Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on November 10, 2009, 10:42:03 AM
-
Government health care rescues protesters at anti-government health care rally.
Thousands of protesters came to Capitol Hill yesterday for Rep. Michele Bachmann’s (R-MN) protest against health care reform, capping months of fear-mongering about the dangers of so-called “socialized” medicine. However, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank notes that at one point, one of the protesters had a heart attack. Luckily, federally-employed medical personnel were able to quickly attend to him — even though they were part of government-run health care, which is supposedly quite dangerous:
More ominously, a man standing just beyond the TV cameras apparently suffered a heart attack 20 minutes after event began. Medical personnel from the Capitol physician’s office — an entity that could, quite accurately, be labeled government-run health care — rushed over, attaching electrodes to his chest and giving him oxygen and an IV drip.
This turned into an unwanted visual for the speakers, as a D.C. ambulance and firetruck, lights flashing, pulled in just behind the lawmakers. A path was made through the media section, and the patient, attended to by about 10 government medical personnel, was being wheeled away on a stretcher just as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) stepped to the microphone. “Join us in defeating Pelosi care!” he exhorted. A few members stole a glance at the stretcher.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/06/rally-heart-attack/
By the end of the day, “medics had administered government-run health care to at least five people in the crowd who were stricken as they denounced government-run health care.”
-
They are already paying taxes for that.
EMS is not the same thing as manadating people buy private inaurance coverage from companies that the govt makes corrupt deals with. If you cant see that, shame on you.
-
They are already paying taxes for that.
EMS is not the same thing as manadating people buy private inaurance coverage from companies that the govt makes corrupt deals with. If you cant see that, shame on you.
nonsense - have you ever known anyone who received a bill for ambulance (or had their insurance company refuse to pay for it)?
btw - sounds like you're advocating taxpayer funded healthcare
-
nonsense - have you ever known anyone who received a bill for ambulance (or had their insurance company refuse to pay for it)?
btw - sounds like you're advocating taxpayer funded healthcare
Certain functions, like ems, police, fire, people pay taxes for. The same is not true for health insurance, although people have to pny up fr medicade and illegals, etc. Its a societal choice.
You want it, I dont.
-
the cost of healthcare for those without insurance is passed on via higher premiums to those with insurance.
I posted that info a month or so ago but I can't find it now
-
the cost of healthcare for those without insurance is passed on via higher premiums to those with insurance.
I posted that info a month or so ago but I can't find it now
Post it again.
Why would a private carrier be paying a claim for someone without insurance? Is the claim that docs padd the bills of those with insurance to make up the costs?
-
Serious question for the libs and dems on here who support this health care sham. For everything that Obama has lied about and for the programs that were started and backfired might I add, why do you still back him and his looney administration? Serious question.
-
I didn't see where it said the Federal Government Ambulance Service and the Federal Government Paramedics. State/Local, thats is apparently what you don't seem to understand.
-
I didn't see where it said the Federal Government Ambulance Service and the Federal Government Paramedics. State/Local, thats is apparently what you don't seem to understand.
Because if it was a government run operation,everyone would have passed away plus three more would have gotten hurt by the ambulance hitting them.
-
Post it again.
Why would a private carrier be paying a claim for someone without insurance? Is the claim that docs padd the bills of those with insurance to make up the costs?
While people without health insurance often delay or forgo care, in 2008, the uninsured received $116 billion worth of care from hospitals, doctors, and other providers. Those costs were covered in the following ways:
The uninsured paid for, on average, more than one-third (37 percent) of the total costs of the care they received out of their own pockets.
Third-party sources, such as government programs and charities, paid for another 26 percent of that care.
The remaining amount, approximately $42.7 billion in 2008, was unpaid and constituted uncompensated care.
To make up for this uncompensated care, the costs were shifted to insurers in the form of higher charges for health services.
These higher charges are then passed on to families and businesses as higher premiums. The impact of this hidden health tax on annual premiums for families and individuals in 2008 was as follows:
For family health care coverage, the hidden health tax was $1,017.
For health coverage provided to single individuals, the hidden health tax was $368.
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/hidden-health-tax.html
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=294755.msg4198878#msg4198878
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/hidden-health-tax.html
-
are you serious with this shit straw or just fuking about?
-
are you serious with this shit straw or just fuking about?
serious about what exactly?
This?
KEY FINDINGS
While people without health insurance often delay or forgo care, in 2008, the uninsured received $116 billion worth of care from hospitals, doctors, and other providers. Those costs were covered in the following ways:
•The uninsured paid for, on average, more than one-third (37 percent) of the total costs of the care they received out of their own pockets.
•Third-party sources, such as government programs and charities, paid for another 26 percent of that care.
•The remaining amount, approximately $42.7 billion in 2008, was unpaid and constituted uncompensated care.
To make up for this uncompensated care, the costs were shifted to insurers in the form of higher charges for health services. These higher charges are then passed on to families and businesses as higher premiums. The impact of this hidden health tax on annual premiums for families and individuals in 2008 was as follows:
•For family health care coverage, the hidden health tax was $1,017.
•For health coverage provided to single individuals, the hidden health tax was $368.
-
serious about what exactly?
This?
KEY FINDINGS
While people without health insurance often delay or forgo care, in 2008, the uninsured received $116 billion worth of care from hospitals, doctors, and other providers. Those costs were covered in the following ways:
•The uninsured paid for, on average, more than one-third (37 percent) of the total costs of the care they received out of their own pockets.
•Third-party sources, such as government programs and charities, paid for another 26 percent of that care.
•The remaining amount, approximately $42.7 billion in 2008, was unpaid and constituted uncompensated care.
To make up for this uncompensated care, the costs were shifted to insurers in the form of higher charges for health services. These higher charges are then passed on to families and businesses as higher premiums. The impact of this hidden health tax on annual premiums for families and individuals in 2008 was as follows:
•For family health care coverage, the hidden health tax was $1,017.
•For health coverage provided to single individuals, the hidden health tax was $368.
I think this is a key issue. Where's the money going to come from under the new healthcare plan? How are people who can't afford it now going to be able to get it in the future? How will it become cheaper? Taxing corporations? Of course, corporations don't really pay taxes, their customers do. So basically you and I will STILL be paying that 42.7 billion dollar shortfall.
I'm thinking we really need to help all these people not getting healthcare, getting denied healthcare, and the pre-existing condition shit. But it is difficult figuring out a fair way to do it that's not going to break us financially. Personally I'd rather see a lot less foreign aid. Hell, we could cover that 42.7 billion 10 times over if we got rid of all this foreign aid, lol.
No easy answers I guess.
-
no the idiotic premise of this thread? ::)
weve been through your other point time and time again...
-
no the idiotic premise of this thread? ::)
weve been through your other point time and time again...
the premise of this thread is that irony stalks the repubs
that's what you're objecting to?
-
the premise of this thread is that irony stalks the repubs
that's what you're objecting to?
It only Ironic if the ambulance service and medic work for the federal government, other wise it is run by state/local which according to the 10th amendemnt is up for the state to decide. These people are protesting the Fed taking over health care.
-
It only Ironic if the ambulance service and medic work for the federal government, other wise it is run by state/local which according to the 10th amendemnt is up for the state to decide. These people are protesting the Fed taking over health care.
the "Fed" isn't taking over health care
-
the "Fed" isn't taking over health care
The Federal Government
-
The Federal Government
The Federal Government isn't taking over healthcare
-
The Federal Government isn't taking over healthcare
No, its only going to imprison you if you dont buy insurance from the private companies they claim are evil
and raping us.
-
The Federal Government isn't taking over healthcare
Really?Please explain how private health insureres will be able to compete with a government one that doesnt need to make a profit,wont be constricted by laws and will get unlimited bailouts?
-
Really?Please explain how private health insureres will be able to compete with a government one that doesnt need to make a profit,wont be constricted by laws and will get unlimited bailouts?
Because the public option has to cover anyone.
In all likelihood, it may not be as "elite" as some private options.
Ie, with the public option you may have to wait longer to get surgery.
And private insurance could be taylor made to fit the healthy and wealthy.
So they will only compete for those that they can make profit off.
The theory is that the public option will bring down the price tag for these groups somewhat though.
Look Billy, I'm not saying that this is what will actually happen if uni health care is implemented on a big federal nation like the US, but it is how it's supposed to play out I guess.
-
Because the public option has to cover anyone.
In all likelihood, it may not be as "elite" as some private options.
Ie, with the public option you may have to wait longer to get surgery.
And private insurance could be taylor made to fit the healthy and wealthy.
So they will only compete for those that they can make profit off.
The theory is that the public option will bring down the price tag for these groups somewhat though.
Look Billy, I'm not saying that this is what will actually happen if uni health care is implemented on a big federal nation like the US, but it is how it's supposed to play out I guess.
no sir the bill also includes provisions that prevent private insurers from discriminating against certain individuals and price gouging individuals...they will be made to serve everyone just as the public option...remember the whole the public option would be no different than private insurance rhetoric?
-
no sir the bill also includes provisions that prevent private insurers from discriminating against certain individuals and price gouging individuals...they will be made to serve everyone just as the public option...remember the whole the public option would be no different than private insurance rhetoric?
The CBO said the public option will end up costing more in premiums than event he private ones.
This entire scheme is terrible and does nothing to bring down costs.
Even many of the Senate Dems are running away from this mess as quick as possible.
-
The CBO said the public option will end up costing more in premiums than event he private ones.
This entire scheme is terrible and does nothing to bring down costs.
Even many of the Senate Dems are running away from this mess as quick as possible.
I agree it seems like the forest has been missed for the trees, public options, new regulations etc...are the main points not bringing down the cost of insurance and to tax payers.
-
Because the public option has to cover anyone.
In all likelihood, it may not be as "elite" as some private options.
Ie, with the public option you may have to wait longer to get surgery.
And private insurance could be taylor made to fit the healthy and wealthy.
So they will only compete for those that they can make profit off.
The theory is that the public option will bring down the price tag for these groups somewhat though.
Look Billy, I'm not saying that this is what will actually happen if uni health care is implemented on a big federal nation like the US, but it is how it's supposed to play out I guess.
I know thats the intent,but again,I find it very hard to believe that anything the government runs will not loose a boatload of money and then be bailed [ie:medicare,medicaiide,social security]and I'm very worried that it will be run like the DMV and we will see people die years before they can get an appointment for surgery.
-
I know thats the intent,but again,I find it very hard to believe that anything the government runs will not loose a boatload of money and then be bailed [ie:medicare,medicaiide,social security]and I'm very worried that it will be run like the DMV and we will see people die years before they can get an appointment for surgery.
Billy:
I posted an article the other day to where all Govt health care programs have all been off by a factor of 10 with regard to projected costs.
I have seen absoltely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this wont be exactly the same way.
-
The Federal Government isn't taking over healthcare
and they weren't "taking over" the mortgage industry in the mid 90's either. all they were doing is convincing the flock of lemmings that they were only trying to help. meanwhile all their buddies were planning to get VERY VERY rich.
-
I think this is a key issue. Where's the money going to come from under the new healthcare plan? How are people who can't afford it now going to be able to get it in the future? How will it become cheaper? Taxing corporations? Of course, corporations don't really pay taxes, their customers do. So basically you and I will STILL be paying that 42.7 billion dollar shortfall.
I'm thinking we really need to help all these people not getting healthcare, getting denied healthcare, and the pre-existing condition shit. But it is difficult figuring out a fair way to do it that's not going to break us financially. Personally I'd rather see a lot less foreign aid. Hell, we could cover that 42.7 billion 10 times over if we got rid of all this foreign aid, lol.
No easy answers I guess.
...not to mention all the money that could be saved if you stopped starting stupid unecessary wars that cost trillions, pillage the national treasury, and put the nation into spiralling debt for generations to come. If you can find the money to kill people abroad, ...surely you can find the money to heal and care for sick people at home... no?
-
...not to mention all the money that could be saved if you stopped starting stupid unecessary wars that cost trillions, pillage the national treasury, and put the nation into spiralling debt for generations to come. If you can find the money to kill people abroad, ...surely you can find the money to heal and care for sick people at home... no?
but you were in favor of the spending bill aka the stimulus?
-
I know thats the intent,but again,I find it very hard to believe that anything the government runs will not loose a boatload of money and then be bailed [ie:medicare,medicaiide,social security]and I'm very worried that it will be run like the DMV and we will see people die years before they can get an appointment for surgery.
I think this is a very legit concern.
And perhaps the best question.
The health care reform may be a good idea, but considering past failures, what are the chances of success?
The Republicans missed a golden opportunity by not coming up with an alternative plan of their own a few weeks ahead of the Democrats.
Imagine that.
The Republicans presenting a health care reform plan of some sort, taking the initiative from the Democrats, and putting the pressure on.
But it didn't happen.
Instead Democrats where allowed to win a victory, and the Republicans allowed to be remembered as "Nay" sayers.
:-\
Republicans needs a game changer IMO.
-
and they weren't "taking over" the mortgage industry in the mid 90's either. all they were doing is convincing the flock of lemmings that they were only trying to help. meanwhile all their buddies were planning to get VERY VERY rich.
I don't know what you're referring to but the the Federal Govt was most definitely not taking over the mortgage industry in the mid 90's.
Sub Prime and Alt-A loans came into being in the mid 90's and their explosion and subsequent implosion was the direct result of the Federal Govt. lack of involvement. CDO's and SIV's that were used to grow that market were not regulated by the government and these were the instruments that became "toxic" in the last few years and virtually destroyed our financial system
those are the cold hard facts
-
I think this is a very legit concern.
And perhaps the best question.
The health care reform may be a good idea, but considering past failures, what are the chances of success?
The Republicans missed a golden opportunity by not coming up with an alternative plan of their own a few weeks ahead of the Democrats.
Imagine that.
The Republicans presenting a health care reform plan of some sort, taking the initiative from the Democrats, and putting the pressure on.
But it didn't happen.
Instead Democrats where allowed to win a victory, and the Republicans allowed to be remembered as "Nay" sayers.
:-\
Republicans needs a game changer IMO.
The problem this is not "reform" it is the Federal Government once again over stepping their bounds ( read wiping their ass with the constitution) and trying to take over the private sector. The private sector has to abide by the rules the government implements, then government turns around and demonizes the private sector for following their fucked up rules. Along with the entitlement mentality that has been nurtured in this country by the leftist and this is what we get. People are to lazy to invest any time into reading and investigating what is actually in the bills, then have that WTF look on their face when they get bent over by the government. I am old enough to remember a time before HMO's and all that other BS that by the way the government is mostly responsible for. When I was a kid we had a family doctor, he didn't charge $300 for an aspirin, we went in got our shots paid $25 and went on our way. As soon as the HMO's arrived, gee your family doctor isn't in that network you have to get a new one.
When it comes down to brass tacks, health care is not a right, you have to pay a licensed professional to provide a service and that is what disqualifies it as a right.
I'm sure the jags of the world will come in with their BS about "provide for the general wellfare", when its obvious that is about the country not the individual but I digress. If "general welfare" meant the individual then why wasn't their government run healthcare for the get go? Were there no doctors in 1776? No it because it was never the intent.
You are responsible for yourself, the federal government is not.
-
I don't know what you're referring to but the the Federal Govt was most definitely not taking over the mortgage industry in the mid 90's.
Sub Prime and Alt-A loans came into being in the mid 90's and their explosion and subsequent implosion was the direct result of the Federal Govt. lack of involvement. CDO's and SIV's that were used to grow that market were not regulated by the government and these were the instruments that became "toxic" in the last few years and virtually destroyed our financial system
those are the cold hard facts
i guess you're right. except for the fact that if the federal government never insured all of those shitty loans in the first place those sub prime and Alt-A loans would never have existed for them to regulate.
what you're saying furthers my point on why the federal government should stay the fuck out of our health care system.
the federal government insured all of those shitty loans back in the mid 1990's. then the mortgage industry went hog wild and gave $500K loans to people making $45k a year on a daily basis. what you're saying is that the government did a horrible job of keeping track of what they just signed off on and you are exactly right. they are incompetent and do not follow up properly on the bills that they pass.
But hey i'm sure this health care thing will be totally different. right? hey what could happen?
-
I don't know what you're referring to but the the Federal Govt was most definitely not taking over the mortgage industry in the mid 90's.
and by the way. your belief that the federal government was not taking over the mortgage industry in the mid 90's illustrates perfectly why you don't believe that they are trying to take over health care today. they're fooling you twice.
-
i guess you're right. except for the fact that if the federal government never insured all of those shitty loans in the first place those sub prime and Alt-A loans would never have existed for them to regulate.
what you're saying furthers my point on why the federal government should stay the fuck out of our health care system.
the federal government insured all of those shitty loans back in the mid 1990's. then the mortgage industry went hog wild and gave $500K loans to people making $45k a year on a daily basis. what you're saying is that the government did a horrible job of keeping track of what they just signed off on and you are exactly right. they are incompetent and do not follow up properly on the bills that they pass.
But hey i'm sure this health care thing will be totally different. right? hey what could happen?
Bears:
Check this movie out
"The Warning"
www.pbs.org
Of course the liberals on this board refuse to discuss it, but guess who was most against the regulation of the derivatives related to mortgages? That's right - Geithner, Rubin, & Summers.
-
i guess you're right. except for the fact that if the federal government never insured all of those shitty loans in the first place those sub prime and Alt-A loans would never have existed for them to regulate.
what you're saying furthers my point on why the federal government should stay the fuck out of our health care system.
the federal government insured all of those shitty loans back in the mid 1990's. then the mortgage industry went hog wild and gave $500K loans to people making $45k a year on a daily basis. what you're saying is that the government did a horrible job of keeping track of what they just signed off on and you are exactly right. they are incompetent and do not follow up properly on the bills that they pass.
But hey i'm sure this health care thing will be totally different. right? hey what could happen?
Dude - you truly don't know your asshole from a hole in the ground. Alt-A/Subprime loans were never insured by the Federal Government. That class of loan product came into being due to the deregulation of the commodities industry. I'm guessing you have no clue about the difference between and Alt A/Subprime (neither of which existed before the mid to late 1990s and don't exist today) and FHA/VA, Conforming, Non-conforming, etc... Do you understand what these acronyms mean: SIVA, SISA, NINA, etc....? Those were the Alt A products created by Lehman, Bear Stearns, etc. that were the collaterlized and sold off as SIV, CDO's etc.. None of this was insured by the Federal Government and none of them woul have existed without the deregulation of the commoditiy and banking industries
-
and by the way. your belief that the federal government was not taking over the mortgage industry in the mid 90's illustrates perfectly why you don't believe that they are trying to take over health care today. they're fooling you twice.
The Federal government was absolutly not (in any way, shape or form) "taking over" the mortgage industry in the 90's
Your utter confusion on that subject is a perfect example of the idiots go around yapping about a governmetn takeover of healthcare.
BTW - Frank Luntz is credited with creating that phrase and it's sole purpose is to misinform and scare dopes like you. Congratulations on being a mindless robot.
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/07/24/01
-
Dude - you truly don't know your asshole from a hole in the ground. Alt-A/Subprime loans were never insured by the Federal Government. That class of loan product came into being due to the deregulation of the commodities industry. I'm guessing you have no clue about the difference between and Alt A/Subprime (neither of which existed before the mid to late 1990s and don't exist today) and FHA/VA, Conforming, Non-conforming, etc... Do you understand what these acronyms mean: SIVA, SISA, NINA, etc....? Those were the Alt A products created by Lehman, Bear Stearns, etc. that were the collaterlized and sold off as SIV, CDO's etc.. None of this was insured by the Federal Government and none of them woul have existed without the deregulation of the commoditiy and banking industries
you are taking a small part of the problem and making it out to be the only part of the problem. you are blinded by ideology. please don't tell me that you don't think fannie and freddie played a huge role in this. and when the federal government gives the banks who were using the Alt-a and subprime mortgages $900 billion of bailout money.....? um yeah i would say that they were insured. its funny that all politicians have to do is wrap things up in pretty packages and they have people like you fawning all over them. ridiculous
-
you are taking a small part of the problem and making it out to be the only part of the problem. you are blinded by ideology. please don't tell me that you don't think fannie and freddie played a huge role in this. and when the federal government gives the banks who were using the Alt-a and subprime mortgages $900 billion of bailout money.....? um yeah i would say that they were insured. its funny that all politicians have to do is wrap things up in pretty packages and they have people like you fawning all over them. ridiculous
Straw and the rest of the lunatic left wont comment on "The Warning" that PBS did because it completely refutes all their bs claims about why the meltdown occurred and who they elected and and cheer for even today.
-
Dude - you truly don't know your asshole from a hole in the ground. Alt-A/Subprime loans were never insured by the Federal Government. That class of loan product came into being due to the deregulation of the commodities industry. I'm guessing you have no clue about the difference between and Alt A/Subprime (neither of which existed before the mid to late 1990s and don't exist today) and FHA/VA, Conforming, Non-conforming, etc... Do you understand what these acronyms mean: SIVA, SISA, NINA, etc....? Those were the Alt A products created by Lehman, Bear Stearns, etc. that were the collaterlized and sold off as SIV, CDO's etc.. None of this was insured by the Federal Government and none of them woul have existed without the deregulation of the commoditiy and banking industries
i also can't believe you used this line before spewing the uninformed bullshit that came after it. you have officially established yourself as "minor league"
-
you are taking a small part of the problem and making it out to be the only part of the problem. you are blinded by ideology. please don't tell me that you don't think fannie and freddie played a huge role in this. and when the federal government gives the banks who were using the Alt-a and subprime mortgages $900 billion of bailout money.....? um yeah i would say that they were insured. its funny that all politicians have to do is wrap things up in pretty packages and they have people like you fawning all over them. ridiculous
Fannie/Freddie played a small roll at the end and Fannie/Freddie loan were not insured by the Federal Govt. Maybe you're thinking about FHA but again, those were undewritten along traditional guidelines unlike the Alt A/Subprime products.
Again, the problem started in the 90's with the deregulation of banking and commodities market and the explosion of non-traditional loans (AltA/Subprime) and the collateralization of the debt. Fannie and Freddie wasn't involved at all at that point and was still doing traditional underwriting. These are FACTS that you could learn yourself.
Alt A/Sub prime created the avalanche of problems we have today and these loans were never insured by the Federal Government and never would have existed without the deregulation of the banking and commodities market.
You still haven't explained your ridiculous claim that the Federal Government was "taking over" the mortgage industry in the 90's.
You may be chapped about bailouts of some of these firms but your claim below is completely untrue and ass backwards.
Subprime/Alt A came FIRST and created the toxic mess that destroyed even A Paper Full Doc lender such as Thornburg Mortgage.
the federal government insured all of those shitty loans back in the mid 1990's. then the mortgage industry went hog wild and gave $500K loans to people making $45k a year on a daily basis.
You quite simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about
-
The way i read it is: the federal government did less regarding mortgages and that caused more problems.
Perhaps for health insurance they do need to do more.
-
The way i read it is: the federal government did less regarding mortgages and that caused more problems.
Perhaps for health insurance they do need to do more.
Nonsense, the govt actively screwed up the mortgage market by having Fannie and Freddy buy up all the crap subprime paper and lowered the standards for lending via the CRA.
The govt played a huge role in causing this mess, not the other way around.
-
Nonsense, the govt actively screwed up the mortgage market by having Fannie and Freddy buy up all the crap subprime paper and lowered the standards for lending via the CRA.
The govt played a huge role in causing this mess, not the other way around.
wow - you're wrong in everything you wrote. good job.
The govt didn't "have" fannie and freddie "buy up all that crap subprime paper"
Fannie Freddie got into that on their own and very late in the game and in very small amounts relative to Investment Banks, Commercial Banks, Hedge Funds, Pension Funds, Endowments, Cities, States and other Countries who all were driven by high yields to buy the CDO's created by the Subprime and Alt A Loans.
Fannie Freddie gradually lowered their standards in an attempt to gain market share back from subprime lenders
CRA loans were not subprime loans, are a tiny sliver of all loans, were underwritten with traditional guidelines and only made to owner ocuuppied borrowers and have a lower default rate than traditional loans and subprime loans
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122298982558700341.html
i'm beginning to doubt myself because straw man seems to know what he's talking about.....most of the time. but am I reading this correctly. I'm an accountant and don't get all of the finance mumbo jumbo all of the time. but what i do know is that the government has had their hands wrapped tightly around fannie and freddie since the early 1990's. i read the WSJ consistently and remember this article. i finally found it. i guess i want to know if i'm readin this right. if i am reading it right then Russell Roberts is saying exactly what I'm saying in my previous posts.
-
i wonder if there are ANY dems over the age of 40, seriously. ya join the dem party from 15 to 35 when you're excited to change the world, then you move to (R) when ya realize how shit works and ya just figure F the other guy.
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122298982558700341.html
i'm beginning to doubt myself because straw man seems to know what he's talking about.....most of the time. but am I reading this correctly. I'm an accountant and don't get all of the finance mumbo jumbo all of the time. but what i do know is that the government has had their hands wrapped tightly around fannie and freddie since the early 1990's. i read the WSJ consistently and remember this article. i finally found it. i guess i want to know if i'm readin this right. if i am reading it right then Russell Roberts is saying exactly what I'm saying in my previous posts.
I read the article and the author make quite a stretch (IMO) by claiming that the fact of the very existence of Fannie/Freddie and the subsequent secondary market created to sell/trade mortgage backed securities lended an implicit guarantee of government support to the entire mortage backed securities and derivative market i.e. quality and guarantee by association. That's kind of like saying when the government built the federal highway system it lended an implicit guarantee of safety that I could drive 100 miles an hour, drunk and in the rain without getting hurt.
Look at it this way. The whole subprime "meltdown" hit the public conciousness with the collapse of two Bear Stearns hedge funds in August 2007. The cause of those failures were DEFAULTS on........Sub Prime and Alt A mortgage.
The Federal Government didn’t tell Lehman, Bear Stearns, etc…. to throw out traditional underwriting guidelines and start making loans to investors for non-owner occupied properties with little or no downpayment and little or no verification of income, assets or even employment in some cases. They did it because of the deregulation of the banking and credit markets which allowed them to create these shitty loans and the securitize them and pass the risk to unsuspecting investors who thought they were buying a low risk high yield investment
Without DEFAULTS we would have the problem we’re in right now.
Fannie/Freddie still had primarily traditional underwriting guidelines They did loosen standard over time but never ever to the extent of the Subprime and Alt A products.
In fact a recent study showed that the default rate among the sub prime products is much greater than that of CRA or other “affordable lending programs” sponsored by the govt. The results of the study show that home loan borrowers with similar risk characteristics defaulted at much higher rates when they borrowed subprime mortgages than when they received loans made primarily for Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) purposes. (ftp://In fact a recent study showed that the default rate among the sub prime products is much greater than that of CRA or other “affordable lending programs” sponsored by the govt. The results of the study show that home loan borrowers with similar risk characteristics defaulted at much higher rates when they borrowed subprime mortgages than when they received loans made primarily for Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) purposes.)
Researchers compared the default rate (90-day delinquency) within two years of origination. Borrowers with comparable characteristics who had subprime loans were three to five times as likely to go into default as those with CAP loans, the study found.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/10/subprime_defaults.html
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/bear-stearns-collapse.asp
Bottom line: Do Fannie/Freddie share some blame = YES
Did they cause the problem in the first place = NO
-
Pure your political views aside for a moment and watch this. This was from 2006.
-
Pure your political views aside for a moment and watch this. This was from 2006.
the bad practices that Schiff is talking about in that video are exactly the problems that were created by the Subprime and Alt A products. As I've said before. Fannie and Freddie were very late to the game and trying to play "catch up" with the Lehmans, Bear Stearns, etc...
333 - I have no vested interest in Fannie/Freddie et al.
If they were the cause of the problem I'd have no problem saying it.
You're the one who's admitted not trusting the govt. and seem on the verge of paranoid breakdown with anything related to the government
The problem we face today is due to massive defaults on a class of loans that never existed before the late 1990 and doesn't exist today (name SubPrime and Alt A) and the securitized debt from these loans that still exist on the books of banks, hedge funds, pensions, endowments, etc...
If you can put your own political views aside go look at the study of default rates on CRA loans vs. subprime loans.
Or go do some research on Lehman Brothers. They were in business since 1850 and the late 1990’s their subsidiary, Aurora Loan Services started offering the so called “Alt A” loan products. These were “A” paper due to their credit rating but “Alternative” in terms of their underwriting guidelines. If you had a 35% down payment you could buy and owner occupied property, 2nd home or investment property without providing any income documentation, asset documentation or even any proof that you had a job. Fannie and Freddie were doing nothing of the kind which is why these were called “Alt A” For awhile everything went fine and everyone made a lot of money. As long as home prices kept going up anyone who couldn’t pay their loan payments just sold the property at a profit. Everything seemed fine and many other players jumped into the space and guidelines gradually became looser and looser. The resulting securities on these loans paid high yields and had the highest ratings by Moodys and other companies and Lehman, Bear Stearns and others were the new financial wizards. Fannie/Freddie not only purchased the securities in an attempt to gain the higher yields but they started loosening their standards in an attempt to gain back market share from this new class or mortgage product.
The problems started when the Subprime/Alt A stuff started to default. The investment banks had kept most of the lowest rated tranches on their books (they either couldn’t sell them or didn’t want to sell them because they had the highest yields). Once the defaults started it created a run on capital as many of these securities were used as collateral to raise additional capital. When your collateral loses value you have a margin call.
Anyway, the point is that all this wouldn’t have occurred without deregulation of the banking and credit industry.
If you don’t believe me just go back and look at the video you posted a few days ago:
Very short article on the demise of Aurora Loan Services:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/Sep/18/aurora-loan-contributed-to-downfall-of-lehman/
Article on the default rates of CRA loans vs. Subprime loans:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/10/subprime_defaults.html
-
GOP should have run Ron Paul in 08. He predicted the economic collapse in Fall 07 when every other repub was talking about how awesome things were. he could have completely removed the 'bush factor' from the 2008 election.
-
GOP should have run Ron Paul in 08. He predicted the economic collapse in Fall 07 when every other repub was talking about how awesome things were. he could have completely removed the 'bush factor' from the 2008 election.
the economic collapse was already happening in the fall of 1997 so at that point it wasn't too hard to predict as long as you were paying attention and not beholden to tow the party line.
Ron Pauls "solutions" would have brougt a world of pain upon the US economy and I doubt the military would have been too keen on his ideas either.
-
Strawman,
Why aren't we hearing about more insurance companies going belly up (AIG aside)? Did these risky mortgages require PMI? If not, what were the banks doing to try and protect themselves? I'm just guessing, but I would think that they would want some type of coverage to offset potential losses.
Also, would you happen to know what the purpose of deregulation was to begin with? Political favortism? Trying to increase competition? Maybe something else.
-
the economic collapse was already happening in the fall of 1997 so at that point it wasn't too hard to predict as long as you were paying attention and not beholden to tow the party line.
Ron Pauls "solutions" would have brougt a world of pain upon the US economy and I doubt the military would have been too keen on his ideas either.
Half of RP's idea's were ok. The other half were a disaster and while they might have gotten him elected, would have proved impossible to execute. Kinda like Barry...
Plus RP would not have had Congress....
-
Strawman,
Why aren't we hearing about more insurance companies going belly up (AIG aside)? Did these risky mortgages require PMI? If not, what were the banks doing to try and protect themselves? I'm just guessing, but I would think that they would want some type of coverage to offset potential losses.
Also, would you happen to know what the purpose of deregulation was to begin with? Political favortism? Trying to increase competition? Maybe something else.
I gotta run but if you google credit defualt swaps you can find lots of info.
I don't know the details/motivation behind the specific deregulation but my guess would be the usual suspect - desire for profit and the argument that "thing are different this time"
-
I read the article and the author make quite a stretch (IMO) by claiming that the fact of the very existence of Fannie/Freddie and the subsequent secondary market created to sell/trade mortgage backed securities lended an implicit guarantee of government support to the entire mortage backed securities and derivative market i.e. quality and guarantee by association. That's kind of like saying when the government built the federal highway system it lended an implicit guarantee of safety that I could drive 100 miles an hour, drunk and in the rain without getting hurt.
Look at it this way. The whole subprime "meltdown" hit the public conciousness with the collapse of two Bear Stearns hedge funds in August 2007. The cause of those failures were DEFAULTS on........Sub Prime and Alt A mortgage.
my only argument against what you said right there is that the giovernment gave them $900 billion dollars after they collapsed. you don't see that as the government supporting those practices? i see that as straight up insuring those loans. behind closed doors those fannie and freddie execs were told that the government would cover whatever they lost.....and they did.