Login    Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » Racing Forum » Ken0069's Blog




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

Are you in favor of the bailout proposed by Congress and President Bush?
Poll ended at Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:41 pm
Yes 9%  9%  [ 1 ]
No 91%  91%  [ 10 ]
Total votes : 11
 
Author Message
 Post subject: Bailout Politics?
 Post Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:41 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Bailout Politics
by Thomas Sowell

Nothing could more painfully demonstrate what is wrong with Congress than the current financial crisis.

Among the Congressional "leaders" invited to the White House to devise a bailout "solution" are the very people who have for years created the risks that have now come home to roost.

Five years ago, Barney Frank vouched for the "soundness" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and said "I do not see" any "possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury."

Moreover, he said that the federal government has "probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing."

Earlier this year, Senator Christopher Dodd praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for "riding to the rescue" when other financial institutions were cutting back on mortgage loans. He too said that they "need to do more" to help subprime borrowers get better loans.

In other words, Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd wanted the government to push financial institutions to lend to people they would not lend to otherwise, because of the risk of default.

The idea that politicians can assess risks better than people who have spent their whole careers assessing risks should have been so obviously absurd that no one would take it seriously.

But the magic words "affordable housing" and the ugly word "redlining" led to politicians directing where loans and investments should go, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and various other coercions and threats.

The roots of this problem go back many years, but since the crisis to which all this led happened on George W. Bush's watch, that is enough for those who think in terms of talking points, without wanting to be confused by the facts.

In reality, President Bush tried unsuccessfully, years ago, to get Congress to create some regulatory agency to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

N. Gregory Mankiw, his Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, warned in February 2004 that expecting a government bailout if things go wrong "creates an incentive for a company to take on risk and enjoy the associated increase in return."

Since risky investments usually pay more than safer investments, the incentive is for a government-supported enterprise to take bigger risks, since they get more profit if the risks pay off and the taxpayers get stuck with the losses if not.

The government does not guarantee Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, but the widespread assumption has been that the government would step in with a bailout to prevent chaos in financial markets.

Alan Greenspan, then head of the Federal Reserve System, made the same point in testifying before Congress in February 2004. He said: "The Federal Reserve is concerned" that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were using this implicit reliance on a government bailout in a crisis to take more risks, in order to "multiply the profitability of subsidized debt."

Chairman Greenspan added his voice to those urging Congress to create a "regulator with authority on a par with that of banking regulators" to reduce the riskiness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a riskiness ultimately borne by the taxpayers.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not deserve to be bailed out, but neither do workers, families and businesses deserve to be put through the economic wringer by a collapse of credit markets, such as occurred during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Neither do the voters deserve to be deceived on the eve of an election by the notion that this is a failure of free markets that should be replaced by political micro-managing.

If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were free market institutions they could not have gotten away with their risky financial practices because no one would have bought their securities without the implicit assumption that the politicians would bail them out.

It would be better if no such government-supported enterprises had been created in the first place and mortgages were in fact left to the free market. This bailout creates the expectation of future bailouts.

Phasing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would make much more sense than letting politicians play politics with them again, with the risk and expense being again loaded onto the taxpayers.


Last edited by Ken0069 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5071
Location: Elizabethtown, KY
I'm kind of on the fence on this one. :-k  If it help retirement funds, 401ks and stuff for people I'm for it. To help out the banks and let them run free then no.

_________________
Steve

6.7772 @ 101.51 1/8th 10.747 @ 122.24 1/4

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:54 pm
Posts: 1619
Location: Western Illinois
The bail out that was just passed is a shameful display of ear mark pork barrel spending. There was something in that bill for just about every congressman's special interest group.

Then they sit there and say they didn't like it but was forced into passing it. Don't that ring the B/S meter off the wall. I didn't see the ones that didn't vote for it on the news pointing any fingers. As a matter of fact, most of them didn't vote until it passed waiting to see if they had to vote for it or not.

I want tp point out that both presidential candidates voted for this pork laden bill. It had tax breaks for companies that out sourced your job over seas to the study of hormones of some kind of animal.  

It has changed my mind about firing my senators and representatives. I'm not only voting against them, I'm going to actively campaign against them. They are the scum of the earth and deserve jail, but I'll settle for putting them on the street.

Do you know this bill just cost you over30,000 dollars apiece. Even if they get paid back for the bail out, there is enough pork to spend anything made and it won't be fixing health care or Social security.

_________________
Older I get the less I know for sure Dennis


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
My Congressman voted NO EVERY TIME on this bill!  I sent him a fax last week telling him to vote NO on it and he did.  

From what I can gather from the news people, most voters didn't want this bail out but a majority of those in Congress voted against the peoples wishes.  Another reason to get rid of the bastards!

Not only that, but both McCain and B Hussein voted FOR it also!  Pitty!

So, who is the Liberterian candidate?  O:)


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

Board index » Racing Forum » Ken0069's Blog


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to: