Poverty Rate Highest In 50 Years

[dgs49]

Say, rube, if this is such a good idea, why was it not done while the Democrats had control of the WH and both houses of Congress?

Could it be that it is a dumb fucking idea that even Reid and Pelosi can see would have disastrous results for the working poor, throwing tens of thousands of them out on the street? Destroying small businesses who rely on MW labor? Not to mention, dramatically increasing the cost of Big Mac's?

Or are you the only one "smart" enough to see that this is a good idea?

[Gob]

(CNSNews.com) - The money the U.S. government owes to foreign entities rose to a record $5.2923 trillion in June, according to data released by the U.S. Treasury Wednesday afternoon.

In May, the U.S. Treasury had owed $5.2581 trillion to foreign entities. On net, in June, the U.S. government borrowed an additional $34.2 billion from foreign entities in order to fund U.S. government operations.

The U.S. government’s indebtedness to foreign interests has grown by 72.3 percent during President Barack Obama’s term in office. In January 2009, when Obama was inaugurated, the U.S. government owed $3.0717 trillion to foreign entities, according to the Treasury Department. That has increased by $2.2206 trillion—or 72.3 percent—to the record $5.2923 trillion reported for yesterday.

Entities in the People’s Republic of China remain the largest holders of U.S. government debt. Entities in Japan, however, are on track to eclipse the Chinese as the top holders of U.S. government debt.

In June, the Chinese held $1.1643 trillion in U.S. government debt, up slightly from the $1.1640 trillion in U.S. government debt the Chinese held in May. However, Chinese ownership of U.S. government debt hit an historical peaked of $1.3149 trillion in July 2011 and has been on a generally downward trend since then.

Entities in Japan, by contrast, have been consistently increasing their ownership of U.S. government debt. In June, the Japanese owned $1.1193 trillion in U.S. debt. In May, they owned $1.1089 trillion in U.S. debt. A year ago, in June 2011, the Japanese owned only $881.5 in U.S. government debt.

Although the Chinese maintained their place as the top foreign owners of U.S. debt in June, they are not the top owners of U.S. debt in the world. That distinction belongs to the U.S. Federal Reserve, which according to its July monthly report, owned $1.667 trillion in U.S. government debt in June.

As of the end of June, the total debt of the federal government was $15,856,367,214,324.44. However, of that debt, $4,812,182,369,712.78 was money the federal government owed to itself (i.e. money the Treasury had borrowed from federal trust funds such as the Social Security Trust Fund, etc.). The Treasury calls this type of debt “intragovernmental” debt. The remaining $11,044,184,844,611.66 the federal government owed as of the end of June was debt held by the “public.” This is debt in the form of Treasury securities the government is obligated to pay off in cash.

The combined $6.9593 trillion that U.S. Treasury owed both to foreign entities ($5.2923 trillion) and the Federal Reserve ($1.667 trillion) at the end of June, equaled about 63 percent of the federal government’s debt held by the public

[rubato]

Say, rube, if this is such a good idea, why was it not done while the Democrats had control of the WH and both houses of Congress?

Could it be that it is a dumb fucking idea that even Reid and Pelosi can see would have disastrous results for the working poor, throwing tens of thousands of them out on the street? Destroying small businesses who rely on MW labor? Not to mention, dramatically increasing the cost of Big Mac's?

Or are you the only one "smart" enough to see that this is a good idea?

They did increase the Federal minimum wage. 2007-2009 the minimum was raised. You don't really pay very close attention, do you?

Obama had small majorities and other problems to fix; like the Republican-caused collapse.


yrs,
rubato

[liberty]

like the Republican-caused collapse.


yrs,
rubato

Was this a Republican idea? I is a bad idea anytime anyone is forced to load money, forced money is stolen money.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
NEWS
Help Poorer Neighborhoods Improve Themselves
By STARITA SMITH, May 26, 1999
Some Republicans in Congress are trying to weaken the Community Reinvestment Act to protect the interests of banks. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 gave community groups leverage to negotiate with banksto ensure that they were meeting local lending needs. This leverage was necessary because banks, mortgage companies and insurance corporations had a long history of "redlining" -- refusing to cover -- communities they deemed undesirable. It didn't matter whether you were a tax-paying, hard-working person

[Scooter]

The problem with trying to blame the CRA for the bad loans and the ensuing financial crisis is the pesky fact that CRA-compliant financial institutions were less likely to fail than institutions that were not bound by the CRA.

[liberty]

I find it hard to believe that when people are given the power to take money from someone else they don’t take advantage of it. Bankers like all businessmen should be motivated by one thing, profit. The good of the community is the province of the government.

[Scooter]

No one was given the power to take money from anyone.

[liberty]

When money is loaned under duress, that is a taking. The only reason a banker should loan money is because he believes the bank will get it back with interest.

[Scooter]

No one was loaned money "under duress". No bank was forced to make any loans they did not believe would be repaid with interest.

[loCAtek]

No wait, seriously... then why is CA minimum wage lower than in the past?

[Scooter]

Effective January 1, 2008, the CA minimum wage was set at $8.00. Are you claiming it is now less than that?

[dales]

I would surmise that there is at least one poster here who believes these wages are too high.

[rubato]

like the Republican-caused collapse.


yrs,
rubato

Was this a Republican idea? I is a bad idea anytime anyone is forced to load money, forced money is stolen money.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
NEWS
Help Poorer Neighborhoods Improve Themselves
By STARITA SMITH, May 26, 1999
Some Republicans in Congress are trying to weaken the Community Reinvestment Act to protect the interests of banks. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 gave community groups leverage to negotiate with banksto ensure that they were meeting local lending needs. This leverage was necessary because banks, mortgage companies and insurance corporations had a long history of "redlining" -- refusing to cover -- communities they deemed undesirable. It didn't matter whether you were a tax-paying, hard-working person

Blaming the CRA is ignorant, implausible, and stupid.

1.
The CRA effected too few mortgages to drive housing prices overall.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publicati ... fm?id=4136

"...
Using loan origination data obtained pursuant to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), we find that in 2005 and 2006, independent nonbank institutions—institutions not covered by the CRA—accounted for about half of all subprime originations. (See Table 1.) Also, about 60 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, populations not targeted by the CRA. (See Table 2.) In addition, independent nonbank institutions originated nearly half of the higher-priced loans extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas (share derived from Table 2).

In total, of all the higher-priced loans, only 6 percent were extended by CRA-regulated lenders (and their affiliates) to either lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in the lenders' CRA assessment areas, which are the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. The small share of subprime lending in 2005 and 2006 that can be linked to the CRA suggests it is very unlikely the CRA could have played a substantial role in the subprime crisis. ... "

2.
The CRA effected poor black and hispanic neighborhoods. The crisis was driven by white and Asian upper-middle class neighborhoods.

3.
None of the other countries effected by the run-up in house prices or the collapse was effected by the CRA. The simultaneous rise and collapse in those countries suggests a common cause. Since the CRA is impossible it must be something else (lack of regulation).



[ side note: Sweden, Switzerland and GErmany all have more effective banking regulation and were completely unaffected. Japan was still recovering from the collapse of their own 'bubble'. Which points squarely at lack of regulation of the financial sector as the common cause. ]

4.
CRA loans were required to be conforming loans. Substantial down payment, full documentation, and NON-jumbo loans.

5.
The CRA was passed into law in 1977. How did it take 30 years to cause a housing bubble?

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publicati ... fm?id=4136

"...


The first point is a matter of timing. The current crisis is rooted in the poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2005 and 2007. If the CRA did indeed spur the recent expansion of the subprime mortgage market and subsequent turmoil, it would be reasonable to assume that some change in the enforcement regime in 2004 or 2005 triggered a relaxation of underwriting standards by CRA-covered lenders for loans originated in the past few years. However, the CRA rules and enforcement process have not changed substantively since 1995.2/ This fact weakens the potential link between the CRA and the current mortgage crisis. ... "

6.
The entities which wrote the toxic loans were NOT effected by the CRA:

"...
Our second point is a matter of the originating entity. When considering the potential role of the CRA in the current mortgage crisis, it is important to account for the originating party. In particular, independent nonbank lenders, such as mortgage and finance companies and credit unions, originate a substantial share of subprime mortgages, but they are not subject to CRA regulation and, hence, are not directly influenced by CRA obligations. (We explore subprime mortgage originations in further detail below.) ... "

yrs,
rubato

[liberty]

like the Republican-caused collapse.


yrs,
rubato



If this true then Bush was not the devil you have painted him to be:

President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

2001

April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

[/quote][/quote]AdvertisementFebruary: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

February: The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

•"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
•"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
•Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President’s call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

(White House Press Release

[rubato]

Wrong again on multiple counts.

1.
GSEs did not cause the problem. Yo didn't read the above post did you? Fanny and Freddie were REDUCING the percentage of loans they bought during the run-up. It was private (insufficiently regulated) financial institutions which caused the collapse.



The cause of the problem was the private markets which drove the increase and collapse.

And if Bush wanted to reform GSEs he controlled both houses of congress and the supreme court, there was no barrier for him to do so. Therefore he really didn't care.

I'm amazed to hear old lies which are so easily disproven repeated 4 years later on. Don't you ever check facts? Don't you care that you're being played for a fool?



http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=c ... red-crisis
"...

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.

About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.

...

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

What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.

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

In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems.

"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business."
______________________________________

Do at least a LITTLE research?


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

70 percent of mortgages were being sold into the private equity market. Not CRA loans, not Fannie and Freddie, private equity.

Got it?

Are you listening finally?


yrs,
rubato