What is Digg?563 Comments
- cavedog0, on 09/29/2008, -25/+192Huzzah! The Dollar lives to fight again!
- brb1031, on 09/29/2008, -8/+162Note: this vote was NOT a straight split along party lines:
Dem: 140 for, 95 against
Rep: 65 for, 133 against
Source:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/29/1428/7 ...
I think this is a quite uncommon victory for the people. Hope we can get some real accountability in the next try (cause you know this isn't over).
I applaud and thank those protecting our interests for a change, the house republicans, and the dems willing to break with the majority leadership. - leodavinci, on 09/29/2008, -5/+124Calls to Congress does work, especially 5 weeks out from election. They got so many calls they got scared *****. About time our government was afraid of the people rather than the other way around.
- d3nv3r, on 09/29/2008, -24/+127Halleluiah!
Members of the hill have final grown a pair.
No more “fear” tactics.
Let US get back together. - zephc, on 09/29/2008, -2/+100Live within your means.
- inactive, on 09/29/2008, -13/+104Anybody wonder how we got here?
From the Wall Street Journal:
September 30, 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
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.
- pointsguy, on 09/29/2008, -9/+98Gov't doing the right thing for once. Well, until they approve the $699bn bailout.
- austenallred, on 09/29/2008, -38/+126Ron Paul FTW!
- tiffanyjm, on 09/29/2008, -13/+95This is simply amazing.
- AlbionEikon, on 09/29/2008, -17/+85Wow! Perhaps, I should reconsider my perspective of Republicans!
- iancgi, on 09/29/2008, -3/+60he cant veto something that doesn't reach his desk.
- iancgi, on 09/29/2008, -11/+62Lets keep their feet to the flame everyone. Its time to take our country back!
- tyronenguyen, on 09/29/2008, -2/+51true story. Banks will still be around to lend; you'll just have to prove yourself truly worthy for a loan.
- chesterjosiah, on 09/29/2008, -16/+64Is there anything we, as US citizens, can do to help this situation? Do we just sit back, watch the financial sector get rocked, and hope that we don't lose our own jobs in the aftermath?
What is the natural evolution of the financial industry? Peer to peer lending? Let's get some discussion going. - sockpuppets, on 09/29/2008, -3/+50Schoolhouse rock fail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouZTIqcvb30 - moofree, on 09/29/2008, -5/+48Thank you for listening to your constituents.
Now please don't let them hammer this bill through later in the week! - Fleckman, on 09/29/2008, -24/+60Congress - LISTEN UP!!! The American People don't want you fixing ANYTHING!!! YOU GUYS ARE INCOMPETENT AND ARE THE ONES WHO GOT US INTO THIS MESS!!! GO HOME AND FRANKLY - STAY HOME
- YojimboJango, on 09/29/2008, -5/+30Ron Paul '08: We told you so.
- atbnet, on 09/29/2008, -10/+35Well the stock market sure took it on the chin because of this... but it is better for the American citizens overall. This was going to be a terrible plan.
- BradHAWK, on 09/29/2008, -1/+25If anyone tried to veto a bill that didn't pass, it would be Bush.
- algaeturd, on 09/29/2008, -5/+29Cut your spending, pay off debt, look into gold and silver investments, continue to watch the market to anticipate any crisis. Most importantly...live BELOW your means right now. NOT within. There's a huge difference. The party is over...time to try to cut back dramatically as an American consumer.
- Katana314, on 09/29/2008, -3/+26It seems that for once, we owe our thanks to Republicans. Let's bite our tongues and offer our gratitude.
- apena89, on 09/29/2008, -0/+23great find!
- thejwac, on 09/29/2008, -8/+29I emailed, called, and emailed (again) my Congressman Harry Mitchell (D). I encouraged several neighbors in his district to tell him their thoughts as well. I completely expected him to vote FOR the bailout considering his voting record and his party affiliation. Thankfully he voted against it. Contact your congressman (especially if he/she voted for the bill) and let them know that you are not supporting any bailout.
If you do support the bailout, don't call anyone. - playmusic, on 09/29/2008, -13/+33Unfortunately, if we lose our jobs (because companies cannot secure credit)... and unemployment increases dramatically (or even if banks continue to fail)... it will be a lot harder for us to even get that dollar.
- YojimboJango, on 09/29/2008, -3/+23Yes, it's in our interest to see that corrupt banks and overextended credit lenders fail, and fail hard.
- mshtml, on 09/29/2008, -7/+27Its a big mess but the alternative is worse. A bailout will destroy the purchasing power of the dollar. What good is having money if it doesn't buy anything?
- mshtml, on 09/29/2008, -3/+23Its not over yet. They'll keep trying to pass this ***** using slighly different language. Keep calling your congressional leaders.
- thatsmyaibo, on 09/29/2008, -9/+29Thank the GOP.
- funkedup, on 09/29/2008, -6/+26Don't get your hopes up. Typical history suggests that there will be another meeting in the next couple of days and then they will have a re-vote, and they'll just approve the bill anyways.
Not my idea and I don't like it, but it will happen... - BlackJackJester, on 09/29/2008, -0/+19So Clinton pressured Fannie Mae? Does this mean he was the one that poured the soap in the water (to create a bubble, if you don't get it)?
- CaptainValor, on 09/29/2008, -2/+21Double true!
- hivoltage815, on 09/29/2008, -1/+20At least we still hold power over the House. The Senate and the White House aren't near as scared of us.
- layfield02, on 09/29/2008, -2/+20Yup, Dr. Paul has been telling us this was going to happen all along, yet most people think he's clueless. Wake up people!
- connieLingus, on 09/29/2008, -2/+19more like the $1.4tn bailout.
- irishclover, on 09/29/2008, -5/+22True that!
- sockpuppets, on 09/29/2008, -1/+18Both of you go to your rooms without dinner.
- alienpunk778, on 09/29/2008, -3/+19finally congress listened!
- carve, on 09/29/2008, -3/+19Guess what- if there is demand for lending, THEN THERE WILL BE LENDERS! However, these lenders will be better than before because they won't take crap sub-prime loans and then expect to be bailed out. The market works!
- mnocket, on 09/29/2008, -0/+15That's very big of you. Sometimes we get it right - sometimes you get it right, but mostly we both get it wrong.
- weeFred, on 09/29/2008, -10/+25Quick, somebody call John McCain!
- BullPucky333, on 09/29/2008, -6/+21No Bailout of Wall Street!! Businesses are getting creative in finding ways to fund their operations - without banks. The banks may find out we don't need them as much as they like. Let them fail and wallow in their own mistakes. Let the free-market work. We cannot bail these banks out with taxpayer money.
- Ymeg, on 09/29/2008, -3/+17The market needs to take this and heal its self.. The alternative band-aid is infected and will hurt us much more over time.
- Yazilliclick, on 09/29/2008, -1/+15Of course brokers are upset, where do you think they have their money and make their money? From this seriously inflated practice of trading around debts and playing hide the money. Their bubble is bursting though now and the market is resetting. I'm sure all the IT companies and venture capitalists during the tech bubble would have been more than happy to get a huge government bailout also when their bubble burst.
- bmystry, on 09/29/2008, -0/+14You're ready for financial and zombie troubles!
- XeRoX2k2, on 09/29/2008, -4/+18so they voted for the tax payers to NOT pay for big business's screwups...
holy ***** elected officials voted in favor of the people they represent not just in favor of the companies that bribe them er "donate" to their campaigns. - wkeown, on 09/29/2008, -3/+17And the market keeps plunging. I find it ironic that Bush was pushing so hard for this, democrats in the house voted for it and republicans against it. Democrats and liberals that I see on here and in person don't want it to be done, and Republicans I know in person want it to go through. All I am hearing from brokers is that they are pissed because the market is going to keep going down and that "Anyone who votes against it is a fool." What a mess.
- BlackJackJester, on 09/29/2008, -3/+16yes, because there are plenty of banks out there that didn't ***** up, and are eager to pick up the shattered pieces of the bubble banks.
- fuze44, on 09/29/2008, -4/+17I'm so glad Digg is here to provide me economic wisdom from 17-year-olds.
- sphigel, on 09/29/2008, -6/+19as opposed to delaying the inevitable for as long as possible until we have a complete economic collapse. Seriously, how can you be that ignorant. The bailout would not address the underlying issue. Do you seriously think we can just throw 700 billion dollars that we don't have at this problem and it will go away for good?
Wait, don't answer that. Your reply would probably make me lose all faith in humanity. -
Show 51 - 100 of 569 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is