Plus you have a government in the red and littered with waste. Not
exactly an example for prudence.

On Oct 18, 1:22 am, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among
> minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is
> easing credit requirements on loans that it will purchase . . . [to]
> encourage . . . banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose
> credit is generally not good . . . . Fannie Mae is taking on
> significantly more risk."-- New York Times, September 30, 1999
>
> This is nothing but propaganda spin, and the idiot who wrote this post
> is stupid enough to believe it. Capitalism and egalitarianism, you
> really should be shot.
>
> They did it to make more sales........you know..........more profit,
> more commisions, booty, mullah. Banks dont give a damn about low wage
> earners. If they couldn't make their repayments the bank would chuck
> 'em out and sell the property without a second thought. The problem
> is, like good capitalist they got too bloody greedy and the workers
> are paying for it.
>
> This is more like the real thing don't you think.
>
> In 2004, at the request of the major Wall Street investment houses,
> including Goldman Sachs, then headed by Paulson, the U.S. Securities
> and Exchange Commission agreed unanimously to release the major
> investment houses from the net capital rule, the requirement that
> their brokerages hold reserve capital that limited their leverage and
> risk exposure. The complaint that was put forth by the investment
> banks was of increasingly onerous regulatory requirements -- in this
> case, not U.S. regulator oversight, but European Union regulation of
> the foreign operations of US investment groups. In the immediate lead-
> up to the decision, EU regulators also acceded to US pressure, and
> agreed not to scrutinize foreign firms' reserve holdings if the SEC
> agreed to do so instead. The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, however, put
> the parent holding company of each of the big American brokerages
> beyond SEC oversight. In order for the agreement to go ahead, the
> investment banks lobbied for a decision that would allow "voluntary"
> inspection of their parent and subsidiary holdings by the SEC.
>
> During this repeal of the net capital rule, SEC Chairman William H.
> Donaldson agreed to the establishment of a risk management office that
> would monitor signs of future problems. This office was eventually
> dismantled by Chairman Christopher Cox, after discussions with
> Paulson. According to the New York Times, "While other financial
> regulatory agencies criticized a blueprint by Mr. Paulson, the [new]
> Treasury secretary, that proposed to reduce their stature — and that
> of the S.E.C. — Mr. Cox did not challenge the plan, leaving it to
> three former Democratic and Republican commission chairmen to complain
> that the blueprint would neuter the agency."[11]
> In late September 2008, Chairman Cox and the other Commissioners
> agreed to end the 2004 program of voluntary regulation.
>
> And now the fox is in charge of the henhouse. Capitalist corruption,
> not Crackpot Egalitarianism
>
> On Oct 18, 4:05 pm, "M.A. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > How Crackpot Egalitarianism Caused the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisisby Thomas 
> > J. DiLorenzo"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among 
> > minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing 
> > credit requirements on loans that it will purchase . . . [to] encourage . . 
> > . banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally 
> > not good . . . . Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk."-- New 
> > York Times, September 30, 1999The main cause of the current economic crisis 
> > is the boom-and-bust cycle that was caused by the Greenspan Fed. Years of 
> > artificially-lowered interest rates caused trillions of dollars in 
> > mal-investment in real estate and other industries, and now we must endure 
> > the bust. But crackpot egalitarianism within the Fed and, indeed, in the 
> > entire Washington establishment, has made the crisis infinitely worse.
> > In the early 1990s the Boston Fed did all that it could to fabricate 
> > "evidence" of widespread lending discrimination against racial minorities. 
> > But when Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer of Forbes magazine asked Boston 
> > Fed official Alicia Munnel what evidence of discrimination she really had, 
> > she was forced to admit that she had none.
> > Fighting discrimination was not the Fed’s real goal. The real goal was to 
> > achieve a more "egalitarian distribution" of housing, period. So under the 
> > phony guise of "fighting discrimination" the Fed, the Congress, Fannie Mae, 
> > Freddie Mac, and myriad other federal government agencies forced, bribed, 
> > and extorted mortgage lenders of all kinds into making literally trillions 
> > of dollars in bad loans to unqualified borrowers. Countrywide Bank alone 
> > was praised by the Fed for making $600 billion in such loans (shortly 
> > before it went bankrupt).
> > The Fed’s "smoking gun" in this entire charade is a Boston Fed publication 
> > entitled "Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending." There is 
> > a gap, you see, between the value of real estate owned by middle- and 
> > upper-income Americans on the one hand, and lower-income Americans on the 
> > other. (There is also a luxury automobile gap, a two-week European vacation 
> > gap, a luxury boat gap, an expensive suit gap, and many others). The 
> > federal government has used all of its powers of threats, force, and 
> > intimidation over the past two decades to try to close the housing "gap." 
> > "The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston wants to be helpful to lenders as they 
> > work to close the mortgage gap," the publication states.
> > In addition to closing the "mortgage gap," the Fed also pressured lenders 
> > to adopt a more vigorous racial hiring quota system, presumably under the 
> > theory that minority loan officers would be more likely to acquiesce in the 
> > Fed’s dictates to make more mortgage loans to its political mascots, 
> > sub-prime borrowers.
> > The Boston Fed report claims that it is only offering lenders "guidelines," 
> > and "suggestions," but it is very clear that failure to obey the Fed’s 
> > "guidelines" can lead to serious financial problems for any mortgage 
> > lender. The report states in bold type that "Failure to comply with the 
> > Equal Credit Opportunity Act or Regulation B can subject a financial 
> > institution to civil liability for actual and punitive damages in 
> > individual or class actions. Liability for punitive damages can be as much 
> > as $10,000 in individual actions and the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of 
> > the creditor’s net worth in class actions."
> > All lenders – banks, independent mortgage companies, etc. – were told that 
> > they needed to pay close attention to "such laws and regulations as the 
> > Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B), the Fair Housing Act, the Home 
> > Mortgage Disclosure Act (Regulation C), and the Community Reinvestment 
> > Act." A "conscientious [bank] Board will recognize the potential liability 
> > associated with noncompliance . . ." Ah, the subtle power of suggestion.
> > The Fed instructed lenders to ignore traditional measures of 
> > creditworthiness when it came to "minority and low-income consumers." 
> > Traditional underwriting standards were said to contain "arbitrary or 
> > unreasonable measures of creditworthiness." "Special standards" that "are 
> > appropriate to the economic culture of urban, lower-income, and 
> > non-traditional consumers" were urged. For example, traditional 
> > underwriting standards take into consideration such things as age, 
> > location, and condition of a house, but these should be abandoned when it 
> > comes to sub-prime borrowers, said the Fed.
> > Traditional ratios of mortgage payments to monthly income can also be 
> > ignored, said the Fed. And besides, "the secondary market [i.e., Fannie Mae 
> > and Freddie Mac] is willing to consider ratios above the standard" ones for 
> > other borrowers. "Lack of credit history" should not be a factor either. 
> > "Successful participation in credit counseling" was said to be an adequate 
> > substitute.
> > Lenders were repeatedly urged to "work with special secondary mortgage 
> > market programs" such as those administered by Fannie and Freddie. Lenders 
> > were told to "be aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have issued 
> > statements to the effect that they understand urban areas require different 
> > appraisal methods." If a sub-prime borrower has a property appraisal 
> > problem, then the Fed or Fannie Mae could help to find "another experienced 
> > appraiser" who would presumably see to it that the property was "correctly" 
> > reappraised so that the sub-prime loan could be made. Yours truly was 
> > always under the impression that shopping around for "the right" appraiser 
> > who would give you the number you wanted (for a fee) was fraudulent and 
> > illegal. Silly me.
> > In sum, the Fed’s policy of housing market socialism (endorsed and 
> > supplemented by numerous federal laws and regulations), combined with the 
> > boom-and-bust cycle that it created, has been an unmitigated economic 
> > catastrophe for the entire world. Naturally, the Fed’s response has been to 
> > grant itself even more powers, while the executive branch and Congress are 
> > busy nationalizing the capital markets, a move that will kill American 
> > capitalism. Abolishing the Fed would be a very modest first step in 
> > dismantling our rotten Leviathan state so that the next generation can at 
> > least have some hope of living in a reasonably free and prosperous 
> > society.http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo154.html- Hide quoted 
> > text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to