Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45
So the fact that Bush called for oversite of Fannie Mae and Mac in 2003 but the democrats refused to go along had absolutely nothing to do with this debacle? The fact that the mandate of the democrats was to give out loans to people who could not repay them had nothing to do with this?
My goodness you are just about the biggest dimbulb I have ever witnessed.
Tell me something. Do you like being a slave? Do you think you would like being able to work only where the government told you to work, to shop only where the government told you to shop, to drive only the cars the government told you to drive? That my hillbilly dear is regulation.
Once again, God missed your part of West Virginia
|
First of all, wasn't the president a Republican, and both houses of Congress controlled by Republicans, with McCain being one of the more senior members of the Senate majority back in 2003??? I seem to recall the conservatives chortaling: "We won, you lost, we're in control!" back then, so very proud of themselves.
Second, can you connect the dots between Freddie and Fannie, and AIG, BearStearn, IndyMac, Merrill, Countrywide, a host of hedgefunds? It seems to me that Freddie and Fannie's sin was to loosen their underwriting standards to allow 10% down and backed variable rate mortgages, and didn't work to hard to audit the quality of the mortgages they were buying in terms of the appraisals, documentation, and such. On the other hand, the financial institutions in the news were extremely innovative, working very hard to make a profit from mortgages that were certain to fail, even if real estate prices didn't fall. How can a three year variable rate interest only loan with a teaser 0% rate to allow paying the fees that go to profit be anything other than a disaster? Freddie and Fannie weren't backing those loans, that job was left to the "capitalists" who made profit risking the capital of others with the expectation that if the economy collapsed, well, they would be sitting pretty no matter what.
The problem in 2003 is that Freddie and Fannie were shifting their profits to different years so they wouldn't look so profitable, expecting that the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 were freaks of an unsustainable refi market. Those profits were coming from homeowners refinancing from 8% variable rates to 5% fixed, which cut payments and reduced the risk of higher interest rates. That kind of activity make the loans safer, not riskier.
Linear Mode
