Stealing an American birthright for your progeny is also theft (is much of anything worth more than American citizenship, really?) and should be punished by deportation or jail time then deportation.

In the old days, being censured by your peer group was enough to keep much greed in check (and illegitimate babies from being born, etc.). Now, no one feels they “can be judged.”

How many banker bailout bonuses would it take to pay for the whole of the proposed Social Security package? What ten, twenty? Guess who paid for those bonuses? C.Tucker probably paid tax on her 10k P.Prize bonanza. The only plus I see to having paid out nearly a trillion to the bankers is that some of her 10k prize money was used when it was taxed. Ha!

Fannie and Freddie, however, didn’t pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.

These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren’t subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.

As a person who uses a seeing eye dog every day for the past eight years, I find that remark offensive.

I don’t fail to understand things just because I can’t see, but people like you certainly fail to understand that a lack of sight does not equal a lack of perception or understanding.

I do fail to understand why, in this time of political correctness, it remains ok to compare blindness to stupidity or lack of understanding.

Maybe YOU might be unaware or unable to understand things if you went blind, but the people who really are blind remain more preceptive than you will ever know.

As a side note, my guide dog can help me through a gymnasium so crowded that you sighted folks can’t move.

You didn’t read the article that I linked.

In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

F & F went from a high of 48% down to 24% in this period. The private sector stepped into this void. I see that I should have posted the full paragraph:

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.(bold emphasis added)

* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
——————–

These appear to be the same thing. But I never questioned who originated the loans. I stated that Fannie & Freddie, as proxy Gvt agencies by their very existence and charters, compounded the bank’s errors by provided a way for the banks to originate the loans and then sell them to Fannie and Freddie. Thus the banks profit and taxpayers foot the bill for all the risk.

Fannie & Freddie were willing, nay, eager, buyers who bought up $5T in loans many of which were bad and probably never should have issued. Had F&F not been there to buy these loans and eat the risk, I think far fewer bad loans would have originated, CRA pressures or not.

So much to unpack from this, so I’ll start with:

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication.

But to back up a bit, blaming the banks for this is just wrong.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren’t true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critic.

Quityourbitchen

Michele Obama has 26 taxpayer funded assistants. That’s more than any 1st Lady in history. Do you think the?
taxpayer should pay $1,750,000.000 a year for her assistants? She already has her mother living in the White House to help with the children, why does she need 26 assistants? The First Lady is not a political office; why does she need so many assistants?