Can win Obama win a debate Against Newt ??

[cbirch2]

Issue #125, September/October 2002

Going Subprime

Will low-income homebuyers gain or lose when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac move into the subprime lending market?

By Allen J. Fishbein

Back to Table of Contents The recent foray into the subprime mortgage market by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has renewed the debate over their role in the affordable housing arena. The subprime market targets borrowers with credit problems or limited credit histories who do not qualify for cheaper, prime loans. Fannie and Freddie traditionally have purchased a small share of these loans, but this figure is expected to grow significantly in the next few years. Proponents say that the two huge intermediaries can bring better pricing for some subprime borrowers and help to curb predatory lending. Competitors and some analysts say they will only cream the least risky borrowers, making other subprime loans even more costly to borrowers who need them. Still others forecast that a bigger role in the subprime market may pave the way for making traditional prime loans more expensive for some borrowers.

Defining Terms

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are for-profit, privately capitalized government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) chartered by Congress to act as intermediary institutions for residential mortgages (at present that means conventional mortgages under $300,700).

By law, the GSEs must make affordable housing part of their business (see SF #80). The GSEs do not make mortgage loans directly to individual borrowers. Instead they perform their “secondary market” function by buying mortgages from banks, savings institutions and other mortgage lenders. They either keep these loans in their own portfolios or, more typically, package the loans in pools and sell them to investors as mortgage-backed securities. These functions, in turn, provide lenders with the funds needed to issue new mortgages, thus bringing additional capital into the housing loan market. For the mortgages to be packaged and sold as securities, they must meet certain standardized underwriting criteria set by the GSEs. The combined purchases by GSEs in recent years have ranged well over 50 percent of all conventional mortgage activity and this year may hit as much as 71 percent of the market. As a result, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have a tremendous degree of influence over which types of borrowers have access to different types of mortgage credit and on what terms.

The overall conventional mortgage market (nongovernment insured or guaranteed) is comprised of two broad categories of loans, prime and subprime. Prime mortgages constitute the largest category, representing loans to borrowers with what lenders regard as good credit (“A” quality, or investment grade). Everything else is subprime – loans to borrowers who have a history of credit problems, insufficient credit history, or nontraditional credit sources. Subprime mortgages are rated by their perceived risk, from the least risky to the greatest risk: A-minus, B, C, and even D. However, A-minus loans account for 50 to 60 percent of the entire subprime market.

Subprime borrowers frequently pay higher points and fees and are saddled with more unfavorable terms and conditions, such as balloon payments, high prepayment penalties, and negative amortization. Lenders say the higher rates and charges reflect the additional costs and risks of lending to borrowers with less than perfect or nonconventional credit. However, research conducted by Freddie Mac suggests that the higher interest rates charged by subprime lenders are in excess of the additional risks these borrowers bear. Thus, increased competition would tend to reduce borrowing costs in the subprime market.

Going Subprime: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac consider the subprime loan market, by Allen Fishbein

Please dont post giant walls of text and think your teaching me something.

The GSE provided liquidity to the system. Just like you say, buying mortgages in the secondary market so that banks can sell it off and then go back and issue another mortgages.

How is that an argument against GSE's?

Its the GSE's fault that the banks issued loans worth nothing and sold them to the GSE's? And you have yet to address the fact that loans regulated by the Community Reinvestment Act were ova better quality than those that werent.

Please don't tell me what to post.

You are in denial in relation to Governments role in pushing bad Mortgages, reclassifying bad risk applicants, threatening Institutions that looked too hard at bad applicants, insuring Mortgages that otherwise would have never gone through, and bundling them for resale to the unsuspecting. So Fuck Off. Idiot. My point is there is plenty of blame to go around. You are in denial that Government played a role in the fiasco. Not everyone is ready to own their own home, not everyone want's to, not everyone can. Government created a Ponzi scheme in home values, high gas prices brought the house of cards tumbling down. So again, Fuck You, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Andrew Cuomo, and the sharks that were attracted to the scam of the Century.

Government created a ponzi scheme?

Thats an awesome claim. People that cant exactly say what a ponzie scheme is always claim something is a ponzi scheme. SS is too right?

You took a massive amount of time to basically say that GSE's provided liquidity to the mortgage system. The percent of subprimes held by the institutions fell as the bubble grew, in fact they were directed to stop buying subprimes early in 2006.

Im not in denial. I actually have the stats. You have some notion that anything the government does will drive the economy off a cliff. Not quite accurate. How does extra liquidity cause the crisis in the first place. If the banks had been issuing decent loans it would have been fine.

 

[cbirch2]

There's no evidence that Obama graduated magna cum laude. As for the Harvard Law Review, he was the Affirmative Action candidate. Like most of his accomplishments, he got the jobs purely because he's black.

Theres no evidence? What? Are you serious?

And obama got every job because hes black?

Have you seen the stats for the election? Pretty much the same number of blacks voted dem as they always do. Black turn out up a few percent but not out of line with the trend. So no, black people did not get obama elected.

Do you know about Obama's tenure with a law firm he was hired by after he graduated law school?

Are you aware of how those 4 years went for him?

Just curious....

Im waiting for the article you wanna post

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Also, the only reason Obama got elected to the presidency is the fact that he's black.

He's the Affirmative Action president, but he's also the food stamp president.

And STILL conservatives throw a fit when you point out that their 'movement' is systemically, insidiously, infected with racism...

 

[Full-Auto]

[Also, the only reason Obama got elected to the presidency is the fact that he's black.

He's the Affirmative Action president, but he's also the food stamp president.

And STILL conservatives throw a fit when you point out that their 'movement' is systemically, insidiously, infected with racism...

YOU WOULD HAVE TO PROVE THAT.

The lack of evidence does you in.

 

[midcan5]

Why is this not in Romper room? Answering your own question, isn't that a sign of insanity?

 

[Intense]

Please dont post giant walls of text and think your teaching me something.

The GSE provided liquidity to the system. Just like you say, buying mortgages in the secondary market so that banks can sell it off and then go back and issue another mortgages.

How is that an argument against GSE's?

Its the GSE's fault that the banks issued loans worth nothing and sold them to the GSE's? And you have yet to address the fact that loans regulated by the Community Reinvestment Act were ova better quality than those that werent.

Please don't tell me what to post.

You are in denial in relation to Governments role in pushing bad Mortgages, reclassifying bad risk applicants, threatening Institutions that looked too hard at bad applicants, insuring Mortgages that otherwise would have never gone through, and bundling them for resale to the unsuspecting. So Fuck Off. Idiot. My point is there is plenty of blame to go around. You are in denial that Government played a role in the fiasco. Not everyone is ready to own their own home, not everyone want's to, not everyone can. Government created a Ponzi scheme in home values, high gas prices brought the house of cards tumbling down. So again, Fuck You, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Andrew Cuomo, and the sharks that were attracted to the scam of the Century.

Government created a ponzi scheme?

Thats an awesome claim. People that cant exactly say what a ponzie scheme is always claim something is a ponzi scheme. SS is too right?

You took a massive amount of time to basically say that GSE's provided liquidity to the mortgage system. The percent of subprimes held by the institutions fell as the bubble grew, in fact they were directed to stop buying subprimes early in 2006.

Im not in denial. I actually have the stats. You have some notion that anything the government does will drive the economy off a cliff. Not quite accurate. How does extra liquidity cause the crisis in the first place. If the banks had been issuing decent loans it would have been fine.

You took a massive amount of time to basically say that GSE's provided liquidity to the mortgage system.

Wrong again Chump. Government sponsored push for home ownership, whether one was ready or not, driving up perceived home values and property taxes at a pace far exceeding true value. Government Manipulation and pressure.

You have some notion that anything the government does will drive the economy off a cliff. Not quite accurate.

I never made that claim, nor do I support it. I want Government to play the role of the Impartial Referee, maintaining fair play and the integrity of the field, not predetermining the outcome ofr the game or picking winners and losers. Your claim makes you lie.

How does extra liquidity cause the crisis in the first place. If the banks had been issuing decent loans it would have been fine.

Total Bullshit, without the loans being insured they would never have been issued. Could you be more disingenuous.

 

[Jarhead]

Theres no evidence? What? Are you serious?

And obama got every job because hes black?

Have you seen the stats for the election? Pretty much the same number of blacks voted dem as they always do. Black turn out up a few percent but not out of line with the trend. So no, black people did not get obama elected.

Do you know about Obama's tenure with a law firm he was hired by after he graduated law school?

Are you aware of how those 4 years went for him?

Just curious....

Im waiting for the article you wanna post

wait all you want....no need to. But you seemed to know so much about Obama...and you seemed convinced he was the man of choice...yet as it pertains to his only experience in the private sector where one is rewarded with promotion for success you seem to have no idea. That is very telling. But the bottom line....3 plus years with the law firm and he never acheived Junior Partner status...Harvard Law Grad....President of Harvard Revue and could not get out of "associate" status.

Another question....are you aware of the history of his book? Are you aware that he was actually contracted to write a book about civil rights...and that never came to fruition.....and instead, he was able to alter it to more of a biography?
Why is this important? Two reasons...first.....no one seemed to know this which brings up the "vetting" question...and number 2.....why was he unable to write a book about civil rights?

 

[SAT2]

The Giant Pool of Money | This American Life

Free education.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Giant Pool of Money | This American Life

Free education.

The first was an awards dinner for finance professionals who created the mortgage-based financial instruments that nearly brought down the global economic system.

Yeah, that would be mortgages.

 

[cbirch2]

Please don't tell me what to post.

You are in denial in relation to Governments role in pushing bad Mortgages, reclassifying bad risk applicants, threatening Institutions that looked too hard at bad applicants, insuring Mortgages that otherwise would have never gone through, and bundling them for resale to the unsuspecting. So Fuck Off. Idiot. My point is there is plenty of blame to go around. You are in denial that Government played a role in the fiasco. Not everyone is ready to own their own home, not everyone want's to, not everyone can. Government created a Ponzi scheme in home values, high gas prices brought the house of cards tumbling down. So again, Fuck You, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Andrew Cuomo, and the sharks that were attracted to the scam of the Century.

Government created a ponzi scheme?

Thats an awesome claim. People that cant exactly say what a ponzie scheme is always claim something is a ponzi scheme. SS is too right?

You took a massive amount of time to basically say that GSE's provided liquidity to the mortgage system. The percent of subprimes held by the institutions fell as the bubble grew, in fact they were directed to stop buying subprimes early in 2006.

Im not in denial. I actually have the stats. You have some notion that anything the government does will drive the economy off a cliff. Not quite accurate. How does extra liquidity cause the crisis in the first place. If the banks had been issuing decent loans it would have been fine.

Wrong again Chump. Government sponsored push for home ownership, whether one was ready or not, driving up perceived home values and property taxes at a pace far exceeding true value. Government Manipulation and pressure.

"The GSEs are critical in providing liquidity, stability and affordability to the mortgage market, particularly for long-term, fixed-rate mortgages."

Housing Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) | NCSHA

Ok so tell me again im wrong?

You have some notion that anything the government does will drive the economy off a cliff. Not quite accurate.

I never made that claim, nor do I support it. I want Government to play the role of the Impartial Referee, maintaining fair play and the integrity of the field, not predetermining the outcome ofr the game or picking winners and losers. Your claim makes you lie.

The government isnt generally picking winners and losers.

When it influenced the decision the default rates were lower.

http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf

How does extra liquidity cause the crisis in the first place. If the banks had been issuing decent loans it would have been fine.

Total Bullshit, without the loans being insured they would never have been issued. Could you be more disingenuous.

No.

Just, wrong. So very wrong.

Loans bought/sold by fannie and freddie were not insured by the government. It is explicitly stated in their charter that securities held by both fannie and freddie are not obligations of the us government. In fact, fannie mae was partitioned a few decades ago in to the current fannie mae and an instiution called ginnie mae, which is guaranteed by the federal government.

No one that knows the history of the institutions or what their charters say would think that their debt is an obligation of the government.

 

[cbirch2]

Do you know about Obama's tenure with a law firm he was hired by after he graduated law school?

Are you aware of how those 4 years went for him?

Just curious....

Im waiting for the article you wanna post

wait all you want....no need to. But you seemed to know so much about Obama...and you seemed convinced he was the man of choice...yet as it pertains to his only experience in the private sector where one is rewarded with promotion for success you seem to have no idea. That is very telling. But the bottom line....3 plus years with the law firm and he never acheived Junior Partner status...Harvard Law Grad....President of Harvard Revue and could not get out of "associate" status.

Another question....are you aware of the history of his book? Are you aware that he was actually contracted to write a book about civil rights...and that never came to fruition.....and instead, he was able to alter it to more of a biography?
Why is this important? Two reasons...first.....no one seemed to know this which brings up the "vetting" question...and number 2.....why was he unable to write a book about civil rights?

Idk, why dont you write a book about civil rights? Thats a pretty obscure argument...that he shouldnt be president because he cant write a book about civil rights....

I think this is the conservative's cognitive dissonance again. Now hes not black enough?

I bet if he had written a book about civil rights you'd be portraying him as a modern day black panther.

 

[Amelia]

Im waiting for the article you wanna post

wait all you want....no need to. But you seemed to know so much about Obama...and you seemed convinced he was the man of choice...yet as it pertains to his only experience in the private sector where one is rewarded with promotion for success you seem to have no idea. That is very telling. But the bottom line....3 plus years with the law firm and he never acheived Junior Partner status...Harvard Law Grad....President of Harvard Revue and could not get out of "associate" status.

Another question....are you aware of the history of his book? Are you aware that he was actually contracted to write a book about civil rights...and that never came to fruition.....and instead, he was able to alter it to more of a biography?
Why is this important? Two reasons...first.....no one seemed to know this which brings up the "vetting" question...and number 2.....why was he unable to write a book about civil rights?

Idk, why dont you write a book about civil rights? Thats a pretty obscure argument...that he shouldnt be president because he cant write a book about civil rights....

I think this is the conservative's cognitive dissonance again. Now hes not black enough?

I bet if he had written a book about civil rights you'd be portraying him as a modern day black panther.

Jarhead, that was new info to me.

That's freaking hilarious. He couldn't write facts. Had to change to an unfactcheckable story about how grand he is.

So thoroughly Obama!

 

[cbirch2]

wait all you want....no need to. But you seemed to know so much about Obama...and you seemed convinced he was the man of choice...yet as it pertains to his only experience in the private sector where one is rewarded with promotion for success you seem to have no idea. That is very telling. But the bottom line....3 plus years with the law firm and he never acheived Junior Partner status...Harvard Law Grad....President of Harvard Revue and could not get out of "associate" status.

Another question....are you aware of the history of his book? Are you aware that he was actually contracted to write a book about civil rights...and that never came to fruition.....and instead, he was able to alter it to more of a biography?
Why is this important? Two reasons...first.....no one seemed to know this which brings up the "vetting" question...and number 2.....why was he unable to write a book about civil rights?

Idk, why dont you write a book about civil rights? Thats a pretty obscure argument...that he shouldnt be president because he cant write a book about civil rights....

I think this is the conservative's cognitive dissonance again. Now hes not black enough?

I bet if he had written a book about civil rights you'd be portraying him as a modern day black panther.

Jarhead, that was new info to me.

That's freaking hilarious. He couldn't write facts. Had to change to an unfactcheckable story about how grand he is.

So thoroughly Obama!

As if you've actually read his book, and as if its simply "about how grand he is".

Your delusion feeds it self. "I dont like obama. Obama wrote a book? How cocky."

How about newt gingrich. How many books does he have man, like 9?

Gimme a break your a moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Government created a ponzi scheme?

Thats an awesome claim. People that cant exactly say what a ponzie scheme is always claim something is a ponzi scheme. SS is too right?

You took a massive amount of time to basically say that GSE's provided liquidity to the mortgage system. The percent of subprimes held by the institutions fell as the bubble grew, in fact they were directed to stop buying subprimes early in 2006.

Im not in denial. I actually have the stats. You have some notion that anything the government does will drive the economy off a cliff. Not quite accurate. How does extra liquidity cause the crisis in the first place. If the banks had been issuing decent loans it would have been fine.

Wrong again Chump. Government sponsored push for home ownership, whether one was ready or not, driving up perceived home values and property taxes at a pace far exceeding true value. Government Manipulation and pressure.

"The GSEs are critical in providing liquidity, stability and affordability to the mortgage market, particularly for long-term, fixed-rate mortgages."

Housing Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) | NCSHA

Ok so tell me again im wrong?



The government isnt generally picking winners and losers.

When it influenced the decision the default rates were lower.

http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf

How does extra liquidity cause the crisis in the first place. If the banks had been issuing decent loans it would have been fine.

Total Bullshit, without the loans being insured they would never have been issued. Could you be more disingenuous.

No.

Just, wrong. So very wrong.

Loans bought/sold by fannie and freddie were not insured by the government. It is explicitly stated in their charter that securities held by both fannie and freddie are not obligations of the us government. In fact, fannie mae was partitioned a few decades ago in to the current fannie mae and an instiution called ginnie mae, which is guaranteed by the federal government.

No one that knows the history of the institutions or what their charters say would think that their debt is an obligation of the government.

Have you been asleep?
Their debt is an obligation of our government.

 

[cbirch2]

Wrong again Chump. Government sponsored push for home ownership, whether one was ready or not, driving up perceived home values and property taxes at a pace far exceeding true value. Government Manipulation and pressure.

"The GSEs are critical in providing liquidity, stability and affordability to the mortgage market, particularly for long-term, fixed-rate mortgages."

Housing Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) | NCSHA

Ok so tell me again im wrong?



The government isnt generally picking winners and losers.

When it influenced the decision the default rates were lower.

http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf

Total Bullshit, without the loans being insured they would never have been issued. Could you be more disingenuous.

No.

Just, wrong. So very wrong.

Loans bought/sold by fannie and freddie were not insured by the government. It is explicitly stated in their charter that securities held by both fannie and freddie are not obligations of the us government. In fact, fannie mae was partitioned a few decades ago in to the current fannie mae and an instiution called ginnie mae, which is guaranteed by the federal government.

No one that knows the history of the institutions or what their charters say would think that their debt is an obligation of the government.

Have you been asleep?
Their debt is an obligation of our government.

Because the united states decided to nationalize them, but there was never a guarantee saying that the the government had to do that.

Are you braindead?

An implicit guarantee may have been assumed, people might have thought the government would choose to nationalize if they had to, but there was never an explicit guarantee. Understand? Anyone making a decision on an implicit guarantee is making a bet on the future decisions of the government, thats their own fault.

 

[kaz]

Obama couldn't out debate a mime

 

[rightwinger]

Newt will never get the opportunity to debate Obama

 

[cbirch2]

Obama couldn't out debate a mime

Obama At House Republican Retreat In Baltimore: FULL VIDEO, TEXT

Uh oh...looks like the republicans have elected a whole bunch of mimes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"The GSEs are critical in providing liquidity, stability and affordability to the mortgage market, particularly for long-term, fixed-rate mortgages."

Housing Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) | NCSHA

Ok so tell me again im wrong?



The government isnt generally picking winners and losers.

When it influenced the decision the default rates were lower.

http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf



No.

Just, wrong. So very wrong.

Loans bought/sold by fannie and freddie were not insured by the government. It is explicitly stated in their charter that securities held by both fannie and freddie are not obligations of the us government. In fact, fannie mae was partitioned a few decades ago in to the current fannie mae and an instiution called ginnie mae, which is guaranteed by the federal government.

No one that knows the history of the institutions or what their charters say would think that their debt is an obligation of the government.

Have you been asleep?
Their debt is an obligation of our government.

Because the united states decided to nationalize them, but there was never a guarantee saying that the the government had to do that.

Are you braindead?

An implicit guarantee may have been assumed, people might have thought the government would choose to nationalize if they had to, but there was never an explicit guarantee. Understand? Anyone making a decision on an implicit guarantee is making a bet on the future decisions of the government, thats their own fault.

Because the united states decided to nationalize them

Yes, but don't worry, Barney Frank said they're in fine shape.
Just how many mortgages did they buy from Countrywide?
You know, Countrywide, right?

Did Democrat Franklin Raines ever do any jail time for falsifying earnings?

 

[Jackson]

Newt will never get the opportunity to debate Obama

We agree! His advisors will not allow it!