The Respectfully Republican Conversation

Rosemary...your list sounds a lot like how the ones over there <---------------------------- respond to things we say both over here -----------------------------> and over there <--------------------------, isn't that amazing!

My favorite plan of BOBO's is "changing light bulbs"...now that ought to put a whole lot of people back to work for a long time. If BOBO was ever to check on programs currently in existence, the light bulb program is already there...his cronies probably haven't looked at what was available to low income people, businesses, multi-family housing ect, might get their hands dirty if they had to touch with reality, better to just talk about it so it sounds like you're doing something. The program also includes winterization, leaking faucets, water saving toilet equipment caulking and more. A group comes into an area and signs up people, individuals, businesses, multi-family housing complexes (all low income), seniors, and takes care of it. It's been around for awhile...it is nothing new!

 Rosemary44 wrote:

They scare me. I like my happy thoughts.

  LOL, Rosemary.

About those light bulbs....how much mercury was in those old glass thermometers?  I remember breaking quite of few of those when taking my dds' temp.  I'd be shaking it and then it my other hand and there it'd go!  And I don't ever remember finding the mercury. 

I haven't changed to those new light bulbs just because of what you posted.  We turn off lights we're not using.  I don't think our light bulbs cause our electricity to go up.  There's just two of us.  I think we'll go out and buy a bunch of the old bulbs before they get rid of them. 

Paulette, we just spent $1900 on new insulation.  Since we're seniors can I get my money back? 

Sherri, 

It's always the case that a sitting president gets a blame for something that happens on his watch. if Obama does not improve economy in a few years , he will get blamed too. I do have to say though that Bush's anti-regulation policies sponsored by some of his appointees in SEC did escalate irresponsible behavior of financial insititution. In his testimony Greenspsan admitted that he was surprised by that behaviour as he beleived that the institutions would protect their customers interests and that's why he supported de-regulation.As it turned out he was wrong.

Of course it all started with Carter's administration that started pressuring banks in the reverse red-lining that accelearated in Clinon administration. But Bush administration did continue this practice as well.

Can someone help me understand how, in the last 38 years, 12 of them have been under Democratic Presidents (4 years of Cart, 8 years of Clinton) while 26 years were under Republicans (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr) but somehow the Democrats caused all of the mortgage financing problems?

Even if Carter and Clinton loosened some rules in the federally insured mortgage lending to encourage home-ownership, why didn't the genius Republicans fix the loopholes?  Reagan and Bush Sr were in there for 12 straight years to fix whatever Carter had done.  And Bush Jr has had 8 years since Clinton left.

ijl -

The problem isn't that Republicans couldn't do anything out of fear of negative publicity (since when has that EVER stopped W from doiung something?) but that the premise - that making FHA loans available to more people caused the crisis - is totally false.

The problem with the mortgage market is that housing prices were skyrocketing and mortgage companies were lending to people based on the premise that the trajectory of home values would continue.  Buyers were making the same assumption and getting into loans with low introductory rates with the hope that the value of the home would increase quickly.  When the housing bubble burst, everyone who didn't get out in time was stuck.

It has nothing to do with Clinton and Carter. 

There were experts in 2005 -2006 who saw this coming and spoke up, but nobody did anything about it.

Quit blaming this situation on poor and minorities.  The crisis was borne out of greed.  Nothing more, nothing less.

ijl - I worked in the mortgage industry in the 80's and in consumer finance in the 90's.  No one compelled us to make risky loans in either case.

Federally insured loans are out there to encourage lenders to lend to people that might otherwise be sort of risky by insuring the loans.  I'm talking about stuff like FHA loans, where people within a certain income bracket could buy a home with only 3% down.  There were numerous restrictions - you had to be living in the home you were buying, the home couldn't be worth more than a certain amount, the debt to income ratio had to be within a certain range, and the borrower had to buy private mortgage insurance, which would be used to reimburse the mortgage holder if the homeowner defaulted on the loan.

The paper shuffling that has been going on over the last several years has nothing to do with federally insured mortgages.

Donna, then what did the 1977 Act do?   Maybe you weren't involved in those loans? How can anyone know everything about the whole industry ..

The 1977 Act is a sad fact.

Donna,

Just because you were not aware of it does not mean it did not happen. For example in my company gay employees are treated equally and with respect. Therefore I should conclude that there is no such thing as gay discrimination anywhere. You see the problem with this logic, don't you ?

From Business Week a few months ago:

 *****************

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

Posted by: Aaron Pressman on September 29

Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we're hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act - a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it's even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren't subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: "In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat."

Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley (PDF file here).

Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law's reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn't until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market. Oops.

Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC's puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency's failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt. (Barry Ritholtz had an excellent and more comprehensive survey of how Washington contributed to the crisis in this week's Barron's.)

There's plenty more good reading on the CRA and the subprime crisis out in the blogosphere. Ellen Seidman, who headed the Office of Thrift Supervision in the late 90s, has written several fact-filled posts about the CRA controversey, including one just last week. University of Oregon professor and economist Mark Thoma has also defended the CRA on his blog. I also learned something from a post back in April by Robert Gordon, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, which ends with this ditty:

It's telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That's because CRA didn't bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA - or any federal regulator. Law didn't make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness.

GovTrack: Senate Record: STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT... (109-s20050126-53)

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE]: [Introducing S. 190]

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleagues Senators SUNUNU and DOLE, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. This is needed regulatory reform at a critical time for the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks.

There is no doubt that our housing government sponsored enterprises GSEs, have been successful in carrying out their mission of providing liquidity for the housing market. The market has remained strong through tough economic times, and homeownership in this country is at an all-time high.

The housing GSEs, however, are uncommon institutions with a unique set of responsibilities and stakeholders. Fannie and Freddie are chartered by Congress, limited in scope, and are subject to Congressional mandates, yet they are publicly traded companies with all the earnings pressure that Wall Street demands. Additionally, Fannie and Freddie enjoy an implicit guarantee by the Federal Government that has aided them in developing substantial clout on Wall Street. With their influence in the markets, their ability to raise capital at near-Treasury bill rates, and their use of the most sophisticated portfolio management tools, Fannie and Freddie today are no longer simply secondary market facilitators for mortgages.

The significance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to our economy cannot be overstated. Together, the companies own or guarantee roughly 45.6 percent of all mortgage loans in the United States. The companies combined have issued over $3.9 trillion in obligations comprised of $2.2 trillion in mortgage backed securities and $1.7 trillion of GSE debt.

It is clear that the recent revelations at both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae precipitate the need for Congress to address GSE regulatory reform. In 2003, Freddie Mac found itself treading through a wave of accounting problems and questionable management actions. That led to an income restatement of $5 billion, a penalty of $125 million and the removal of several members of its executive management. One year later, a similar surge of questionable practices was discovered at Fannie Mae. That led to the retirement and resignation of two of Fannie Mae's top management officials, as well as last month's ruling by the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, that Fannie could face a $9 billion income restatement.

At a minimum, the bar for a GSE should not be held lower than it is for any other company. In fact, given its congressionally chartered mission to serve a public interest, the bar should be held significantly higher. The operations of such companies should be managed with uncompromising integrity and unabridged transparency.

Our legislation would create a new independent world class regulator for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. Our bill provides the new regulator with enhanced regulatory flexibility and enforcement tools like those afforded to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. Furthermore, the bill would:

Provide the new regulator the authority of receivership to close down a failing GSE and protect against a taxpayer bailout; provide the new regulator greater discretion in raising capital standards to protect against insolvency; provide the new regulator approval power over new programs and activities proposed by a GSE; provide the regulator with greater authority to limit exit compensation packages or golden parachutes for executives removed for cause; require the annual audits of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's affordable housing programs to ensure that these programs support the enterprises' affordable housing mission; end presidential appointments to the board of directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and would require all Federal Home Loan Bank directors to be elected.

This reform is important to restoring and maintaining the confidence that investors and the markets require. In light of the recent problems at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, it is even more important. I urge my colleagues to support this reform effort and invite them to cosponsor our bill.

I've heard it all now!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04web-cooper.html?_r=1  

December 4, 2008 On The White House

Looking for the Ideal Spot to Make a Speech - NYTimes.com

By HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON - President-elect Barack Obama's aides say he is considering making a major foreign policy speech from an Islamic capital during his first 100 days in office.

So where should he do it? The list of Islamic world capitals is long, and includes the obvious -Riyadh, Kuwait City, Islamabad - and the not-so-obvious - Male (the Maldives), Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), Tashkent (Uzbekistan). Some wise-guys have even suggested Dearborn, Mich., as a possibility.

Clearly it would be cheating for Mr. Obama to fly to Detroit, talk to Dearborn's 30,000 Arab residents and call it a day. And Male and Ouagadougou, while certainly majority Muslim, can't really be what Mr. Obama's aides have in mind when they talk about locales for a high-profile speech that would seek to mend rifts between the United States and the broader Muslim world.

So Burkina Faso and the Maldives are out. But that leaves a whole swath of Islamic capitals, all ready to be spruced up for Mr. Obama to make his speech. I've thought hard about this, and asked a few people - diplomats even - which capital Mr. Obama should pick.

The consensus, after an entire day of reporting, is Cairo.

Why Cairo? It's a matter of elimination. I called Ziad Asali, the president of the American Task Force on Palestine, to gauge his thoughts. "Damascus would be cool, except it would look as if he was rewarding the Syrians and it's too soon for that," Mr. Asali said.

True. Maybe in a year, if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gets around to a land-for-peace deal with Israel. But for right now, I'm not really seeing Damascus as the spot for the big speech.

What about Ramallah, I asked Mr. Asali, thinking it would show solidarity with the Palestinians.

"I would object to that on so many levels," he shot back, irate. "Are you forgetting that Palestinians seek Jerusalem as their capital?"

Right. And giving the speech in Jerusalem would just open up a Pandora's box full of problems. So that's not happening.

My colleague, David Sanger, heard me talking about it and came over to my desk. "I think he's going to pick Jakarta," he said. "It would be a big homecoming-type trip."

But Jakarta's too easy. Mr. Asali thought so too: "Jakarta? People would yawn about that." Sure, Indonesia is the world's most populous Muslim-majority country - some 177 million Muslims live there - but the very fact that Mr. Obama once lived and went to school there would make choosing it seem like cheating.

Baghdad? Definitely out-of-the-box, but it could appear to validate the Iraq war, which Mr. Obama opposed. Beirut? Too many Hezbollah members - Secret Service would flip its collective lid - and anyway, the Lebanese president has always been a Christian.

Tehran? Too soon for that. Amman? Been there, done that. Islamabad? Too dangerous. Ankara? Too safe. Plus the Turks aren't going to be too crazy about being used for outreach to the Muslim world when they're trying to join the European Union.

I asked a senior Turkish diplomat what he thought. He immediately started acting, well, diplomatic. "We don't have a problem with our Islamic identity," he said. "But our system is secular."

Riyadh? Mr. Obama's national security aides say no.

Kuwait City? Abu Dhabi? Doha? "I don't think it will be in the Gulf," one foreign policy adviser to Mr. Obama said.

See? It's got to be Cairo. Egypt is perfect. It's certainly Muslim enough, populous enough and relevant enough. It's an American ally, but there are enough tensions in the relationship that the choice will feel bold. The country has plenty of democracy problems, so Mr. Obama can speak directly to the need for a better democratic model there. It has got the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist organization that has been embraced by a wide spectrum of the Islamic world, including the disenfranchised and the disaffected.

The Secret Service won't like it one bit, but Cairo is no Islamabad. I called the Egyptian Embassy in Washington to ask officials there what they thought. Someone from Mr. Obama's team had already mentioned the possibility, although embassy officials said Egypt has not been approached about a possible presidential trip to Cairo.

Still, Sameh Shoukry, the Egyptian ambassador, e-mailed me a statement. "Needless to say, the President of the United States is always welcome in Egypt," it said. "Delivering such a speech from Cairo would no doubt reinforce the intended message. Cairo has long been a center of Islamic learning and scholarship, in line with Egypt's central role in the Middle East."

Rosemary, we can ALL go visit those buildings.  Wait a minute.  Who can afford to fly internationally OR even "nationally?"  Remember the price of gasoline?  Oh, but it's gone down.  Why hasn't other "goods" gone down like?  I guess by charging more for tickets and surcharges and beverages and luggage and peanuts and on an on the airline industry is staying afloat.  I guess I won't be going to Dubai. 

Shirley

I could keep my money right here for our own economy...go to NEW YORK!  Anyone have a few hundred I can borrow? 

Shirley,

We can ask to stay in the Pelosi building for free.  She sponsored it by saving the planet from ourselves and cut off any drilling legislation.  Anyway we can ask.

I agree, now that fuel prices have come down, they should end the surcharges.  The automakers should learn a lesson from the airline industry, if they can cut something out, or charge extra, they'll do it.  I can hear this question in our future.  Would you like that car with, or without tires?

moodyk,

 You are so right! I don't mind giving help to financially disavantaged people but without regards to their race. I mean why is a poor black student is more deserving of a college admission than a poor white student. I think I posted this here before but when I was in college, we once were working on a project in a group. We had one guy who was African American and his parents were lawyers and he was driving a jaguar. And then we had a white guy who had to work full time to be able to afford going to college and he came from a very poor background. The black student had special criteria for being accepted into  a major, he had to have 2.3 GPA while the rest of us had to have 3.5. He did not even want to stduy and we had to pick up his work.  Talk about fairness..

Harley, someone else who knows about this stuff will come along.  I thought the stuff online was for "medical" people not for everybody FOR PETE'S SAKE -- electronic records.  Some places are going to that..I believe Duke has.  Anyway, I sure hope not just ANYONE can google us.  However, I don't know anyone who would want to google me.  I'm not looking for a job..LOL

Shirley