Barney Frank the hero

[DC Tom]

Yes, but I did say mainly.

 

If you say "mainly" is open to interpretation, I'm going to reach through the intertubes and slap you silly.

[Magox]

If you say "mainly" is open to interpretation, I'm going to reach through the intertubes and slap you silly.

Ok, then let me use the word mostly, and I don't mean Conner's definition of most.

[GG]

Sure he did. It was mainly liberal lawmakers that pushed for housing availability to lower income earners. Right?

 

Doesn't excuse the inaction by Reps who controlled both chambers. It's anice excuse to blame Frank for his stonewalling & evreyone else who fell for Fan Fred lobbying.

[keepthefaith]

So if pot is legal we'll have to come up with laws to restrict driving under the influence of pot. New laws, new testing procedures, etc. What's all that gonna cost and what would we forecast for the death toll?

[Magox]

Doesn't excuse the inaction by Reps who controlled both chambers. It's anice excuse to blame Frank for his stonewalling & evreyone else who fell for Fan Fred lobbying.

This goes way before Frank.

 

CRA was created under Carter and then made worse under Clinton in 99. Frank was just another piece of the disastrous puzzle.

[LeviF]

So if pot is legal we'll have to come up with laws to restrict driving under the influence of pot. New laws, new testing procedures, etc. What's all that gonna cost and what would we forecast for the death toll?

Isn't driving under the influence of pot already illegal? I'm pretty sure it is in NY, at least, covered under Driving Under the Influence.

[Celtic_soulja]

Something tells me the government wants to get in the reefer business.

 

Hell, it might even lower the price.

 

The government never lowers prices...

[Chef Jim]

The government never lowers prices...

 

But didn't I read someplace that government was going to lower the cost of health care, or was that health insurance. No, no, it was definately health care....I think.

[GG]

So if pot is legal we'll have to come up with laws to restrict driving under the influence of pot. New laws, new testing procedures, etc. What's all that gonna cost and what would we forecast for the death toll?

 

Few things. The guess is that the added cost of new pot compliance is expected to be less than the current cost of enforcing an unenforceable law. Also, studies show that pot smokers are generally safer drivers, even under the influence because they're afraid to go over 15 MPH. Again, a far less debilitating drug than alcohol.

[GG]

This goes way before Frank.

 

CRA was created under Carter and then made worse under Clinton in 99. Frank was just another piece of the disastrous puzzle.

 

Let's dispel another myth - CRA was another brick in the wall, but wasn't the entire wall. The wall was the Fan Fred structure that fed the vicious cycle of bad loan origination to bad loan structurings to bad structured sales to bad loan origination to bad loan structurings to bad structured sales.

[Magox]

Let's dispel another myth - CRA was another brick in the wall, but wasn't the entire wall. The wall was the Fan Fred structure that fed the vicious cycle of bad loan origination to bad loan structurings to bad structured sales to bad loan origination to bad loan structurings to bad structured sales.

Who said it was the "entire wall"?

 

edit: Hell, if I wanted to get even more technical about it, then yes, this dates all the way back to FDR.

 

My point was, that GreenSpan in my view was primarily calling out liberal policy makers for pressing the GSE's into lowering credit requirements for lower income earners. No one can rationally dispute this, the CRA was a vehicle used by policy makers to ensure their objective of providing housing ownership to too many people that weren't fiscally qualified for home ownership.

[3rdnlng]

Few things. The guess is that the added cost of new pot compliance is expected to be less than the current cost of enforcing an unenforceable law. Also, studies show that pot smokers are generally safer drivers, even under the influence because they're afraid to go over 15 MPH. Again, a far less debilitating drug than alcohol.

 

Yes, but the global warming implications of them driving around in circles in their Volkswagen Vans offset the safety issues.

[GG]

Who said it was the "entire wall"?

 

edit: Hell, if I wanted to get even more technical about it, then yes, this dates all the way back to FDR.

 

My point was, that GreenSpan in my view was primarily calling out liberal policy makers for pressing the GSE's into lowering credit requirements for lower income earners. No one can rationally dispute this, the CRA was a vehicle used by policy makers to ensure their objective of providing housing ownership to too many people that weren't fiscally qualified for home ownership.

 

No one is disputing the CRA's impact on that segment of lending. But if it was only related to CRA, we wouldn't be in this mess. A lot of the housing mess was aided by speculators in Florida, and builders in AZ, CA & NV that had nothing to do with CRA. That's what I'm talking about.

 

Absolutely the liberal wing deserves to be slammed for propping up a house of cards, but the other side shouldn't get off scot free because they didn't press the issue enough. I'm sure that if you go through Fin committee's hearings from 2002 - 2006, it wouldn't just be the liberals who liked the easy flow of cash.

[Magox]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...pOEEI&pos=5

 

Maintaining the balance between profitability as a private company and service to a public mission became impossible amid competition in the mortgage market, said Daniel Mudd, Fannie Mae’s chief executive officer from 2005 until the U.S. takeover, in his prepared testimony.

 

Fannie Mae began increasing its investment in specialized mortgages including subprime loans in 2006, after its market share of residential mortgages fell to less than 24 percent from a high of more than 40 percent.

 

“It became clear that the movement toward nontraditional products was not a fad, but a growing and permanent change in the mortgage marketplace,” Mudd said. “There was no one momentous decision to enter this market. Rather, this was a long-term, continuous and measured move.”

 

At the same time, Fannie Mae faced more aggressive homeownership goals set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, he said.

 

“By 2006, Fannie Mae was engaged in a continual struggle to balance all of the requirements of the public mission, along with all of the duties owed to the shareholders,” Mudd said, even as it operated “a business model chained to a market that was in free fall.”

 

Lockhart, who oversaw Fannie Mae from 2006 to 2009 as head of OFHEO and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said he lacked political or legal authority to control the massive entity, which Congress created in 1938 to foster homeownership.

 

The public mission “allowed the companies to be so politically strong that for many years they resisted the very legislation that might have saved them,” Lockhart said.