Obama Unveils Team to Tackle ‘Historic’ Crisis in Economy - Page 2

cnredd · #11 (**permalink**) 11-25-2008, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

500 billion...700 billion..20 more here...30 more there
Uh...the sky is falling.

And this is something I've REPEATEDLY said shouldn't be happening...Let the losers die and the economy takes a smaller hit NOW than delaying the inevitability of incompetent companies dying on a larger scale later...

The economy needs an amputation of bum companies...The present solution is worthless because it lets the cancerous companies live and spread to other companies that would otherwise be prosporous...

Spencer Collins · #12 (**permalink**) 11-25-2008, 05:19 PM

The sky IS falling for many Americans..and your party and it's false prophet and his out of control spending failed to see it.Even now you fail to see or accept the danger. Your denial cost you the election and perhaps the next..

So be it...

saltwn · #13 (**permalink**) 11-25-2008, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

And this is something I've REPEATEDLY said shouldn't be happening...Let the losers die and the economy takes a smaller hit NOW than delaying the inevitability of incompetent companies dying on a larger scale later...

The economy needs an amputation of bum companies...The present solution is worthless because it lets the cancerous companies live and spread to other companies that would otherwise be prosporous...

I completely agree with you on letting the big guys take their lumps and letting the chips fall.
I have a sneaking suspicion, though, their problems are so interwoven in our economy (weather it is their fault or not), that our very societal infrastructure would fall flat on its face if we had done that.
I think Social Security checks (retirement as well as disability) would not arrive or would be worthless, insurance companies would not have the means to make good on any claims, and of course government paychecks and bonds would be so much smoke.

cnredd · #14 (**permalink**) 11-25-2008, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

The sky IS falling for many Americans..and your party and it's false prophet and his out of control spending failed to see it.Even now you fail to see or accept the danger. Your denial cost you the election and perhaps the next..

So be it...

Let's see...

Banks give billions of dollars in credit to unqualified people at the behest of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (and through lawsuits in court...One by some guy named Obama), they can't repay the credit on their houses (which were bought hundred of thousands of dollars above their payscale), then the banks that hold the mortgages sold them to larger and larger banks (and Fannie & Freddie), the big banks get caught holding the empty bag, and you blame Republicans?...

saltwn · #15 (**permalink**) 11-25-2008, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

Let's see...

Banks give billions of dollars in credit to unqualified people at the behest of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (and through lawsuits in court...One by some guy named Obama), they can't repay the credit on their houses (which were bought hundred of thousands of dollars above their payscale), then the banks that hold the mortgages sold them to larger and larger banks (and Fannie & Freddie), the big banks get caught holding the empty bag, and you blame Republicans?...

One thing that sticks with me is the fact not only did many go beyond their means on a mortgage. But the prices of the houses was so far out in left field compared to what they should have been. It was like a big Section 8 housing bubble. Only many of the buyers were middle income to even upper middle income.
What I mean is I'm thinking of the present situation across the river from me in Oregon. The rentals there over inflated. And if people on welfare move to the Boise area from out of state they usually end up moving to Oregon where the housing is better and there is more grant money. So a typical couple who could easily afford a 4 or 5 or even 6 hundred dollar a month house while saving up a down payment, have to pay at the minimum 800 for rent and usually upwards of 1200 to find anything decent. And we're talking that the average income for both sides of the river is 28 to 36 thousand a year.
I still believe in the old adage not to pay more a month for housing than you make per week. And I believe it should be based on ONE income of a couple NOT the combined incomes. Someone might get pregnant and have to take time off. Someone may become ill or have to care for another family member and cut back on work hours. But that old rule won't work where the mortgages are ALL geared to a two person income.

cnredd · #16 (**permalink**) 11-26-2008, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

One thing that sticks with me is the fact not only did many go beyond their means on a mortgage. But the prices of the houses was so far out in left field compared to what they should have been. It was like a big Section 8 housing bubble. Only many of the buyers were middle income to even upper middle income.
What I mean is I'm thinking of the present situation across the river from me in Oregon. The rentals there over inflated. And if people on welfare move to the Boise area from out of state they usually end up moving to Oregon where the housing is better and there is more grant money. So a typical couple who could easily afford a 4 or 5 or even 6 hundred dollar a month house while saving up a down payment, have to pay at the minimum 800 for rent and usually upwards of 1200 to find anything decent. And we're talking that the average income for both sides of the river is 28 to 36 thousand a year.
I still believe in the old adage not to pay more a month for housing than you make per week. And I believe it should be based on ONE income of a couple NOT the combined incomes. Someone might get pregnant and have to take time off. Someone may become ill or have to care for another family member and cut back on work hours. But that old rule won't work where the mortgages are ALL geared to a two person income.

Pretty much...

But credit was TOO easy to get when purchasing a house a few years ago...

People were starry-eyed thinking they can get a home, PRAY they can pay for it, and if they couldn't, at least sell it for double the price...

You have better odds rolling dice...Including the fact that casinos are more controlled than the banking industry...

Spencer Collins · #17 (**permalink**) 11-26-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

Let's see...

Banks give billions of dollars in credit to unqualified people at the behest of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (and through lawsuits in court...One by some guy named Obama), they can't repay the credit on their houses (which were bought hundred of thousands of dollars above their payscale), then the banks that hold the mortgages sold them to larger and larger banks (and Fannie & Freddie), the big banks get caught holding the empty bag, and you blame Republicans?...

Quote:

On Nov. 12, 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed the U.S. Senate in one form on a party-line vote of 54 (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat) to 44 (all Democrats) and on a 343-86 vote in a different form in the House of Representatives, before being resolved by a joint conference committee; the conference report was approved by both houses of Congress (Senate: 90-8-1, House: 362-57-15) and signed by President Bill Clinton.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which prohibited bank holding company from owning other financial companies. The Glass-Steagall Act mandated the separation of commercial and investment banking in order to protect depositors from the hazards of risky investment and speculation. It worked fine for fifty years until the banking industry began lobbying for its repeal during the 1980s.

Until we reinstate firewall that the Glass Steagall Act created we will not see a permanent fix to the problem, only temporary sleight of hand trick that our Congress is so good at.

Also..Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like for 7 years..

saltwn · #18 (**permalink**) 11-26-2008, 04:22 PM

VOLCKER, GOOLSBEE NAMED
TO OBAMA'S ECONOMIC TEAM

Quote:

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker will chair a new economic advisory panel created by President-elect Barack Obama and designed to stabilize financial markets, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday. The report was confirmed during Obama's press conference later in the morning, when the president-elect himself announced the appointment.

Quote:

Members of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board will come from a cross-section of citizens outside the government

Quote:

The new board is modeled on an advisory panel that gives the president nonpartisan advice on national security matters

Quote:

Volcker, 81, has been an important economic adviser to Obama on economic issues. As Federal Reserve chairman in the early 1980s, he was credited with taming inflation through policies that also contributed to a recession at the time.

Looks like the prez-elect and his team are doing all they can to help our present situation.

indago · #19 (**permalink**) 11-27-2008, 10:40 AM

saltwn wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree with you on letting the big guys take their lumps and letting the chips fall. I have a sneaking suspicion, though, their problems are so interwoven in our economy (weather it is their fault or not), that our very societal infrastructure would fall flat on its face if we had done that.
---------------------------------------------------------

OUR ECONOMY

Might as well forget about "our economy". The people have spoken, and over the past 10-15 years have voted for free trade agreements and globalization — a global economic system. And as the various economies of the Third World advance, the once advanced United States economic system regresses as the world economies seek an equilibrium. So get a grip; it ain't gonna be pretty.

"This isn't gonna have a happy ending..."

cnredd · #20 (**permalink**) 11-27-2008, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

Also..Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like for 7 years..

Bush Proposed Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac Supervision In 2003

Quote:

A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” His proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Democrats eventually killed the proposal. The current meltdown in the mortgage industry is a direct result of giving mortgages to people who could not pay them back, a practice protected by Congressional Democrats.

Both entities were recently taken over by the government, a move that puts trillions of taxpayer dollars at risk.

Quote:

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

But Democrats in Congress, also known as “the caucus perpetually on the wrong side of history,” were having none of this “responsibility” stuff.

Quote:

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”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 Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”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,” Mr. Watt said.

The proposal worked its way around Congress for a couple of years. Efforts at reform of the kind proposed by President Bush were shot down by Democrats each time.

Quote:

In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill (H.R. 1461), and Fannie and Freddie’s lobbyists set out to weaken it.

[...]

During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, [Democrat in bed with the mortgage industry Chris] Dodd — who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 — actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.

According to OpenSecrets.org, between 1988 and 2008 Dodd received $133,900, Kerry $111,000, Clinton $75,550, and Obama — in only 143 days in the Senate — received a whopping $105,849 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Pennsylvania Democrat representative Paul Kanjorksi, who also opposed new Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, was given more than any other member of the House of Representatives. He was paid $65,500 by representatives of these entities.

And, in case you were wondering, John McCain co-sponsored a bill requiring greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac regulation in 2005. It was also blocked procedurally by Democrats.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
saltwn

The Following User Says Thank You to saltwn For This Useful Post:
Spencer Collins

The Following User Says Thank You to indago For This Useful Post:
saltwn