If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(US News)   The bad news: When it was all said and done Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed more than half a TRILLION dollars in aid from the US treasury. The amazing news: Which they will have paid back in full by 2019   (usnews.com) divider line 51
    More: Spiffy, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, payback, Ally Financial, CIT, Moody's Analytics, treasuries  
•       •       •

944 clicks; posted to Business » on 15 Apr 2013 at 12:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-15 11:35:44 AM  
I thought we were supposed to hate them for being as bad as ACORN...?
 
2013-04-15 11:49:12 AM  
sigh
I was so sure that we should have let the banks fail and reinstate glass stegall

FRAK
 
2013-04-15 11:53:48 AM  

namatad: sigh
I was so sure that we should have let the banks fail and reinstate glass stegall

FRAK


Reinstating GS ain't such a bad idea, Letting Fannie an Freddie die would have sparked a peasant uprising not seen since 18th century France.   Real US wages have been stagnant or declining for so long, the ONLY source of increasing middle-class wealth has been home ownership and home equity.   Make that much, much  harder by taking away Fannie and Freddie, and people would realize just how badly shafted they've been in the last 40  years or so
 
2013-04-15 12:30:38 PM  

Magorn: namatad: sigh
I was so sure that we should have let the banks fail and reinstate glass stegall

FRAK

Reinstating GS ain't such a bad idea, Letting Fannie an Freddie die would have sparked a peasant uprising not seen since 18th century France.   Real US wages have been stagnant or declining for so long, the ONLY source of increasing middle-class wealth has been home ownership and home equity.   Make that much, much  harder by taking away Fannie and Freddie, and people would realize just how badly shafted they've been in the last 40  years or so


Yeah, letting huge banks fail would be a disaster.  It sounds neat and fun on an internet message board but in real life it would cause havoc.
 
2013-04-15 12:58:03 PM  

Altair: Magorn: namatad: sigh
I was so sure that we should have let the banks fail and reinstate glass stegall

FRAK

Reinstating GS ain't such a bad idea, Letting Fannie an Freddie die would have sparked a peasant uprising not seen since 18th century France.   Real US wages have been stagnant or declining for so long, the ONLY source of increasing middle-class wealth has been home ownership and home equity.   Make that much, much  harder by taking away Fannie and Freddie, and people would realize just how badly shafted they've been in the last 40  years or so

Yeah, letting huge banks fail would be a disaster.  It sounds neat and fun on an internet message board but in real life it would cause havoc.


And by internet message boards, you mean David Stockman who appeared on the Daily Show last week and said that if Lehman would have failed Main Street would not be affected.

The huge banks should have been allowed to fail, in part.  Let the sunshine through, take haircuts on debt that will never be repaid and get back to reality.  Versus what we have today, a re-inflation of the same credit bubble.  The banks are BIGGER than before. The systemic risk is BIGGER than before.  How have we solved the same problem that we have prior to Glass Stigal?
 
2013-04-15 01:03:30 PM  
NostroZ: .....How have we solved the same problem that we have prior to Glass Stigal?

The bankers have become better at getting away with it.
 
2013-04-15 01:05:22 PM  

Altair: Magorn: namatad: sigh
I was so sure that we should have let the banks fail and reinstate glass stegall

FRAK

Reinstating GS ain't such a bad idea, Letting Fannie an Freddie die would have sparked a peasant uprising not seen since 18th century France.   Real US wages have been stagnant or declining for so long, the ONLY source of increasing middle-class wealth has been home ownership and home equity.   Make that much, much  harder by taking away Fannie and Freddie, and people would realize just how badly shafted they've been in the last 40  years or so

Yeah, letting huge banks fail would be a disaster.  It sounds neat and fun on an internet message board but in real life it would cause havoc.


both lefties and libertarians keep rewriting history when it comes to the 2008 credit crisis, claiming that federal support of the banking system was unnecessary, and letting them fail somehow would not have hurt the US. Bankers like to claim that they didn't need the money either.

how the economy would have survived the collapse of Citibank, given how underfunded the FDIC was, I don't know.
 
2013-04-15 01:09:47 PM  

NostroZ: And by internet message boards, you mean David Stockman who appeared on the Daily Show last week and said that if Lehman would have failed Main Street would not be affected.


I thought Lehman did fail, and I remember really high unemployment affecting main street.
 
2013-04-15 01:13:01 PM  

dumbobruni: Altair: Magorn: namatad: sigh
I was so sure that we should have let the banks fail and reinstate glass stegall

FRAK

Reinstating GS ain't such a bad idea, Letting Fannie an Freddie die would have sparked a peasant uprising not seen since 18th century France.   Real US wages have been stagnant or declining for so long, the ONLY source of increasing middle-class wealth has been home ownership and home equity.   Make that much, much  harder by taking away Fannie and Freddie, and people would realize just how badly shafted they've been in the last 40  years or so

Yeah, letting huge banks fail would be a disaster.  It sounds neat and fun on an internet message board but in real life it would cause havoc.

both lefties and libertarians keep rewriting history when it comes to the 2008 credit crisis, claiming that federal support of the banking system was unnecessary, and letting them fail somehow would not have hurt the US. Bankers like to claim that they didn't need the money either.

how the economy would have survived the collapse of Citibank, given how underfunded the FDIC was, I don't know.


The credit markets froze when the Treasury let Lehman die. What lefty and libertarian types fail to grasp is that, a frozen credit market don't just hurt paper pushing bankers. Actual, tangible businesses start to seize up since they can't fill in their temporary cash shortfalls with short term credit. Day to day business chokes on a large scale, causing a deep contraction and likely leading to a full blown economic panic.
 
2013-04-15 01:14:11 PM  

NostroZ: Altair: Magorn: namatad: sigh
I was so sure that we should have let the banks fail and reinstate glass stegall

FRAK

Reinstating GS ain't such a bad idea, Letting Fannie an Freddie die would have sparked a peasant uprising not seen since 18th century France.   Real US wages have been stagnant or declining for so long, the ONLY source of increasing middle-class wealth has been home ownership and home equity.   Make that much, much  harder by taking away Fannie and Freddie, and people would realize just how badly shafted they've been in the last 40  years or so

Yeah, letting huge banks fail would be a disaster.  It sounds neat and fun on an internet message board but in real life it would cause havoc.

And by internet message boards, you mean David Stockman who appeared on the Daily Show last week and said that if Lehman would have failed Main Street would not be affected.

The huge banks should have been allowed to fail, in part.  Let the sunshine through, take haircuts on debt that will never be repaid and get back to reality.  Versus what we have today, a re-inflation of the same credit bubble.  The banks are BIGGER than before. The systemic risk is BIGGER than before.  How have we solved the same problem that we have prior to Glass Stigal?


Lehman Brothers did fail. the failure of Lehman opened up all of the festering wounds in the global banking system.

the resulting disappearance of liquidity from the markets required coordinated market intervention on a global scale in the trillions of dollars.
 
2013-04-15 01:14:45 PM  

NostroZ: Altair: Magorn: namatad: sigh
I was so sure that we should have let the banks fail and reinstate glass stegall

FRAK

Reinstating GS ain't such a bad idea, Letting Fannie an Freddie die would have sparked a peasant uprising not seen since 18th century France.   Real US wages have been stagnant or declining for so long, the ONLY source of increasing middle-class wealth has been home ownership and home equity.   Make that much, much  harder by taking away Fannie and Freddie, and people would realize just how badly shafted they've been in the last 40  years or so

Yeah, letting huge banks fail would be a disaster.  It sounds neat and fun on an internet message board but in real life it would cause havoc.

And by internet message boards, you mean David Stockman who appeared on the Daily Show last week and said that if Lehman would have failed Main Street would not be affected.

The huge banks should have been allowed to fail, in part.  Let the sunshine through, take haircuts on debt that will never be repaid and get back to reality.  Versus what we have today, a re-inflation of the same credit bubble.  The banks are BIGGER than before. The systemic risk is BIGGER than before.  How have we solved the same problem that we have prior to Glass Stigal?


Stockman is an idiot.  You think unemployment is bad NOW?  try doubling it or tripling it at a minimum-maybe even worse than that.

The saving of the banks had nothing to do with  fethering the nests of plutocrats or the moneyed interests on wall street looking out for thier own, but the almost-destruction of the "commerical paper" market.   When Lehman tanked, it set off a complicated chain of events that left most major banks unsure of exactly how much money they really had, and how big thier losses might potentially be.  Because of this most of them ceased ALL lending as they were unclear whether they COULD lend, legally since they had no idea what their reserves really looked like.

Now this would have been a pain in the ass if it affected only the mortgage or auto loan markets, but the crisis was far worse, it also froze, breifly, the "commercial paper" market.

COmmerical Paper is essentially an IOU floated by a company backed by future  accounts recievable.   It provides day to day capital to do things like buy raw materials and pay employees, while waiting for the 30 or 60 or 90-day terms you have with the person who buys your deliverables.

 A bank buys the "paper" lends them money today at a very low interest rate, and redeems it in 30 days or whenever the contract payments are due.   The interest rates are incredibly low because this kind of lending is fantastically safe.  You know Ford or Boeing or GM isn't going to default on a contract, so you have no problems grabbing commercial paper floated by one of thier suppliers.  Without this funding mechanism, about 70-80% of US businesses wouldn't be able to make payroll week to week.

So when the Lehman collapse put the banks into crisis, and they stopped lending any money, including on commercial paper, a HUGE shiatstorm was about to hit the US economy.  Thousands of otherwise totally healthy companies would have been forced into bankruptcy, and probably shut down altogether as they could no longer even pay their employees.  And when those businesses tanked, Millions would have been out of work, destorying consumer spending, tanking demand for anything made by the companies that managed to surivive.

Had that market stayed frozen for more than a week, the results on the US would have made an asteriod strike look mild by comparison
 
2013-04-15 01:16:06 PM  

Ham Sandvich: dumbobruni: Altair: Magorn: namatad: sigh
I was so sure that we should have let the banks fail and reinstate glass stegall

FRAK

Reinstating GS ain't such a bad idea, Letting Fannie an Freddie die would have sparked a peasant uprising not seen since 18th century France.   Real US wages have been stagnant or declining for so long, the ONLY source of increasing middle-class wealth has been home ownership and home equity.   Make that much, much  harder by taking away Fannie and Freddie, and people would realize just how badly shafted they've been in the last 40  years or so

Yeah, letting huge banks fail would be a disaster.  It sounds neat and fun on an internet message board but in real life it would cause havoc.

both lefties and libertarians keep rewriting history when it comes to the 2008 credit crisis, claiming that federal support of the banking system was unnecessary, and letting them fail somehow would not have hurt the US. Bankers like to claim that they didn't need the money either.

how the economy would have survived the collapse of Citibank, given how underfunded the FDIC was, I don't know.

The credit markets froze when the Treasury let Lehman die. What lefty and libertarian types fail to grasp is that, a frozen credit market don't just hurt paper pushing bankers. Actual, tangible businesses start to seize up since they can't fill in their temporary cash shortfalls with short term credit. Day to day business chokes on a large scale, causing a deep contraction and likely leading to a full blown economic panic.


what he said, much more concisely than I did, I might add
 
2013-04-15 01:20:20 PM  
Not to doubt economic projections or anything, but call back in 2019 when it's all been paid.
 
2013-04-15 01:23:09 PM  
>>The amazing news: Which they will have paid back in full by 2019

No, the amazing news if if they actually do it.  Claiming that you'll do something several years from now is not all that amazing.
 
2013-04-15 01:31:01 PM  

Magorn: COmmerical Paper is essentially an IOU floated by a company backed by future accounts recievable.


ipdraughts.files.wordpress.com

Keep your commercial paper. I prefer to use livestock for my drafts.
 
2013-04-15 01:40:16 PM  
It would be amazing if Fannie ad Freddie paid back the taxpayer, like the banks did. Don't know how they're going to do it, but let's hope they do.

They should still be wound down, though. Although, admittedly, very very slowly.
 
2013-04-15 01:44:55 PM  
Thanks Obama
 
2013-04-15 01:45:38 PM  
Hey everybody, don't forget to buy your gold today. Oh wait - maybe it would be best to wait a bit on that.
 
2013-04-15 01:48:31 PM  
Glass-Steagall isn't coming back. Forget it. Proscriptive legislation just spawns an industry built to circumvent legislation.

A more elegant solution would be to incrementally raise fractional reserve banking requirements as banks get larger. Normally, larger banks have an advantage over smaller ones, leading to larger and larger banks that risk global economic meltdown if they were to fail. Instead, make smaller banks more competitive by requiring relatively less reserves -- and some will fail, but that can easily be absorbed by the system. Smaller banks DO fail all the time, and for the retail customer it's almost a non-event.

www.motherjones.com

Big banks are just bad at making money, anyway.
 
2013-04-15 01:54:22 PM  

you have pee hands: Not to doubt economic projections or anything, but call back in 2019 when it's all been paid.


Something about counting chickens before they've hatched comes to mind.
 
2013-04-15 02:25:06 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: you have pee hands: Not to doubt economic projections or anything, but call back in 2019 when it's all been paid.

Something about counting chickens before they've hatched comes to mind.


I make payments on a loan which is charging me less interest than inflation. Am I in any hurry to pay it back? No. I'm doing better paying it off as slowly as possible. The bank is effectively paying me to borrow money from them.

As much as comparisons between government and household budgeting are misguided, at least that one hold true for either. When bond investors are effectively paying the US government to take their money because the interest on the bonds are below inflation, why should the government be in any hurry to pay it off sooner if it doesn't have to? Particularly if there are opportunity costs to do so, and those lost opportunities could be spent toward recovering the economy, increasing the tax base, reducing the need for assistance, and better position our economy (infrastructure, science, and so on)?
 
2013-04-15 02:40:38 PM  

StopLurkListen: As much as comparisons between government and household budgeting are misguided, at least that one hold true for either. When bond investors are effectively paying the US government to take their money because the interest on the bonds are below inflation, why should the government be in any hurry to pay it off sooner if it doesn't have to? Particularly if there are opportunity costs to do so, and those lost opportunities could be spent toward recovering the economy, increasing the tax base, reducing the need for assistance, and better position our economy (infrastructure, science, and so on)?


I understand what you're saying, but 2019 is a ways off.  Who's to say there's not another housing problem or bank crisis in 2018?  It would be one thing if they were sitting on enough cash/liquid assets to pay it off outright but just don't (like a homeowner sitting on a 15y fixed mortgage at 2.9% might do, in your analogy).  It's another to be counting on future projected earnings.  They might be likely, but they're not guaranteed.
 
2013-04-15 02:40:55 PM  
Just because they or any of the bailed out corporations pay back the money at some point, it doesn't make it a good thing for the economy or ethically.


Taking a trillion dollars out of the economy, or inflating the money supply by a trillion dollars to pay for it has negative impacts felt by every sector and every person.

And those who say letting big banks fail is a disaster is just brainwashed by the rich and powerful.  A short-lived painful shock would have been much better than the current 5 year slow torture.

There are tons of people with tons of money who would have loved to have gobbled up Goldman Sachs or AIG or BoA for pennies on the dollar.
 
2013-04-15 02:43:21 PM  
Sure they will.  Right after a monkey crawls out of my butt and flies off on a unicorn

/no faith in the government
 
2013-04-15 02:51:16 PM  

StopLurkListen: Glass-Steagall isn't coming back. Forget it. Proscriptive legislation just spawns an industry built to circumvent legislation.

A more elegant solution would be to incrementally raise fractional reserve banking requirements as banks get larger. Normally, larger banks have an advantage over smaller ones, leading to larger and larger banks that risk global economic meltdown if they were to fail. Instead, make smaller banks more competitive by requiring relatively less reserves -- and some will fail, but that can easily be absorbed by the system. Smaller banks DO fail all the time, and for the retail customer it's almost a non-event.



Big banks are just bad at making money, anyway.


Hmmm, at first glance, I'm not seeing any glaring holes in your suggestion. I don't buy your graphic though.
 
2013-04-15 04:37:01 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: StopLurkListen: Glass-Steagall isn't coming back. Forget it. Proscriptive legislation just spawns an industry built to circumvent legislation.

A more elegant solution would be to incrementally raise fractional reserve banking requirements as banks get larger. Normally, larger banks have an advantage over smaller ones, leading to larger and larger banks that risk global economic meltdown if they were to fail. Instead, make smaller banks more competitive by requiring relatively less reserves -- and some will fail, but that can easily be absorbed by the system. Smaller banks DO fail all the time, and for the retail customer it's almost a non-event.

Big banks are just bad at making money, anyway.

Hmmm, at first glance, I'm not seeing any glaring holes in your suggestion. I don't buy your graphic though.


it's from Bloomberg, here's the original article.
 
2013-04-15 05:34:41 PM  
So the headline REALLY means they have 6 more years for the bottom to fall out again?
 
2013-04-15 05:51:24 PM  

StopLurkListen: Debeo Summa Credo: StopLurkListen: Glass-Steagall isn't coming back. Forget it. Proscriptive legislation just spawns an industry built to circumvent legislation.

A more elegant solution would be to incrementally raise fractional reserve banking requirements as banks get larger. Normally, larger banks have an advantage over smaller ones, leading to larger and larger banks that risk global economic meltdown if they were to fail. Instead, make smaller banks more competitive by requiring relatively less reserves -- and some will fail, but that can easily be absorbed by the system. Smaller banks DO fail all the time, and for the retail customer it's almost a non-event.

Big banks are just bad at making money, anyway.

Hmmm, at first glance, I'm not seeing any glaring holes in your suggestion. I don't buy your graphic though.

it's from Bloomberg, here's the original article.


Thanks.  But I don't buy the underlying rationale of the study done.  It assumes that they can precisely determine an implicit theoretical subsidy.
 
2013-04-15 06:41:09 PM  

namatad: sigh
I was so sure that we should have let the banks fail and reinstate glass stegall

FRAK


Fannie and Freddie aren't banks
 
2013-04-15 06:50:32 PM  

MugzyBrown: Just because they or any of the bailed out corporations pay back the money at some point, it doesn't make it a good thing for the economy or ethically.


Taking a trillion dollars out of the economy, or inflating the money supply by a trillion dollars to pay for it has negative impacts felt by every sector and every person.

And those who say letting big banks fail is a disaster is just brainwashed by the rich and powerful.  A short-lived painful shock would have been much better than the current 5 year slow torture.

There are tons of people with tons of money who would have loved to have gobbled up Goldman Sachs or AIG or BoA for pennies on the dollar.


summary of this post:

people who were in favor of TARP were brainwashed by the rich and powerful, we should have let the banks go under so they could be bought by the rich and powerful.

yep, that makes sense.
 
2013-04-15 07:21:02 PM  

Magorn: COmmerical Paper is essentially an IOU floated by a company backed by future  accounts recievable.   It provides day to day capital to do things like buy raw materials and pay employees, while waiting for the 30 or 60 or 90-day terms you have with the person who buys your deliverables.


I just can't help but think that a business running on commercial paper isn't really capitalism. There's less shepherding of resources that I associate with capitalism.
 
2013-04-15 07:54:11 PM  

wildcardjack: Magorn: COmmerical Paper is essentially an IOU floated by a company backed by future  accounts recievable.   It provides day to day capital to do things like buy raw materials and pay employees, while waiting for the 30 or 60 or 90-day terms you have with the person who buys your deliverables.

I just can't help but think that a business running on commercial paper isn't really capitalism. There's less shepherding of resources that I associate with capitalism.


the US commercial paper market is dominated by General Electric.
 
2013-04-15 07:58:52 PM  
That is fantastic news!  That means it is ok if something like this happens again.  The loan will be repaid, with interest, and with the stronger dollar we had when this farkery started so that after accounting for inflation, we break-even!

/ not serious
// did not rtfa
 
2013-04-15 08:03:35 PM  
Uhm... more than half a trillion? ..

"It was the most eye-popping bailout of all: $187 billion in taxpayer money to rescue the wrecked housing agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those two agencies alone soaked up 31 percent of the $606 billion in bailout funds disbursed by the Treasury Department to dozens of organizations. "
 
2013-04-15 08:25:17 PM  
what kind of war can we afford with it?
 
2013-04-15 09:33:51 PM  

Magorn: namatad: sigh
I was so sure that we should have let the banks fail and reinstate glass stegall

FRAK

Reinstating GS ain't such a bad idea, Letting Fannie an Freddie die would have sparked a peasant uprising not seen since 18th century France.   Real US wages have been stagnant or declining for so long, the ONLY source of increasing middle-class wealth has been home ownership and home equity.


The sad fact is that this isn't even true.  Home ownership has been a generally *safe* place to put your money, but a shiatty way to grow equity.   When you look at the values of homes over the last hundred or so years and adjust for inflation as well as mortgage interest, homes don't really appreciate that much.   Part of what drove the bubble was the idea that a house was a good way to increase wealth.

It's just another scam played on the little guy.
 
2013-04-15 10:01:33 PM  

sforce: Uhm... more than half a trillion? ..

"It was the most eye-popping bailout of all: $187 billion in taxpayer money to rescue the wrecked housing agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those two agencies alone soaked up 31 percent of the $606 billion in bailout funds disbursed by the Treasury Department to dozens of organizations. "


Shhhhh!

They're on a roll - just let it go.  At least a number larger than $500 billion showed up somewhere in the article, and given fark "headlines" mendacity this counts as accurate.  Just remember all those "hot" or "cute" links that burned your eyes out.  This is truthiness of the first order.

/lies
//damn lies
///statistics
////Fark Headlines
//Campaign Promises
 
2013-04-15 10:28:00 PM  

Magorn: Make that much, much  harder by taking away Fannie and Freddie


Fannie and Freddie introduce people into the housing market who might not otherwise be there due to cost, or affordability. If you are someone who works, saves and are looking are responsible home ownership, F&F are NOT your friend.

If you have 10 homes for sale on a street and 7 people qualified to purchase, you have a buyer's market.  The scarce resource is in fact the purchaser and sellers have to compete for their business, usually by offering amenities or lowering prices.  If you have the government loan money out to people who would never qualify on their own, at rates that banks could never compete with, backed against the public treasury, then you tip the scales and make homes the scarce resource, artifically driving up demand.  All of a sudden you have 20 people on the block competing for 10 homes  and as a result, prices go up.

This message has been brought to you by Healthcare, Sallie Mae and the year 2008
 
2013-04-15 10:33:21 PM  

o5iiawah: Fannie and Freddie introduce people into the housing market who might not otherwise be there due to cost, or affordability. If you are someone who works, saves and are looking are responsible home ownership, F&F are NOT your friend.


These two sentences shouldn't follow each other.

F&F allowed the majority of people who work, save and are looking are responsible home ownership, to actually be able to buy homes. Look into the history of home ownership, and the last 10 years isn't history.
 
2013-04-15 10:34:41 PM  

o5iiawah: If you have the government loan money out to people who would never qualify on their own, at rates that banks could never compete with, backed against the public treasury, then you tip the scales and make homes the scarce resource, artifically driving up demand.


Number of loans F&F have issued in their entire history: 0.
 
2013-04-15 10:48:17 PM  
Oh I believe that and allso I'm Chinese race car driver.
 
2013-04-15 11:29:04 PM  

Franco: Oh I believe that and allso I'm Chinese race car driver.


Believe what?
 
2013-04-16 12:28:02 AM  

StopLurkListen: Glass-Steagall isn't coming back. Forget it. Proscriptive legislation just spawns an industry built to circumvent legislation.

A more elegant solution would be to incrementally raise fractional reserve banking requirements as banks get larger. Normally, larger banks have an advantage over smaller ones, leading to larger and larger banks that risk global economic meltdown if they were to fail. Instead, make smaller banks more competitive by requiring relatively less reserves -- and some will fail, but that can easily be absorbed by the system. Smaller banks DO fail all the time, and for the retail customer it's almost a non-event.

[www.motherjones.com image 300x365]

Big banks are just bad at making money, anyway.


Fractional reserves aren't the problem. They had found a way around other leverage laws with regards to assets vs loans, and fractional reserves is for deposits, not mortgages.
 
2013-04-16 12:28:46 AM  

stratagos: namatad: sigh
I was so sure that we should have let the banks fail and reinstate glass stegall

FRAK

Fannie and Freddie aren't banks


I was waiting for someone to point this out.
 
2013-04-16 12:29:23 AM  
I saw Etta May and Bernie Mac at the Trocadero.  killer show, man.

wait, what tab is this?
 
2013-04-16 01:53:00 AM  

impaler: o5iiawah: If you have the government loan money out to people who would never qualify on their own, at rates that banks could never compete with, backed against the public treasury, then you tip the scales and make homes the scarce resource, artifically driving up demand.

Number of loans F&F have issued in their entire history: 0.


Hey now, it's his strawman, he built it, and he gets to fight it.  Don't take away his only way to win an argument.
 
2013-04-16 02:38:21 AM  
Um, WTF?: FTA: ...The break-even date could occur much sooner-perhaps just a couple of years from now-if the agencies are permitted to claim a tax break allowing them to deduct some portion of past losses.

Wha?  If they get some gray-zone tax break, they might pay less in taxes, and therefore be able to "pay off" their debt to US taxpayers sooner?

What the hell is that?
 
2013-04-16 05:31:34 AM  
Unless they don't, in which case they will not have.
 
2013-04-16 04:55:00 PM  

impaler: Number of loans F&F have issued in their entire history: 0.


They dont issue them - they buy them from existing banks who usually know that they can offload the assets to F&F.

impaler: F&F allowed the majority of people who work, save and are looking are responsible home ownership, to actually be able to buy homes.


Thus driving up prices artificially.  It also allowed for those people who did work, save and get a home loan at a fair market rate to see home prices around them skyrocket, and then completely bottom out leaving many worse off than they were before and entire neighborhoods crumbling around those who actually should be a homeowner.

El Pachuco: Hey now, it's his strawman, he built it, and he gets to fight it.  Don't take away his only way to win an argument.


Its not a strawman - it is fundamental supply and demand economics.  If you introduce consumers into a market that cant instantly meet demand, you have raising prices.  Calling something a strawman is no excuse for not being able to form a rational argument.
 
2013-04-16 05:17:18 PM  
Damn Communists, paying back a loan in full instead of defaulting
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report