"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:12:21 -0700, Stephen Trapani
said:

Basically Fannie and Freddie regulations created a false market which
was then not subjected to enough oversight and hence abused.

Fannie, Freddie and CRA were certainly all contributing factors to the
problem. However in the case of Fannie and Freddie the problem arguably
was
as much a problem of too much oversight of the wrong kind, not too little
oversight. Long after the risks had been identified (as far back at least
as
2001) you had Barney Frank and Jim Shumer standing on the sidelines
cheering
both GSEs to buy more and more mortgages so more and more homes could be
sold to people who couldn't afford the mortgages, and loudly proclaiming
that there was nothing wrong with either GSE.

So, what you're saying is that the Republican controlled Congress failed to
act. Thanks for the clarification.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 11:53:34 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Why is nobody but me aware this obvious root cause?

Everyone else recognizes that you're full of ****, Neal.


That's a gross generalization. Neal recognizes this, but he's unwilling to
admit it. LOL

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 11:53:34 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Why is nobody but me aware this obvious root cause?

Everyone else recognizes that you're full of ****, Neal.


At least the Good Captain isn't the typical, brainwashed American like you,
Dave.

There is a reason why there's no attribution of blame in the right place for
the current severe downturn in the economy. Sub prime lending is getting the
blame but there is a reason why sub prime loans stopped being paid down
recently. That reason is severely reduced ability to pay because life got
really expensive for the consumer in the past two years due to high energy
prices.

When people, in a relatively short time frame, have to pay double for their
energy that money spent limits their ability to spend it on such things as
paying down mortgages.

Cheap energy greases the economic engine of this economy. When energy
becomes excessively expensive (as in twice as expensive) the economic engine
sputters to a halt. Expensive energy is the root cause of the dire straights
the economy finds itself in. It was only a matter of time and time has now
run out.

Unless and until Congress gets their heads straight and gets out of the way
so energy sources of all types can be developed by the free market until
energy prices are once more reasonable the mess we are in will continue.

Wilbur Hubbard

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:06:03 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

you had Barney Frank and Jim Shumer standing on the sidelines
cheering
both GSEs to buy more and more mortgages so more and more homes could be
sold to people who couldn't afford the mortgages, and loudly proclaiming
that there was nothing wrong with either GSE.

So, what you're saying is that the Republican controlled Congress failed
to
act. Thanks for the clarification.

Hey, Jon, you left out part of my message. I'll add it for you:

Anybody know who
the biggest recipients of Fan and Fred's largesse were? Hint: number two
chose a former President of one of the organizations to run his vice
presidential selection.


Last I checked, it's the Congress' responsibility. Are you planning on
answering the question or are you going to try an evade it as usual?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:07:36 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Anybody know who
the biggest recipients of Fan and Fred's largesse were? Hint: number two
chose a former President of one of the organizations to run his vice
presidential selection.


Last I checked, it's the Congress' responsibility. Are you planning on
answering the question or are you going to try an evade it as usual?

Dead wrong, Jon. I guess you didn't quite know where to check.

While Congress could impose upper limits on the leverage the GSEs were
allowed to use, the responsibility in the first instance to set prudent
limits rests on those organizations' management, subject to oversight by
their boards of directors, and to any rules established by OFHEO. IOW, it
fell right on the shoulder of Mr. Johnson, the guy Obama put in charge of
choosing his VP nominee until he was forced out.

Your response reflects a common error on the pro-guvmint side--the notion
that anything the rules allow is ok, and rules should be pushed to the
limit
regardless of whether it's prudent to do so. Then when the **** hits the
fan
the cry is that if was the regulators' fault because they allowed the
reckless behavior. That's certainly the Barney Frank approach.

Here's the story as related by somebody on your side of the fence.

http://affordablehousinginstitute.or...egulation.html


Bzzzzt:

"The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) carries the
oversight responsibilities for the housing mission of the GSEs. Effective
January 1, 2005, HUD established new and increasing affordable housing goal
levels for the GSEs for the years 2005 through 2008. These goals require
that a certain percentage of the mortgages purchased by Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac support financing for housing low - and moderate - income
families."

2005 - Republicans controlled the WH and the Congress.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:29:02 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

"The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) carries the
oversight responsibilities for the housing mission of the GSEs. Effective
January 1, 2005, HUD established new and increasing affordable housing
goal
levels for the GSEs for the years 2005 through 2008. These goals require
that a certain percentage of the mortgages purchased by Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac support financing for housing low - and moderate - income
families."

2005 - Republicans controlled the WH and the Congress.

Now read the rest of the article.


?? That is the rest of the article. Are you denying that Congress was in
charge?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 17:15:21 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

?? That is the rest of the article. Are you denying that Congress was in
charge?

I'm telling you you haven't a clue as to who is responsible for managing a
corporation, including setting an acceptable level of risk for its
activities.


I think you're out of your depth... time to man the lifeboats!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 17:15:21 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

?? That is the rest of the article. Are you denying that Congress was in
charge?

I'm telling you you haven't a clue as to who is responsible for managing
a
corporation, including setting an acceptable level of risk for its
activities.


I think you're out of your depth... time to man the lifeboats!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com


This thread seems to have veered off the original-and very interesting
topic- and I have been checking all sources to find if Obama was able to
produce the documents as ordered but without success.
Surely the question of his entitlement to be a presidential candidate is
somewhat important at this time?.
Does anyone know what has happened?

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 10:18:23 +0200, Edgar wrote:


This thread seems to have veered off the original-and very interesting
topic- and I have been checking all sources to find if Obama was able to
produce the documents as ordered but without success. Surely the
question of his entitlement to be a presidential candidate is somewhat
important at this time?.
Does anyone know what has happened?

First off, Obama wasn't ordered to produce anything. You can follow the
case at the plaintiffs website:


http://www.obamacrimes.com/

wrote in message
news
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 10:18:23 +0200, Edgar wrote:


This thread seems to have veered off the original-and very interesting
topic- and I have been checking all sources to find if Obama was able to
produce the documents as ordered but without success. Surely the
question of his entitlement to be a presidential candidate is somewhat
important at this time?.
Does anyone know what has happened?

First off, Obama wasn't ordered to produce anything. You can follow the
case at the plaintiffs website:


http://www.obamacrimes.com/


Not exactly an objective source. Try politifact.com:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...icate-part-ii/

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com