Fannie Mae brings back no-downpayment mortgages
What could go wrong? From the Washington Independent:
“Buy new with $1,000 down,” the advertisement says, the words resting atop a trim green clapboard house offset by a bright blue sky. “The time has come. Stop wasting rent check after rent check and start building equity in your own home. And with only $1,000 down, affordable monthly payments and no private mortgage insurance required, the dream is closer than you think.”
It sounds too good to be true. But it is true. This offer does not come from a subprime lender, looking to reel in thousands of unqualified and ill-advised homebuyers, only to slap them with add-ons, fees and variable rates. It is not a teaser or a trick. The advertisement references a program initiated by the National Council of State Housing Agencies and Fannie Mae, the taxpayer-backed, government-sponsored enterprise that buys up mortgages from lending banks.
The Federal Housing Authority already offers mortgages for just 3.5 percent down — a program that now accounts for one in five U.S. home loans (link thanks to The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle) — but apparently the geniuses at Fannie Mae didn’t think that was enough of a taxpayer subsidy. Perhaps they were giddy at the prospect that the taxpayer bailout for them and sibling agency Freddie Mac will end up costing “only” $150 billion or so, although Fan alone still has nearly $220 billion in bad loans on its balance sheet.
Now, commentators left and right can agree that this [$1,000 downpayment program] is not a good idea. No matter how stable said low-income homeowners are, they shouldn’t be buying houses with no equity, because if they suddenly have to sell said houses, they’re going to have trouble coming up with 6% to pay the broker, closing costs, etc.
(snip)
It’s true that this particular program is small — I don’t think the economy is going to be brought to its knees by several hundred houses. The important thing, however, is that this is how the government thinks about housing. (italics original)
This kind of attitude among the feds is why a story yesterday that the White House was considering a $46 billion bailout for homeowners, by paying down mortgage balances for homeowners whose loans are underwater, got so much traction before the Treasury shot it down. It is why President Obama gets such low marks from Americans on the economy.
As I’ve said before, a president who inherits a recession doesn’t get judged on the recession itself. He gets judged on whether he’s making things better or worse, the direction in which his policies take us. And when the recession was sparked by a housing-market collapse featuring bad loans made to people who couldn’t afford them, doubling down on subsidies to unqualified buyers is the absolute last thing Washington should be doing.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
130 comments Add your comment
The Aristocrat
August 6th, 2010
10:46 am
This is disturbing. The Aristocrat purchased a home in 2008 and paid 20% down in cash to avoid making PMI payments. If you are unable to secure a minimum 10% to put down on a property, you have no business owning it. Rent factors in maintenance. Assume that if you can barely afford the monthly mortgage payments that you will spend another 30% to keep up the property.
Casual Observer
August 6th, 2010
10:53 am
As that DPoK (Drunken Pal of Kennedy), Sen. Chris Dodd so keenly observed, “If you force people to pay 5% down then only people who can afford houses will be able to buy houses”, or words to that effect.
OK, so maybe the Democrats (Dodd, Frank, Waters, et al) who drove the housing market into the sewer were fueled by good intentions. What is their excuse now that we KNOW these practices are insane?
Appears the goal of these elected officials is to finally destroy the US economy.
CrazyInGA
August 6th, 2010
10:57 am
The real problem is “TRUE” affordable housing. In the last 20 years, you couldn’t find a $60,000 home in the worst neighborhoods; everything was $100,000 o rmore. Now that the mortgage industry has tanked you see homes values fall and you have cheap houses everywhere.
In 2000, I remember seeing homes that were built like the old “shotgun” homes selling for $150,000 or more. You couldn’t even get a townhome for under $80,000. None of these properties were woth that much money in the year 2000 or 30 years worth of mortgage payments (from that date).
People talk about their homes being underwater; the truth is that the homes were not worth the money they were paying for them. I’m specifically talking about those huge subdivisions in “cow pastures” where everything looks exactly the same and very little space between the homes.
CJ
August 6th, 2010
11:07 am
“As I’ve said before, a president who inherits a recession doesn’t get judged on the recession itself. He gets judged on whether he’s making things better or worse, the direction in which his policies take us.”
A friendly reminder that we lost more jobs every month for the last 18 months, give or take, of Bush’s second term. After Obama was inaugurated, save one month, we lost fewer jobs every month until the economy was finally adding jobs again. Nobody can reasonably argue that going from losing more than 700,000 per month to reducing job loss every month until we were finally adding jobs isn’t “making things better.” Estimates vary regarding how many more millions and millions of jobs would have been lost under Bush, but the consensus is that the Great Recession would likely have been more like another great depression.
With regard to replacing the jobs lost because of Bush’s recession, we would be doing much better if the Senate Republicans would stop blocking up or down votes on jobs saving measures, or the Republican “moderates” would stop forcing Dems to reducing the effectiveness of job saving measures before agreeing to allow an up or down vote. It takes a lot of chutzpah to prevent Dems from taking action to save and add jobs, and then blame Dems for not saving more/adding more jobs.
Also, another quick reminder that FannieMae/FreddieMac loans that defaulted in the last few years made up a small percentage of mortgages foreclosed on—most of which were privately funded loans. It’s also worth noting that FannieMae/FreddieMac were private corporations run into the ground by stupid, greedy, overpaid CEO’s who made bad bets with their investments, just as Bear Stearns and Goldman Sachs did. They did not falter because of their risky loans to homeowners
Again, the right’s obsession with FannieMae/FreddieMac has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics. It is but another manifestation of the Southern Strategy.
AngryRedMarsWoman
August 6th, 2010
11:09 am
@CrazyInGa – The reason there were no reasonably priced homes is because mortgage companies were giving out these “Zero Down” mortgages. If you have to put down 10-20%, people who sell their homes have to be reasonable. With Zero Down (or less!!), you can set your home price at 20% or more of what it is worth because there is no pain for the buyer. And with so much demand from buyers, prices rise. Like with college educations, we have to start accepting that not everyone should be a homeowner and that allowing those folks to incur the debt is actually cruel. For many people, renting is the best option. The expense of home ownership goes beyond the mortgage and taxes — my home is paid for and in the past ten years I have built a retaining wall, put on a new roof, new driveway, earth anchors, tree removal, basement waterproofing, pool resurfacing, pool repairs, etc. and scheduling a new deck next year – and those are just the things I HAVE to do to keep it up and running and doesn’t include the interior painting and the wood floors I wanted. A mortgage on top of all of that, especially one that stretches the homeowner to begin with…well, it just means that the house falls apart.
CJ
August 6th, 2010
11:11 am
Correction: They did not falter because of
theirrisky loans to homeowners.CrazyInGA
August 6th, 2010
11:26 am
AngryRedMarsWoman
August 6th, 2010
11:09 am
There weren’t any homes in this category LONG before the No Money Down or adjustable rate mortgages “scam” came on the scene. You didn’t see a No Money Down or adjustable rate advertisement in the early 90’s; but you still couldn’t find affordable homes.
So your conclusion and argument are FALSE.
booger
August 6th, 2010
11:26 am
CJ,
Maybe you should read the financial pages today. 131,000 jobs lost last month. Much worse than predicted. Also the stupid, greedy CEO’s you refer to were given their objectives by Dodd and Frank. These included increasing subprime loans each and every quarter of 2005. There was a very thorough and well researched article on this in the Wall Street Journal Monday I believe, including an interview with Raines, the greedy and stupid CEO of Fannie Mae.
Kyle Wingfield
August 6th, 2010
11:33 am
bit.ly/IzHzX
By “every month for the last 18 months, give or take, of Bush’s second term,” CJ apparently means 13 months, and by “save one month,” CJ apparently means “save five months.”
And the trend line of late has been in the wrong direction, with two straight losing months after a few months of gains. Taken in the very best light, this suggests that Obama’s policies were good for a one-time, temporary boost — and even that requires one to ignore the effects of other policies, primarily monetary ones.
Oh, and something I’ve been meaning to post for a few days: This analysis of CJ’s “best stimulus report evah,” in which we see that that very report’s own numbers suggest the stimulus cost $10 billion more than the economic activity it allegedly stimulated, when everything’s adjusted for inflation: http://bit.ly/aG8Mgq
Also, fixed this for you: “It’s also worth noting that FannieMae/FreddieMac were private corporations run into the ground by stupid, greedy, overpaid CEO’s who made bad bets with their investments **because their implicit taxpayer guarantees, now explicit, allowed them a) to price out competitors and b) to know that Fan and Fred themselves wouldn’t actually have to foot the bill**.”
Fan and Fred own or guarantee half the mortgages in the U.S. Let’s not pretend that purely private companies could have captured that kind of market share.
mrs. w.
August 6th, 2010
11:48 am
Same sh** – different day. When I bought my first home in 1983 I was only 22 years old. I had excellent credit and a fairly decent job. I had to jump through HOOPS to get a home loan and I also had to put 10% down. This is the way it should be – you should have to prove yourself before someone let’s you borrow the kind of money it takes to buy a house. It won’t be long before these buyers are using my tax money for relief and I am more that a little sick of it.
booger
August 6th, 2010
11:51 am
I have always resisted the idea by many that this administration is purposely trying to ruin our free enterprise system, but it is hard to believe that anyone is so ignorant about business that they could continue to enact policy after policy which cripples businesses. The most blatent current example is the moretorium in the gulf. Over 100,000 people out of work because of this lunacy even after Obama,s own scientific panel formed to advise him advised against it. And this was a panel heavily weighted toward environmental sciences. Their advice was based on the simple fact that to discontinue drilling one must put a temporary cap on the well. the riskiest part of the drilling process is not ongoing drilling, it’s closing the well and reopening it. Obama’s policy, therefore increased the risk of another accident by many times. Meanwhile, three rigs have left the Gulf, and many more are considering it. Chavez is also benefiting greatly from our cease drilling order.
Jason T
August 6th, 2010
12:05 pm
Kyle
Nice job of correcting CJ.
Casual Observer
August 6th, 2010
12:06 pm
CJ,
The greedy CEO, Franklin Raines, was a prominent member of the Obama election camp and remains an advisor. In addition, Raines, Al Gore, George Soros, Michael Dell and other supporters of Obama are the reported owners of the software system that will be used to operate the Exchange created to trade the “carbon credits” in the Cap and Trade Bill. Oh yes, and the facility is also in place in CHICAGO!
Estimates place the annual volume of the Exchange somewhere between the Chicago Board of Trade and the New York Stock Exchange. A volume that would enrich Al Gore by BILLIONS of dollars the first year. Goldman Sachs will be the facillitator of the trades and will be paid hundreds of millions of dollars.
Do I need to go on? The whole Cap and Trade idea is nothing but another means to rip off the American taxpayer and the Environmental Movement is nothing but a fabrication to facillitate the theft. This does not mean the rank and file environmentalists are crooks, just that they are being used by Gore, Soros, Obama and HW Bush.
booger
August 6th, 2010
12:26 pm
Casual……,
And let’s not forget the fuel that feeds this fraud. Global warming. That’s why a prominent Princeton Physisit, who was on Al Gore’s and the United Nation’s advisory panel now state that this project has become so poisioned with politics, it is no longer valid.
booger
August 6th, 2010
12:31 pm
Now that Fannie and Freddie are nationalized, and virtually unregulated, isn’t it a bit unfair for them to compete with private lenders? No private bank in the country has the resources to compete in the mortgage arena.
Also Kyle, do you happen to know how many European countries have institutions similar to Fannie and Freddie?
Linda
August 6th, 2010
12:36 pm
The economic crisis started with changes made to residential real estate lending in the ’90’s, all in the name of the socialist program for Affordable Housing, the ideology that home ownership is a right, not a privilege. Bill Clinton bragged in his autobiography how it was his administration that was responsible for over $800 billion dollars of subprime loans to low-income borrowers.
The fed. govt. REQUIRED Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac to make over 50% of their loans to low-income borrowers, many of whom had no income or job, no down payment & no assets. How could anyone in their right mind believe that conservatives would think up such a socialist agenda?
The program described in Kyle’s article above means that history always repeats itself. Will the Dems/Progressives blame Bush when it fails?
Casual Observer
August 6th, 2010
12:40 pm
Further evidence there is no difference between the R’s and D’s in national politics.
From the Canadian Free Press:
Soros is a partner in the Carlyle Group where he has invested more than 100 million dollars. According to an article by “The Baltimore Chronicle’s” Alice Cherbonnier, the Carlye Group is run by “a veritable who’s who of former Republican leaders,” from CIA man Frank Carlucci, to CIA head [and ex-President] George Bush, Sr.
These Democrat and Republican crooks are brothers in the plan for a One-World Government, the advance of socialism and destruction of capitalism and US prosperity. As David Rockefeller said when questioned on Socialism, “I will be one of the few with money”.
We, the ordinary citizens, are simply a means to dominance for the Oabmas, Rockefellers, Bushes, Soros, Gores and other egomaniacal “bigshots”. We must throw the bums out of Congress in November and again in 2012, along with Obama. The incumbents must go!
CJ
August 6th, 2010
12:42 pm
From that left wing website, Federal Reserve.gov (emphasis mine)
“Our analysis of the loan data found that about 60 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods. Such borrowers are not the populations targeted by the [Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)]. In addition, more than 20 percent of the higher-priced loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas by independent nonbank institutions–that is, institutions not covered by the CRA.6
Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis.
Of course, loan originations are only one path that banking institutions can follow to meet their CRA obligations. They can also purchase loans from lenders not covered by the CRA, and in this way encourage more of this type of lending. The data also suggest that these types of transactions have not been a significant factor in the current crisis. Specifically, less than 2 percent of the higher-priced and CRA-credit-eligible mortgage originations sold by independent mortgage companies were purchased by CRA-covered institutions.”
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm#f6
stranger in a strange land
August 6th, 2010
12:46 pm
This is a surprise? Since we at Fannie / Freddie don’t really have to play by any rules and actually operate as a real bank / business – who cares if a loan can’t be paid back? Loan goes bad? No problem – we’ll just get some more money from the government, or from….ummmm….YOU. I still got my job, and my bonus. Financial reform is for suckers. (BTW, should you disagree you must be a racist).
ButtHead
August 6th, 2010
12:48 pm
Didn’t Obozo say that “the republicans drove the car into the ditch now they want the keys back?” Aren’t the dimacrats driving Fannie and Freddie? BWAHAHAHAHA
Casual Observer
August 6th, 2010
12:53 pm
Linda,
AMEN! The Liberals (Democrats) created the crisis they now claim they must solve.
Do not forget that the Congress for the last two years of the Bush administration was in the control of Democrats who pushed the spending bills and increased the deficits. These bills were supported by Obama who now tries to lay the blame on Bush.
Do not forget Reagan pushed the tax cuts but the Congress, controlled by Democrats, increased spending faster than the tax cuts increased revenues. The Democrat argument is always that there were deficits under Reagan but the Dems increased spending is seldom mentioned.
This was followed by tax increases by Bush the elder and the drive into the abyss by Clinton who balanced the budget, with the aid of a Republican Congress, but then laid the foundation for the economic collapse. Sadly, W was more of a liberal than perhaps even Clinton. W was all talk and no action, or in Texas – All hat and no cattle.
jt
August 6th, 2010
12:55 pm
CJ needs to quit fighting,
and just enjoy it. It might help for him to think of Obama to get it over with.
Grinding himself between taxes, corruption, and inflation……..
add a government subsidized egg and a cup of butter milk,
he is a walking wedge of cornbread.
He just does not know it yet.
Grand Forks
August 6th, 2010
12:58 pm
Just another example that Obama has no clue as to how the economy works. The front page of this website has an column about “unexpected job loses.”
Left wingers are RETARDED.
Kyle Wingfield
August 6th, 2010
12:59 pm
CJ: I wonder if there have been any updates on this topic in the 20 months since that speech was given.
Grand Forks
August 6th, 2010
1:00 pm
“A friendly reminder that we lost more jobs every month for the last 18 months, give or take, of Bush’s second term.”
CJ is delusional. Guess she doesn’t remember unemployment being 4.4% in 2006. Guess she also doesn’t remember democrats taking control of congress either.
CJ has a low IQ.
CJ
August 6th, 2010
1:04 pm
With regard to job loss, Kyle is correct to point out that it was more up and down under Obama than I remembered. Nevertheless, the trend from increasing job loss under Bush to decreasing job loss and private-sector job gains is entirely clear to anybody who takes a minute to look at this chart: http://bit.ly/94mRVr
A caveat–Due in part to Republican obstructionism in the Senate preventing Dems from saving jobs at the state and local government level, the number of jobs lost in the past two months in the public sector canceled out the number of job gains in the private sector–something that should please Kyle greatly (Bureau of Labor Statistics): http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
“JULY 2010: Private-sector payroll employment edged up by 71,000…Government employment fell by 202,000 in July, largely reflecting the loss of 143,000 temporary workers hired for Census 2010. Employment in both state and local governments edged down over the month.”
jt
August 6th, 2010
1:06 pm
I’m sorry. I assumed CJ was a HE….My bust.
SHE is a walking wedge of cornbread.
I’m out.
CJ
August 6th, 2010
1:08 pm
“CJ: I wonder if there have been any updates on this topic in the 20 months since that speech was given.”
Me too. Please let us know if you find more recent updates that contradict that info.
stranger in a strange land
August 6th, 2010
1:10 pm
Grand Forks @ 1258 – au contraire my friend – in two words I can explain how Obama does know exactly how the economy works: Robin Hood.
Casual Observer
August 6th, 2010
1:13 pm
CJ,
The flaw in your “analysis” is that once a lending rule is established, such as no money down or no income verification or a LTV above 100, the rule applies to all lending or the anti-discrimination lawyers will jump on the lenders.
As a previous poster observed, the easing of the lending rules, regardless of the % of loans in the CRA sector, drove home prices higher than the rate of inflation and higher than the market could ultimately support – thus the collapse in the housing market.
As the CRA borrowers (to coin a phrase) entered the low end of the market the new buyers pushed prices higher and this moved the low-end sellers into higher priced homes and so on. As the market heats new builders, some capable and some not, enter the market place and the abundance of lenders drive the number of mortgages available higher and voila, there is “free money” available to existing home owners in the re-fi market. “Free” because the lowered lending standards for the CRA market are also available for the higher income borrowers.
The housing bubble (an unwarranted rise in prices), creates a credit bubble (an unwarranted availability of credit due to the CRA demands) and the bubbles create an ultimate implosion in both housing and credit. Then the banking crisis and here we are.
Now the Liberals (Democrats), led by Obama, want us to believe they are riding to the rescue to solve the crises, created by THE LIBERALS! What a great world we live in!
Casual Observer
August 6th, 2010
1:21 pm
Has anyone ever explained the calculation of “Jobs Saved”? Since the Obama administration uses this as a cornerstone of their jobs program there should be an explanation somewhere.
Why is there no question of the manner in which the Obama administration has manipulated teh calculation of the unemployment rate?
Skip
August 6th, 2010
1:23 pm
In the last 25 years I’ve purched 8 homes. Paid cash for 2, never put a dime down for the rest. Never been a day late so what’s your point?
Grand Forks
August 6th, 2010
1:24 pm
“in two words I can explain how Obama does know exactly how the economy works: Robin Hood.”
But Obama has never held a weapon in his life. Nor has he swung from ropes and played with swords. Well, maybe he played with Barney Fwanks sword.
CrazyInGA
August 6th, 2010
1:24 pm
There was nothing in the changes to the lending laws that ENCOURAGED no money down, no income verification or adjustable rate mortgages. There have been many sited instances where mortgage brokers encouraged people and then in other cases changed the information on respective mortgage applications.
Matter of fact, these types of practices were being advertised by buy/here and pay/here dealers long before banks starting using this practice. I’m almost sure, retail stored were using this same practice as well (no money down, same as cash, payments in 2014). Rooms To Go is a perfect example.
Linda
August 6th, 2010
1:28 pm
New Your Times 9/30/99 (1999) (1999)
“Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending
In a move that would help increase home ownership rates among minorities & low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corp. is easing the credit requirements on loans it will purchase from banks & other lenders…to extend home mortgages to individuals who credit is generally not good enough…make it nationwide…Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton adm. to expand mortgage loans among low & moderate income people…banks, thrifts institution & mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make loans to co-called subprime borrowers…Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s…Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk…prompting a government rescue…In July, (HUD) proposed that by…’01, 50% of Fannie…& Freddie’s portfolios be made up of loans to low & moderate-income borrowers.”
Jason T
August 6th, 2010
1:32 pm
Casual Observer
August 6th, 2010
1:21 pm
Has anyone ever explained the calculation of “Jobs Saved”?
My guess would be that this term came from that intellectual giant…Joe Biden.
David S
August 6th, 2010
1:46 pm
END THE FED. Without them and with a sound monetary system based on gold or silver this kind of spending and government guarantees could NEVER exist.
The answer is simple. End the Fed.
Linda
August 6th, 2010
1:48 pm
Most residential home loans are made by mortgage corporations which HAVE NO MONEY to lend.
As stated in the New York Times article above, Fannie Mae was the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages in 1999. They buy loans from mortgage companies that are written according to Fannie Mae guidelines. They bought 90% of Countrywide’s loans.
Fannie is buying almost 100% of new residential home loans today.
stranger in a strange land
August 6th, 2010
1:52 pm
Grand Forks@1:24 – too clever
stranger in a strange land
August 6th, 2010
1:55 pm
Casual Observer @ 1:21 – just as I explained to G Forks the Obama economic theory in 2 words, I can do the same for you in 2 words relative to “jobs saved” : Trust Us
You’re welcome
barking frog
August 6th, 2010
1:56 pm
David S 1:46 Remember 1929?
Lou
August 6th, 2010
1:57 pm
The shame of it all-actually making folks pay for a house. How can this happen in President Obama’s utopian spread the wealth plan. I think every baby born in the USA should have a stamp on their birth certificateentitling them to one free home at 18. We’re headed that way!
Politics to the right of Attila the Hun
August 6th, 2010
2:00 pm
As long as you have govt in artificially influencing the home buying market in the interest of “fairness” for low income buyers then things are just going to get screwed up all over again. This is just common sense but these gubment do gooders just don’t care.
Casual Observer
August 6th, 2010
2:04 pm
David S nailed the problem.
The Fed has reportedly loaned over $2 Trillion and refused to disclose the borrower(s).
Since the Fed and the Income Tax were created at approximately the same time we should eliminate both.
Obama may or may not have ever held a gun but he holds the power over the IRS and the IRS can take your money or property and use a gun to do so. The IRS needs to be disolved.
Politics to the right of Attila the Hun
August 6th, 2010
2:04 pm
Lou,
Its not just that. Its a shame that we have to pay for gas in our cars or that we have to pay for our cars period. Or groceries. When is Obama gonna give me my free groceries?
I remember that lady crying in happiness on election night when Obama won and exclaiming ” Now Obama’s gonna pay for my mortgage. Now he’s gonna put gas in my car”. Typical welfare entitlement mentality.
Jason T
August 6th, 2010
2:05 pm
We ALL know how well The Imperial Federal Government runs things…The US Postal Service just announced it lost $3.5 BILLION. How nice.
ButtHead
August 6th, 2010
2:08 pm
CJ, since you are a flaming liberal who claims to know all the answers, I would like you to answer one for me…. At what percentage of the population has to be working for the government before the private sector can’t support the government anymore? Are we there yet? Have we passed it?
Casual Observer
August 6th, 2010
2:21 pm
End foreign aid to oppressive regimes.
Eliminate the Departments of Education, Commerce, etc.
Close our military bases in countries who fail to support us and bring the troops home to secure our borders. Germany is an example.
Notify OPEC we will no longer pay above $30 per barrel for their oil. OPEC can charge others any amount they please. Drill on shore and we will not need to drill off-shore.
Build refineries, if Clinton had done so we would be far less dependent today. Clinton complained the refineries, if approved, would not be on line for 10 years. Looks pretty good today.
Force personal responsibility on the US by discontinuing welfare, etc. If the states wish to have welfare programs that is their right under the Constitution but the federal government needs to shrink dramatically. Americans, specifically those of Faith, have proved they will step in for those in need.
No more loans or aid to Petrobas or Chavez.
End Union and government ownership of GM and Chrysler. In fact, make union expansion more difficult, not less. Socialism is for losers.
That will do for a start.
Grand Forks
August 6th, 2010
2:23 pm
Another hideous Obama appointee quits. Geez, why are all of Obama’s people so freaking ugly?
AngryRedMarsWoman
August 6th, 2010
2:27 pm
I respectfully disagree with you, CrazyInGA, just based on my own personal experience. I bought my home in early 2000 and there was a lot of affordable housing at that time. In the years that followed I watched lesser homes in my area get sold for much more than I paid for mine and then the uncontrolled building of more and more communities at ungodly selling prices. When I bought my first home in 1995 we had to jump through hoops to borrow because my husband had been late on one car payment as it had fallen due about a week after he was shipped out without notice to fight in Desert Storm and the payment was late by the time he got to a port where he could call someone to mail the check for him. Shift ahead to 2002, etc. and it was all about no money down and adjustable rates and prices were skyrocketing. That is just my personal observation. Yours may differ. My argument and conclusion, based on that personal experience alone, is not false. The fact remains that low intro rate, no doc, no money down, etc. mortgages so increased the supply of buyers that the prices reacted accordingly and were out of control. People who had no business undertaking the responsibility of home ownership were suddenly buying $250,000 homes on a $40,000 annual income. Let’s not even start on the flippers. Now there are foreclosures everywhere. We are all losing as a result. Just my opinion…your mileage may vary.