SpawnPoint - Where Game Begins

The following excerpt was writtin in 1995. If I'm correct in my calculations, this was before Bush took office, and while the "great" Bill Clinton was in office.

"WASHINGTON (AP) _ The Clinton administration is proposing new goals for the nation's two largest investors in home mortgages that are designed to increase the supply of affordable housing.

The companies are the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Known respectively as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both are congressionally chartered, shareholder-owned companies.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development said Monday the goals call for 38 percent of mortgage purchases by the investors this year to support low- and moderate-income housing.
The low- and moderate-income goals, which have been 30 percent, would increase to 40 percent next year.
A third goal would require the two companies to focus 18 percent of their business this year in urban and rural communities underserved by the mortgage industry. The goal would be 12 percent in 1996.
The goals would become effective after a public-comment period ending May 2.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchase about 70 percent of the nation's conventional mortgages from lenders, such as banks, and package them into securities, which they sell to investors.
By purchasing mortgages, the companies make more money available for new housing loans."

heres the site i pulled it from for accuracy's sake Clinton Proposes New Goals for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac | Journal Record, The (Oklahoma City) | Find Articles at BNET

ok here we go. So Bush is blamed for everything. He is the Anti-Christ to America right? While I haven't agreed with everything he has done, i find the anti-Bush rhetoric that seemingly the entire country spews from their mouths to be ridiculous. I watched every single debate last year, Republican and Democratic primary debates, as well as all of the presidential debates. Obama, in his debates with McCain, repeatedly accused the Bush administration of deregulation in the housing market. This deregulation is what he accredited our economy's collapse to. Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but according to this little tidbit from the AP in 1995, Clinton, not Bush, was the one who pushed for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to "deregulate" and offer all of those subprime mortgages. Clinton, not Bush, thought it would be a great and marverlous idea for our financial institutions to lend exhorbantant amounts of money to people who they knew had no way of paying it back. Yes, it is all Bush's fault that all of this took place BEFORE he took office. Yes, let's not pin it on the president who messed up, who also is the same president who committed perjury but got away scot-free. Let's blame Bush, he is the perfect scapegoat. I have a better idea. Why don't we actually pay attention for ourselves instead of jumping on propaganda bandwagons.


p.s. look at some of the all-stars on this list OpenSecrets | Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats - Capital Eye
2. presidential candidate
3. President, who by the way, denied taking money from these institutions in a debate with McCain
4. presidential candidate who now gets to misrepresent America to other nations.
13. We'll get to him in a minute
16. The man who, before the collapse of the economy, said ya invest in freddie mac and fannie mae they're grrrrreaaaat!
22. Speaker of the house who, just like every other demmy, blamed bush for these companies going down

man, this is like a who's who's list of washington, but wait, I'm looking, omg this must be a mistake, Bush's name isn't in there.


p.s.s Does anyone here know that Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's CHIEF OF STAFF, used to be on the board of director's for freddie mac and fannie mae? hmm? Oh, he also had his salary QUADRUPLED in one year while on the board. OH, and those companies were also under federal investigation during his tenure for illegal campaign contributions. wow, this is who America's savior, Barack Obama, chose to run his white house. Great choice Barry!

lmao... Raven you know me too well. My first reaction though was and still is to wait a bit and see what kind of response this gets b4 jumping in full force. I do think it's important for anyone thinking about this thread to consider that there's enough blame to go around for both of the parties.

For example, yes the Democrats did push for legislation that would allow more people with less means to obtain affordable housing - the American dream, but if I recall during the Clinton administration there was a Republican controlled congress. And let's also take into consideration that Bush also had the luxury of a Republican held congress, where both the House and the Senate marched along in lock step behind 90% of what Bush wanted. What is that, 15 years of Republican majority. I also recall a number of Bush speeches where he proudly proclaimed the highest ever levels of home ownership under his administration. And let's not forget about the market speculators and greed driven toxic instruments developed by Wall Street so that these bad loans could be written. It really is about greed, and that crosses all party lines.

So, there's enough blame to go around and that game gets us nowhere. The debate now should be about what course of action is best to turn things around. Not just for America, but for all countries of the world that have investments in our free and open markets.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to assign praise or blame on either party because it often takes a couple of years for policies to really get their legs and get tested in the judicial system. We have drastic reactionary policies without waiting to see how previous legislation shakes out.

The shame of it is that both parties refuse to work with each other. Now, when the Dems control everything, they use that power to pursue their agendas. The Republicans do the same. For instance the Republicans have been crying about being left out on the bailout, but they blocked the Democrats when they did not need their input to pass legislation. This, of course, makes perfect sense because people always want to negotiate from a position of strength, but it means we wind up having big swings back and forth trying to "fix" each other's policies instead of working together to really work for the American citizens.

I think having at least 2 strong parties is critical. I do not mean that they should agree on everything, but if they are going to bicker over such little differences now that they are both so centrist, at least maybe we could get some legislation that doesn't pander to big donors.

i agree xtr3m3, i wasnt trying to assign the blame to clinton, or maybe i was lol, i was just trying to point out that the media as well as popular opinion like to demonize bush. like i said, i haven't agreed with everything he has done, but he did serve this country, in a capacity that the majority of this country will never know. it's easy to play armchair quarterback. thats all i was trying to get across. i do agree however, that there are just as many, or slightly less :), dirty republicans as there are democrats, i just think it would be nice if there were, say, a 250,000 dollar limit on campaigns so that real people who work for a living and have great ideas for this country from the bottom up could have a chance to win an office. what do you say guys, you with me?