2013

  • Thread starter Christian Soldier
  • Start date
C

Christian Soldier

Guest
-----One sunny day in January, 2013 an old man approached the
White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue , where he'd been sitting on a
park bench. He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would
like to go in and meet with President Obama."

The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Obama is no longer
president and no longer resides here."

The old man said, "Okay", and walked away.

The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to
the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Obama."
The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Obama is no
longer president and no longer resides here."

The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.

The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the
very same U.S. Marine, saying "I would like to go in and meet with
President Obama."

The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and
said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to
speak to Mr. Obama. I've told you already that Mr. Obama is no longer the
president and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"

The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I just love
hearing it."

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow,
Sir."
 
I confess I don't understand that one. But maybe I have to be an American to understand it...
 
That I already guessed. But what's so bad about Obama?
 
We elect our President every 4 years...the election in 2012 will hopefully see Obama fail..and a new President sworn in on Inaguration Day in January 2013.
 
As a conservative, I can not agree with the way he has taken alot of aspects of our Society (Health Insurance, auto manufacturing, banking) and turned them over to the FederalGov. He wants a more Euro Socialistic model for the USA..and there are alot of people like me that are not too happy about it.
 
We have it the other way around - the government cared for lots of things and now we are suppsoed to care for almost everything, including pesonal health insurance (meaning: the state doesn't pay very much anymore so the health insurance companies don't either).

Not that I know very much about US domestic politic but wouldn't it be a good thing if all those big banks got supervised by the government so something like this global finanical crisi won't happen anymore? The governemtn stepping in for a manufacturing company is porbably just an interim and emergency solution...
 
Earl of Grey said:
Not that I know very much about US domestic politic but wouldn't it be a good thing if all those big banks got supervised by the government so something like this global finanical crisi won't happen anymore? The governemtn stepping in for a manufacturing company is porbably just an interim and emergency solution...
Click to expand...

No, neither in the US nor in Europe (or anywhere else) that would be good thing. At least not a complete and total supervision. The banks and fincial world in general proved and are still proving it, that they lack any sense of responsability except short term stock gains. Despite the crisis which they made. So, in that respect they should be supervised (perhaps by limiting the size of their company's)...
 
I keep hearing people say it was the banks when in actuality it was the government that caused this crisis. Read this New York Times article. I have included the link if you would rather read it from the source.
The banks were forced to make these loans to people that could not afford to pay them back because if they did not make them they would be penalized by the government regulatory agencies.


http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/b...t=cse&scp=1&sq=1999 fannie and freddie&st=cse

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29— In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.
 
Interesting. Obviously some parts never make it to the public... But I'm pretty sure this isn't the case in Germany. If it is I'm not aware of it and our banks will probably made responsible by our government so all tracks are covered either way.
 
so at what size (ie a measure of success) would the government say is enough. Wouldn't that stifle effort to exceed the established cut off limit. Doesnt a sucessful company HIRE more people...creating more ancillary jobs as the $$ flows through the community and the economy rises. Control of successful endeavor only limits the desired effect.
 
I think every thing in the money system became to sloppy, Bank's were lending money with no check to see if one can pay it back, in the old days you applied for a loan and at to wait untill the checks had been done, to my mind the Bank's have a lot to answer for, lend the money to people by all means but do the checks first, it will save a lot of misery and heart ache to a lot of people.........
 
Earl of Grey said:
I confess I don't understand that one. But maybe I have to be an American to understand it...
Click to expand...

Here is one for you.

GM (government motors previously general motors) with the assistance of government money (my tax dollars) meant to create American jobs is going to build a new automobile plant. Where you ask? Where else MEXICO!!! That is BO’s administration at work. :puke:
 
Undoubtedly everyone in the US is dying to get the good old days back from the Bush administration !

You won't find a perfect world in this life.
 
I want better than the Bush days. Bush was a progressive also and he spent like it. I want more like...hmmm...maybe President Grover Cleveland...yea thats it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom