Brainfade Posted August 8, 2013 Posted August 8, 2013 2013 Pres Obama: “For too long, these companies (Fannie and Freddie) were allowed to make big profits buying mortgages, knowing that if their bets went bad, taxpayers would be left holding the bag,†Obama said during a speech Tuesday at Desert Vista High School in Phoenix. “It was ‘heads we win, tails you lose.’ And it was wrong.†2008 VP Candidate-who's-name-shalt-not-be-taken: The fact is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers ... our administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help.†Man, he's down to copying ideas from puported morons.
Brainfade Posted August 8, 2013 Author Posted August 8, 2013 what is this about? FM & FM are the common-lingo names for the 2 gov't backed "private" companies that underwrite a majority of mortgage loans in the US. Following the subprime mortgage crisis in 2007-08, the govt had to bail them out to the tune of $140+ billion. During the 2008 election campaign, one side suggested that FM/FM be downsized/shut down so that taxpayers' money is not wasted on them, and shifting the burden of mortgage lending back to the private sector with little govt intervention. They were soundly ridiculed for this idea. Candidate and later President Obama were adamant that the govt provide unlimited aid to FM/FM "http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-12-25/business/36914392_1_fannie-mae-freddie-mac-mortgage-giants"). 5 years and 100s of billions of taxpayer $$ later, current Pres Obama agrees with the "ridiculous" idea proposed by his opponents back then. So, I decided to be a smart***** about it :-)! http://ebook.law.uiowa.edu/ebook/content/promoting-homeownership-us-rise-and-fall-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac
punjabi_khota Posted August 8, 2013 Posted August 8, 2013 Changing your viewpoints due to availability of new information is now frowned upon ?
Brainfade Posted August 9, 2013 Author Posted August 9, 2013 Changing your viewpoints due to availability of new information is now frowned upon ? How many times? Trying to push PPACA and then backing off the employee mandate because it's not tenable? Supporting the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt and watching them turn into dictators? Arming Syrian rebels? Gitmo? Gay marriage stance until he "evolved?" Now this? After sinking $1000 per taxpayer into this black hole? People get elected President and have all that power because they are expected to make good decisions - not carry out massive monetary experiments.
yoda Posted August 10, 2013 Posted August 10, 2013 It was the right decision to bail them out then as they had made some poor choices and were in deep shyte before he got to office. They have repaid most of the money or are in the process of doing so. It would still be better to keep them as they do play a role in providing low cost loans to the needy and to provide credit to the secondary lenders, however with enough checks so that they don't shoot themselves again.
punjabi_khota Posted August 10, 2013 Posted August 10, 2013 How many times? Trying to push PPACA and then backing off the employee mandate because it's not tenable? Supporting the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt and watching them turn into dictators? Arming Syrian rebels? Gitmo? Gay marriage stance until he "evolved?" Now this? After sinking $1000 per taxpayer into this black hole? People get elected President and have all that power because they are expected to make good decisions - not carry out massive monetary experiments. So if I understand you correctly, he should keep sinking more money into the black hole ? Just clarifying what you are saying here. And PPACA is a huge once in a generation reform. If it has teething troubles, I don't see any harm done in being slow to implement it. The point is , for every study you show criticizing PPACA, i can show one saying the opposite. I understand you have utter hate for it, but it will be implemented and millions that don't have insurance right now will get it. I might pay a little more for mine, so be it.
Brainfade Posted August 10, 2013 Author Posted August 10, 2013 It was the right decision to bail them out then as they had made some poor choices and were in deep shyte before he got to office. They have repaid most of the money or are in the process of doing so. It would still be better to keep them as they do play a role in providing low cost loans to the needy and to provide credit to the secondary lenders' date= however with enough checks so that they don't shoot themselves again.http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2013/05/how_fannie_mae.html Excerpt: Accounting sleight-of-hand
Brainfade Posted August 10, 2013 Author Posted August 10, 2013 So if I understand you correctly, he should keep sinking more money into the black hole ? Just clarifying what you are saying here. And PPACA is a huge once in a generation reform. If it has teething troubles, I don't see any harm done in being slow to implement it. The point is , for every study you show criticizing PPACA, i can show one saying the opposite. I understand you have utter hate for it, but it will be implemented and millions that don't have insurance right now will get it. No, I am saying he should've cut 'em loose before sinking $188 b. As for PPACA, millions who don't have it will get it, but millions of others will pay more for it. And as I have shown in the past week, more and more people will become part-timers and will depend on govt subsidies to get insurance. In case you missed it: But worst of all, there will be fewer providers willing to work under the onerous regulations that come with PPACA. As it is, many If you don't have enough providers, you may have insurance, but will you have care?
punjabi_khota Posted August 10, 2013 Posted August 10, 2013 No' date=' I am saying he should've cut 'em loose before sinking $188 b. [/quote'] With due respect, you should have said that 5 years ago then, why now. As I said, for every study you quote....blah blah...we just have to wait and see...it worked for MA, 99% people covered in MA, and I am here, sitting in MA, the state has the best ****ing health care in the world...lets just leave it that...no shortage of doctors/insurance providers around here.
Brainfade Posted August 10, 2013 Author Posted August 10, 2013 With due respect' date=' you should have said that 5 years ago then, why now.[/quote'] I have time and again ranted against all bailouts on this board. Do look it up. And have bashed Fannie/Freddie and their role in setting the stage for the mortgage crisis by encouraging subprime lending. Mass was home to some of the best ****ing healthcare even before Romneycare came about. But what I hear about doctor shortages and not enough doctors taking Mass Health and Commonwealth Care. This from a study conducted by the Mass. Medical Society, not an individual's anecdotal experience. I reckon you don't live in rural Mass.
Swing_n_Speed Posted August 10, 2013 Posted August 10, 2013 Changing your viewpoints due to availability of new information is now frowned upon ? Tomorrow he'll change his viewpoint on Libya, Syria, Obamacare, Kayne West, Drones and who knows what not. He's the President not some average Joe! If he is incapable of making informed choices with all the information on his table, then he never will. Pretty sure all Obammy wanna do is privatize these organizations for the benefit of his buddies on Wall Street.
punjabi_khota Posted August 10, 2013 Posted August 10, 2013 Tomorrow he'll change his viewpoint on Libya, Syria, Obamacare, Kayne West, Drones and who knows what not. He's the President not some average Joe! If he is incapable of making informed choices with all the information on his table, then he never will. Pretty sure all Obammy wanna do is privatize these organizations for the benefit of his buddies on Wall Street. So being bull headed is the way to go...got it.
Recommended Posts