Someone once said that Senator Hubert Humphrey, liberal icon of an
earlier generation, had more solutions than there were problems.

Senator Humphrey was not unique in that respect. In fact, our present
economic crisis has developed out of politicians providing solutions
to problems that did not exist-- and, as a result, producing a problem
whose existence is all too real and all too painful.

What was the problem that didn't exist? It was a national problem of
unaffordable housing. The political crusade for affordable housing got
into high gear in the 1990s and led to all kinds of changes in
mortgage lending practices, which in turn led to a housing boom and
bust that has left us in the mess we are now trying to dig out of.

Usually housing affordability is measured in terms of how much of the
average person's income it takes to cover either apartment rent or a
monthly mortgage payment.

There were certainly places here and there where it took half a
family's income just to put a roof over their heads. Many such places
were in coastal California but there were a few others, here and
there, on the east coast and elsewhere.

But, vast areas of the country in between-- "flyover country" to the
east coast and west coast elites-- had housing prices that took no
larger share of the average American's income than in the decade
before the affordable housing crusade got under way.

Why then a national crusade by Washington politicians over local
problems? Probably as good an answer as any is that "It seemed like a
good idea at the time." How are we to be kept aware of how
compassionate and how important our elected officials are unless they
are busy solving some problem for us?

The problem of skyrocketing housing prices was all too real in those
places where this problem existed. When you have to live on half your
income because the other half goes for housing, that's a real downer.

Almost invariably, these severe local problems had local causes--
usually severe local restrictions on building homes. These
restrictions had a variety of politically attractive names, ranging
from "open space" laws and "smart growth" policies to "environmental
protection" and "farmland preservation."

Like most wonderful-sounding political slogans, none of these lofty
goals was discussed in terms of that one four-letter word that people
do not use in polite political society-- "cost."

No one asked how many hundreds of thousands of dollars would be added
to the cost of an average home by "open space" laws, for example. Yet
empirical studies have shown that land-use restrictions added at least
a hundred thousand dollars to the average home price in dozens of
places around the country.

In some places, such as coastal California, these restrictions added
several hundred thousand dollars to the price of the average home.

In other words, where the problem was real, local politicians were the
cause. National politicians then tried to depict this as a national
problem that they would solve.

How would they solve it? By pressuring banks and other lenders to
lower their requirements for making mortgage loans, so that more
people could buy houses. The Department of Housing and Urban
Development gave the government-sponsored enterprise Fannie Mae quotas
for how many mortgages it should buy that were made out for people for
low to moderate incomes.

Like most political "solutions," the solution to the affordable
housing "problem" took little or no account of the wider repercussions
this would entail.

Various economists and others warned repeatedly that lowered lending
standards meant more risky mortgages. Given the complex relationships
among banks and other financial institutions, including many big Wall
Street firms, if mortgages started defaulting, all the financial
dominoes could start falling.

These warnings were brushed aside. Politicians were too busy solving a
national problem that didn't exist. In the process, they created very
real problems. Now they are now offering even more solutions that will
undoubtedly lead to even bigger problems.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/

Fannie Mae plans bonuses of $1M for top executives; Freddie Mac has
similar plans

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fannie...-14679491.html

Impeach Barney Frank!

In article
,
wrote:

Someone once said that Senator Hubert Humphrey, liberal icon of an
earlier generation, had more solutions than there were problems.

Senator Humphrey was not unique in that respect. In fact, our present
economic crisis has developed out of politicians providing solutions
to problems that did not exist-- and, as a result, producing a problem
whose existence is all too real and all too painful.

What was the problem that didn't exist? It was a national problem of
unaffordable housing. The political crusade for affordable housing got
into high gear in the 1990s and led to all kinds of changes in
mortgage lending practices, which in turn led to a housing boom and
bust that has left us in the mess we are now trying to dig out of.

Usually housing affordability is measured in terms of how much of the
average person's income it takes to cover either apartment rent or a
monthly mortgage payment.

There were certainly places here and there where it took half a
family's income just to put a roof over their heads. Many such places
were in coastal California but there were a few others, here and
there, on the east coast and elsewhere.

But, vast areas of the country in between-- "flyover country" to the
east coast and west coast elites-- had housing prices that took no
larger share of the average American's income than in the decade
before the affordable housing crusade got under way.

Why then a national crusade by Washington politicians over local
problems? Probably as good an answer as any is that "It seemed like a
good idea at the time." How are we to be kept aware of how
compassionate and how important our elected officials are unless they
are busy solving some problem for us?

The problem of skyrocketing housing prices was all too real in those
places where this problem existed. When you have to live on half your
income because the other half goes for housing, that's a real downer.

Almost invariably, these severe local problems had local causes--
usually severe local restrictions on building homes. These
restrictions had a variety of politically attractive names, ranging
from "open space" laws and "smart growth" policies to "environmental
protection" and "farmland preservation."

Like most wonderful-sounding political slogans, none of these lofty
goals was discussed in terms of that one four-letter word that people
do not use in polite political society-- "cost."

No one asked how many hundreds of thousands of dollars would be added
to the cost of an average home by "open space" laws, for example. Yet
empirical studies have shown that land-use restrictions added at least
a hundred thousand dollars to the average home price in dozens of
places around the country.

In some places, such as coastal California, these restrictions added
several hundred thousand dollars to the price of the average home.

In other words, where the problem was real, local politicians were the
cause. National politicians then tried to depict this as a national
problem that they would solve.

How would they solve it? By pressuring banks and other lenders to
lower their requirements for making mortgage loans, so that more
people could buy houses. The Department of Housing and Urban
Development gave the government-sponsored enterprise Fannie Mae quotas
for how many mortgages it should buy that were made out for people for
low to moderate incomes.

Like most political "solutions," the solution to the affordable
housing "problem" took little or no account of the wider repercussions
this would entail.

Various economists and others warned repeatedly that lowered lending
standards meant more risky mortgages. Given the complex relationships
among banks and other financial institutions, including many big Wall
Street firms, if mortgages started defaulting, all the financial
dominoes could start falling.

These warnings were brushed aside. Politicians were too busy solving a
national problem that didn't exist. In the process, they created very
real problems. Now they are now offering even more solutions that will
undoubtedly lead to even bigger problems.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/

Fannie Mae plans bonuses of $1M for top executives; Freddie Mac has
similar plans

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fannie...-14679491.html

Impeach Barney Frank!

Tar and feather him and run him out of town.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:30:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

There follows that tiresome canard about generous mortgages in the U.S.
causing the world collapse of the financial system.

The system collapses because it was a house of cards -- the cards were
phoney money derivatives of various sorts being used as speculation
tools. They and their market (if it can be said to be a "market") were
of unknown real value. When crunch came to crunch, the bankers
had assets of unknown (but inflated) value on their balance sheets.
A genuine audit (impossible) would show many of them to be far
more "under water" than any billion home owners. They had
blown up a vast bubble ($60 trillion maybe, who knows?).

Their bubble was pricked by the mortgage devaluations.



Mason Clark
*Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*
http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
-- many excerpts you can see --

On Mar 18, 9:06*pm, Mason C wrote:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:30:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

There follows that tiresome canard about generous mortgages in the U.S.
causing the world collapse of the financial system.

The system collapses because it was a house of cards -- the cards were
phoney money derivatives of various sorts being used as speculation
tools. *They and their market (if it can be said to be a "market") were
of unknown real value. *When crunch came to crunch, the bankers
had assets of unknown (but inflated) value on their balance sheets.
A genuine audit (impossible) would show many of them to be far
more "under water" than any billion home owners. *They had
blown up a vast bubble ($60 trillion maybe, who knows?).

Their bubble was pricked by the mortgage devaluations.


correct, and every time i hear some yahoo call them a asset, i stick
my finger down my throat. assets are something tangible, not a bet. i
have read that there maybe over a quadrillion dollars of these bets.
so if these paper bets are really a asset, then they should be able
to sell them, or borrow against them. but they cannot, in most cases
they are probably worthless, and are backed by nothing.
which means the companies that own them are insolvent, and perhaps no
amount of outside money can save them. really, its about time to force
them into chapter 7, i think its 7, where they can come out
reorganized, without the baggage of these derivative bets, and the
lousy management who allowed this.


Mason Clark
*Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
*-- many excerpts you can see --

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:12:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Mar 18, 9:06*pm, Mason C wrote:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:30:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

There follows that tiresome canard about generous mortgages in the U.S.
causing the world collapse of the financial system.

The system collapses because it was a house of cards -- the cards were
phoney money derivatives of various sorts being used as speculation
tools. *They and their market (if it can be said to be a "market") were
of unknown real value. *When crunch came to crunch, the bankers
had assets of unknown (but inflated) value on their balance sheets.
A genuine audit (impossible) would show many of them to be far
more "under water" than any billion home owners. *They had
blown up a vast bubble ($60 trillion maybe, who knows?).

Their bubble was pricked by the mortgage devaluations.


correct, and every time i hear some yahoo call them a asset, i stick
my finger down my throat. assets are something tangible, not a bet. i
have read that there maybe over a quadrillion dollars of these bets.
so if these paper bets are really a asset, then they should be able
to sell them, or borrow against them. but they cannot, in most cases
they are probably worthless, and are backed by nothing.
which means the companies that own them are insolvent, and perhaps no
amount of outside money can save them. really, its about time to force
them into chapter 7, i think its 7, where they can come out
reorganized, without the baggage of these derivative bets, and the
lousy management who allowed this.


It's 11. 7 means caput, dead.



Mason Clark
*Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*
http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
-- many excerpts you can see --

wrote:


Impeach Barney Frank!

I don't think Representatives can be impeached.

On Mar 19, 6:30*am, dave wrote:
wrote:

- - Impeach Barney Frank!

- I don't think Representatives can be impeached.

OK Dave then "Pickle" Barney Frank ! ;;-) ~ RHF

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:30:54 -0700, dave wrote:

wrote:


Impeach Barney Frank!

I don't think Representatives can be impeached.

Article 2, Section 4:

The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States,
shall be removed from ofice on impeachment for and conviction of,
treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

But the Congress has other, constitutional, methods of removing a
member: "Each House shall be the judge of the... qualifications
of its own members...." "with the concurrence of two thirds, expel
a member."

In short, they can be kicked out soccer style or old-fashioned toe style.

But not Barney Frank. He's one of the best.



Mason Clark
*Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*
http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
-- many excerpts you can see --

On Mar 18, 9:06*pm, Mason C wrote:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:30:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

There follows that tiresome canard about generous mortgages in the U.S.
causing the world collapse of the financial system.

The system collapses because it was a house of cards -- the cards were
phoney money derivatives of various sorts being used as speculation
tools. *They and their market (if it can be said to be a "market") were
of unknown real value. *When crunch came to crunch, the bankers
had assets of unknown (but inflated) value on their balance sheets.
A genuine audit (impossible) would show many of them to be far
more "under water" than any billion home owners. *They had
blown up a vast bubble ($60 trillion maybe, who knows?).

Their bubble was pricked by the mortgage devaluations.

Mason Clark
*Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
*-- many excerpts you can see --

There you go again - Spreading Liberal Fascist Propaganda Lies.
Everyone knows that if it wasn't for Barney Frank and his honey pot
Fannie and his gigilo Freddy, none of this ObaMa0ist Democrat DISASTER
would have occured.
Go back under your rock and sleep it off your 1960's Marxist hangover.

Telamon wrote:
In article
,
wrote:

Someone once said that Senator Hubert Humphrey, liberal icon of an
earlier generation, had more solutions than there were problems.

Senator Humphrey was not unique in that respect. In fact, our present
economic crisis has developed out of politicians providing solutions
to problems that did not exist-- and, as a result, producing a problem
whose existence is all too real and all too painful.

What was the problem that didn't exist? It was a national problem of
unaffordable housing. The political crusade for affordable housing got
into high gear in the 1990s and led to all kinds of changes in
mortgage lending practices, which in turn led to a housing boom and
bust that has left us in the mess we are now trying to dig out of.

Usually housing affordability is measured in terms of how much of the
average person's income it takes to cover either apartment rent or a
monthly mortgage payment.

There were certainly places here and there where it took half a
family's income just to put a roof over their heads. Many such places
were in coastal California but there were a few others, here and
there, on the east coast and elsewhere.

But, vast areas of the country in between-- "flyover country" to the
east coast and west coast elites-- had housing prices that took no
larger share of the average American's income than in the decade
before the affordable housing crusade got under way.

Why then a national crusade by Washington politicians over local
problems? Probably as good an answer as any is that "It seemed like a
good idea at the time." How are we to be kept aware of how
compassionate and how important our elected officials are unless they
are busy solving some problem for us?

The problem of skyrocketing housing prices was all too real in those
places where this problem existed. When you have to live on half your
income because the other half goes for housing, that's a real downer.

Almost invariably, these severe local problems had local causes--
usually severe local restrictions on building homes. These
restrictions had a variety of politically attractive names, ranging
from "open space" laws and "smart growth" policies to "environmental
protection" and "farmland preservation."

Like most wonderful-sounding political slogans, none of these lofty
goals was discussed in terms of that one four-letter word that people
do not use in polite political society-- "cost."

No one asked how many hundreds of thousands of dollars would be added
to the cost of an average home by "open space" laws, for example. Yet
empirical studies have shown that land-use restrictions added at least
a hundred thousand dollars to the average home price in dozens of
places around the country.

In some places, such as coastal California, these restrictions added
several hundred thousand dollars to the price of the average home.

In other words, where the problem was real, local politicians were the
cause. National politicians then tried to depict this as a national
problem that they would solve.

How would they solve it? By pressuring banks and other lenders to
lower their requirements for making mortgage loans, so that more
people could buy houses. The Department of Housing and Urban
Development gave the government-sponsored enterprise Fannie Mae quotas
for how many mortgages it should buy that were made out for people for
low to moderate incomes.

Like most political "solutions," the solution to the affordable
housing "problem" took little or no account of the wider repercussions
this would entail.

Various economists and others warned repeatedly that lowered lending
standards meant more risky mortgages. Given the complex relationships
among banks and other financial institutions, including many big Wall
Street firms, if mortgages started defaulting, all the financial
dominoes could start falling.

These warnings were brushed aside. Politicians were too busy solving a
national problem that didn't exist. In the process, they created very
real problems. Now they are now offering even more solutions that will
undoubtedly lead to even bigger problems.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/

Fannie Mae plans bonuses of $1M for top executives; Freddie Mac has
similar plans

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fannie...-14679491.html

Impeach Barney Frank!

Tar and feather him and run him out of town.


Your guys get to be tarred and feathered first.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-ba..._b_176538.html

JB