http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm529.cfm
from wiki... In 1995, the GSEs like Fannie Mae began receiving government tax incentives for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers. Thus began the involvement of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the subprime market.[109]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-Leonnig-108>In 1996, HUD <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HUD_(housing)> set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.[110]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-109>From 2002 to 2006, as the U.S. subprime market grew 292% over previous years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined purchases of subprime securities rose from $38 billion to around $175 billion per year before dropping to $90 billion per year, which included $350 billion of Alt-A securities. Fannie Mae had stopped buying Alt-A products in the early 1990s because of the high risk of default. By 2008, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned, either directly or through mortgage pools they sponsored, $5.1 trillion in residential mortgages, about half the total U.S. mortgage market... The Federal government bailout of thrifts<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrift>during the savings and loan crisis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis> of the late 1980s may have encouraged other lenders to make risky loans, and thus given rise to moral hazard <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard>. [116] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-115>[ 37<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-brown1-36> The *Community Reinvestment Act* (or *CRA*, Pub.L.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_law_(United_States)>95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large> 1147, 12 U.S.C. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_12_of_the_United_States_Code> § 2901 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/2901.html> *et seq.*) is a United States federal law <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_law>designed to encourage commercial banks <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank> and savings associations<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_association>to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#cite_note-fdic.gov-0> [2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#cite_note-ABC-1> [3]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#cite_note-Federal_Reserve-2>Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining> .[4]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#cite_note-Bernanke-3> [5]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#cite_note-30years-4>The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation. (See full text of Act and current regulations.[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#cite_note-fdic.gov-0>To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_(banking)>or for mergers or acquisitions <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mergers_and_acquisitions>.[6]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#cite_note-St._Louis_Fed-5> Banks want to make money, they are not going to loan to worthless people on their own. that would cause them to lose money. On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Casey Wheeler <[email protected]>wrote: > The sub-prime market. Ask Barney frank. Or Jimmy Carter. Ask the lobbyist > like acorn. It doesn't make sense to loan to someone with a 500 pt credit > score. Banks hadto loan to "low income" people or be sued. Would you loan to > a guy that never paid anyone back? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 25, 2009, at 12:56 PM, Russ <[email protected]> wrote: > > THAT'S a conspiracy theory I hadn't heard before! Banks being forced to > make risky loans. > Which bill was it that forced banks to make zero principle loans? The No > Principle For All bill? > > :-) > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > "Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same." Oscar Wilde > > On Sep 25, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Casey Wheeler wrote: > > No I feel that people should pay attention to things. The banks for > instance.... Had the government not forced them to lend to so risky people, > some banks would not have failed. Some would have, sure. But that's a free > market. Things need to fail. It creates new oppurtunities. > Artificial limits and regulation put on most markets slow growth and hurt > competition. Adam smith was a smart man. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 25, 2009, at 12:42 PM, "Mark Phillips" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > “Free market always creates the best policy”, I disagree. The current > economic climate is a testament to that. Industries need regulation or they > will continue out of control until someone gets hurt. After that, they will > continue until they get hurt or are stopped. The really bad ones continue > regardless. Think indestructible teenager with a learner’s permit, a > self-centered attitude and a high-powered Miata (I finally worked some list > related content in J). > > > > Mark > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Casey Wheeler > *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2009 12:19 PM > *To:* Bret Dodson > *Cc:* [email protected]; <[email protected]>[email protected] > *Subject:* Re: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate > > > > I am confident in my views, my experince and research prove it to be > correct. But, I don't think the syste > > is without issues that need to be resolved. You should not be able to be > dropped once you contract a disease. Docotrs should be able to prescrib > exactly what the want for a patient. This experimental stuff is BS I come > across in my job as well, and as you stated, it occurs within standard > procedural operations. These as well as the INS across state lines, tort > reform etc etc would make a huge difference in not only peoples satisfaction > with the business, as well as bring the cost down. > > > > Free market always creates the best policy. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Sep 25, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Bret Dodson < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > > Wow Casey you're pretty confident of your health and coverage. > > > > Here is something I see all the time working at one of the largest cancer > research institutions in the world. > > > > Suppose you get cancer. Your insurance will probably cover a first round of > standard treatment. What if that doesn't work? Or, what if your doctors > (you'll have several) think your best option is something the insurance > companies consider "experimental" (they try to consider bunches of typical > treatments "experimental" even though they have been standard treatment for > years). This "experimental" treatment gets paid by you. > > > > At my employer, patients need to come to their first appointment with two > things: information on their past treatment and six figures of cash. > > > > Yes, this is heartbraking. I suppose all the people against reforming > healthcare without $100,000+ cash sitting within easy reach would be good > citizens and let themselves die. > > > > Not me, but I at least respect their dedication. > > > > I'm driving the Miata today. It makes all the pediatric patients smile. > > Bret > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Sep 25, 2009, at 5:59 AM, Casey Wheeler < > <[email protected]><[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > > Jim is absolutly correct and probably makes the point better than I did. > Most people have health conditions due to their own choices. Furthermore, > people without ins. Don't have ins. by their own doing. The people that > "need" social healthcare are the people who are most apathetic. We all have > the freedom and choice to take this path or another. If people make better > choices, life is better/easier. Our society has become so... So lazy, > pathetic, apathtic... Something, I can't find the right description... Take > some personal responsibility and handle your business. > > > > Casey > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Sep 25, 2009, at 8:18 AM, <[email protected]> > <[email protected]><[email protected]> > [email protected] wrote: > > I decided I must weigh in on this one after all. I do work at the largest > hospital in my immediate area, which just happens to be the only for profit > hospital in southern Arizona. My observations are first hand, not something > I've seen on TV or read about. > > > > I don't honestly believe we have a 'healthcare' crisis. I believe that we > do have a 'wellness' crisis. More accurately, a lack of wellness crisis. The > vast majority of the patients I see in the healthcare system are sick due to > their own lifestyle choices. We have an entire generation of citizens who > think that they are owed everything: police protection, fire protection, > healthcare, etc. Personal responsibility is way undervalued by our current > culture. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Miatapower mailing list > [email protected] > http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower > >
_______________________________________________ Miatapower mailing list [email protected] http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower
