income Americans. On the contrary, "Former [Federal Housing Finance Agency] Director [James] Lockhart stated that the enterprises’ primary motivation in purchasing [Alt-A and subprime mortgage backed] assets was to restore their share of the mortgage market, which declined substantially from 2004 through 2007 as the 'nontraditional' (for example, subprime) mortgage market rapidly increased in size. FHFA further stated that the enterprises viewed such mortgage assets as offering attractive risk-adjusted returns." In other words, they wanted to be bigger players in the mortgage business again, to make money where they thought they could—not because Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) or some other politician told them what to do.


Now, there's no denying that the current precarious state of Fannie and Freddie is a huge issue. Thanks to the Treasury Department, they're entitled to unlimited bailout money from taxpayers, which it looks like they'll need as they continue to bleed billions in cash. They're a headache, a problem lawmakers need to grapple with sooner rather than later. The House and Senate aren't going to deal with the twins with their current financial reform bill, so they'll need to take up the cause soon after.


The Democrats say the twins are too big and complex and troubled to include in this bill; GOPers say the bill is a failure if it doesn't address the GSEs. I won't say who's right or wrong. But, as the above arguments show, the claim that Fannie and Freddie caused the crisis—and should thus be the most urgent targets of reformers—is just not true.


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Sep. 28 2011, 7:08 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 28 2011, 4:35 am

>

>"Wrong CalTrek - the record clearly states that banks were being forced to give out loans to people who couldn't afford them."

>caltrek: The "record" as written by apologists and defenders of the big corporate lending institutions that were the main cause of the problem.

>
Try actual recordings of Frank & Dodd...  Why are these continually ignored by the left?


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Sep. 28 2011, 7:13 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 28 2011, 4:35 am

>"And I really wish you understood the word "affordable" and its ramifications.  Government can't make anything "affordable" unless they transfer the cost - which means either forcing the seller to lower the price or subsidizing the cost at taxpayer expense.  Both are extremely bad ideas and completely illogical."

>caltrek: In parts of California we have an affordable housing program. If a developer wants to build a subdivision of luxury homes, he (or she) must set aside a certain percent that is "affordable".  Those homes can be in a higher density area, smaller in size, etc. "Affordable" is often pegged to what people earning 80% to 120% of median income can afford. So it targets the middle class as customers as opposed to the low income people earning under 80% of median income. For those buying such housing, there are resale price restrictions to avoid flipping of house for the sake of a quick profit. In my opinion, quite logical.
Actually, it's quite illogical because the market isn't determining what is best - the politicians are.


Something else from Professor Sowell (written Jan 2009):


Behind the housing boom and bust was one of those alluring but undefined phrases that are so popular in politics -- "affordable housing."


It is hard for me to know specifically what politicians are talking about when they use this phrase. But then politics is about evoking emotions, not examining specifics.
 
In looking back over my own life, I find it hard to think of a time when I didn't live in affordable housing.
 
When I first left home, back in 1948, I rented a room about 4 by 8 feet, costing $5.75 a week. Since my take-home pay was $22.50, that was affordable housing. (Multiply these numbers by about 10 to get the equivalent in today's prices).
 
After three years of living in rented rooms, I began living in Marine Corps barracks, which didn't cost me anything. That was certainly affordable.
 
As a civilian again, in 1954 I rented my first apartment, a studio apartment -- small but affordable. But a year later, I went off to college and lived in dormitories on various campuses for the next six years. None was fancy but all of them were affordable.
 
After completing my academic studies, I rented another studio apartment.
 
In 1969, I rented my first house, which I could now afford, after several years as a faculty member at various colleges and universities. A dozen years later, I began to buy my first house.
 
While the specifics will differ from person to person, my general pattern was not unusual. Most people pay for what they can afford at the time.


What, then, is the "problem" that politicians claim to be solving when they talk about creating "affordable housing"?
 
What they are saying and doing usually boils down to trying to enable people to choose what housing they want first -- and then have some law or policy where somebody else, somewhere else, somehow or other, makes that housing "affordable" for them.
 
If you think it through, that is a policy for disaster. We cannot all go around buying whatever we want, whether or not we have enough money to afford it, and have somebody else make up the difference. For society as a whole, there is no somebody else.
 
But of course political slogans are not meant to be thought through, are they? They are often an emotional substitute for thinking at all.
 
Sometimes some semblance of rationality is given to the phrase "affordable housing" by comparing the cost of housing to the income of those who live in it. That was certainly what I did when I rented my first room.


The difference is that today there is some arbitrary percentage of one's income that sets the limit to what the government will consider to be affordable housing. It used to be 25 percent but it might be 30 percent or some other proportion.
 
But, whatever the percentage, it is no longer the individual's responsibility to choose housing that fits within that limit. It is somehow the taxpayers' job to make up the difference, when someone chooses housing whose cost exceeds that magic number.
 
It is certainly no longer considered to be the individual's own responsibility to acquire the work skills to be able to earn enough to afford better housing as the years passed. Why do that when the government can simply "spread the wealth around," to use another political phrase?
 
The ultimate irony is that increasing government intervention in the housing market has generally made housing less affordable than before, by any standard.
 
A hundred years ago, Americans spent a smaller percentage of their incomes on housing than they do today. In 1901, housing costs took 23 percent of the average American's income. By 2003, it took 33 percent of a far larger income.


Most of our problems are not nearly as severe as political "solutions." In housing, government policies have lured people into situations that were untenable to them and to the country.


 


 


 


You can get more info from http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227468/housing-boom-and-bust/thomas-sowell


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Sep. 28 2011, 7:15 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 28 2011, 4:35 am

>As for Barney Frank, yes he, like a lot of other policy makers in both parties, were naive as to the dangers developing in the markets.
Yes, the problem is both parties, but some knew the dangers and some didn't.  Anyone that has a basic understanding of economics knew what was going to happen.


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Sep. 28 2011, 7:20 pm

Quote: caltrek2 @ Sep. 28 2011, 4:35 am

>So really guys, who is it that is doing the re-writing of history?
Considering that it's been proven over and over again that the government told the lending agencies to make the subprime loans (threatening them if they didn't,) and then turned around and blamed the institutions for the failure under the lie of deregulation.  Regardless of how much suffocating regulation may have been responsible for an economic debacle, politicians have learned that they can get away with it if they call it "deregulation."


caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Sep. 29 2011, 6:38 pm

Proven over and over again?


I have yet to see it "proven" once.  I have already explained why your "evidence" to date fails to prove anything. Additionally, if the quote of Barney Frank you cited earlier is supposed to be taken as evidence it is quite deficient in that regard. I mean we are suppossed to believe that Frank was speaking in code when he talked about the need for affordable housing. As I have already indicated, affordable means affordable, not a loan which the borrower cannot afford to pay. That has never been the governments intent.


In fact, laws such as the CRA explicitly provided guidleines for avoiding predatory loan practices. If you had read links I provided earlier in that regard, you would realize that those guidelines were actually successful in doing just that. It was largely the lending institutions that fell outside of the CRA guidelines that caused the problems - the least regulated institutions. The problems were caused by a lack of regulation, not by any inducement to make affordable loans. You have offered no credible evidence to the contrary, yet you act as if your assertions are a given fact. Given in the head of ill informed conservative only. Not in reality.


But hey, if you want to see your credibility continue to plummet, just ignore this post.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Sep. 30 2011, 9:00 am

^^  Well then... I can't force you to read the actual record of what happened.  You can continue living in a fairytale world if you choose, but I deal in facts.


You're starting to remind me of the people that refuse to believe that 1+1=2, regardless of the proof.  Yes, I know that economics is harder, but the videos and the Congressional Records are available for anyone that wants to know the truth.


And "predatory" lending is just more ProRegressive rhetoric.  Politicians forced banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford it - and the obvious results happened.  The banks didn't go out and force people to get the loans - they were forced to give loans to people who didn't qualify.


 


And now we have more fallout from Frank/Dodd - with the new law limiting how banks can charge for their services.  BoA will now charge people $5 / month to use the debit cards.  So, due to even more over-regulation (which you will just call deregulation,) the bank will lose millions of dollars of revenue in overdraft & swipe fees, so they change their fee structure to recoup some of it.


 


It's no different than the consequences of Obamacare - more people are losing their insurance and the average cost increased 9% this year (3x more than the previous year.)


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Sep. 30 2011, 9:28 am

And will the stupidity never end????


"In its quest to promote taxpayer-funded entitlement programs, the Obama Administration has actually rewarded one state with a $5 million bonus for its efficiency in adding food-stamp recipients to already bulging rolls."


http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/sep/5-mil-performance-bonus-food-stamp-sign


Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum