debates

[91Terminator]

At my house, if we were short on money, we would cut spending by eliminating some things like cable tv or cell phone plans or maybe sell the family car and get a cheaper one. The govt's idea of cutting spending right now is not spending any additional money and then they call that a budget cut. No, a budget cut is when the actual budget is cut, i.e.- if you were spending $30 trillion a year, you need to spend $10 trillion a year now, not keep it at $30 trillion instead of the projected $35 and then call that $5 trillion cut.

Right on!

[jmoore15]

Timmy for President!!!!!

[Timmy!]

Timmy for President!!!!!

No thank you!

[Booms]

The New York Times
Business Day
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Yeah it is Bush's fault...

[shawndoggy]

I don't know what your real estate market looks like in WI, but here in NV, the entire market was severely overheated, not just the subprime market.

[jwanck11]

I think that stating "facts" and figures in a debate have no numerical point. I think they are used to create a perception of relative credibility. "Facts" and figures at any point in time are a snapshot in a fluid system whose variables are open to the world's activity; not just what happens within these borders. Quoting "facts" says, "I know what I'm talking about and you don't." I guess there is a battle to be won there.

What matters most to me is the perception I take away with respect to the willingness to act within a multi-partisan environment. At the end of the day, any and all "successful" policies; those policies that are enacted (the outcome notwithstanding), are shaped as they move through the executive and legislative process. Thus, I want to hear candidates talk about working with the other party as a matter of approach.

Obama and now especially Biden did not come across that way. That is why Ryan's answer (which the "moderator" did not seem to be able to grasp the substance behind it) regarding the tax question was completely appropriate: We have a framework and want to work with Democrats to develop a model...

I took away that Joe was there to step on Ryan. I took it that Ryan was there to explain how he and his boss intend to operate within the US Gov't.

[shawndoggy]

Though Obama has had to contend with repubs whose sole participation has been to obstruct. Bipartisanship goes both ways.

[Nobody]

Though Obama has had to contend with repubs whose sole participation has been to obstruct. Bipartisanship goes both ways.

X2

[jwanck11]

Though Obama has had to contend with repubs whose sole participation has been to obstruct. Bipartisanship goes both ways.

No doubt. But why is this unique, now? Our two party system represents parties at odds by definition.

This is an excuse rather than looking in the mirror at failure and changing course. If people, even those diametrically opposed at the onset want to find ways to work together, they will.

Obama and especially Biden could have scored major points by a total reversal:

Recognizing out loud that the divergence and discord has occurred and pledging they would work diligently in the coming 4 years to work toward collaborative solutions would have set a totally different tone. Who cares if its true or not, it is the strategy to create the perception at the moment that matters.

How do you defend against that?

Any slam against the record is met with acknowledgement and a bi-partisan enabled path forward. People want to be led forward out of the abyss... They see Obama keeps hitting the wall. Ryan presented as someone that would actually get something done (or at least huddle with congress to try!) Again, who cares about the validity ... its the perception at this point that matters.

[Iwndr]

Though Obama has had to contend with repubs whose sole participation has been to obstruct. Bipartisanship goes both ways.

Dam good thing or it would all be over already

[shawndoggy]

No doubt. But why is this unique, now? Our two party system represents parties at odds by definition.

This is an excuse rather than looking in the mirror at failure and changing course. If people, even those diametrically opposed at the onset want to find ways to work together, they will.

Obama and especially Biden could have scored major points by a total reversal:

Recognizing out loud that the divergence and discord has occurred and pledging they would work diligently in the coming 4 years to work toward collaborative solutions would have set a totally different tone. Who cares if its true or not, it is the strategy to create the perception at the moment that matters.

How do you defend against that?

Any slam against the record is met with acknowledgement and a bi-partisan enabled path forward. People want to be led forward out of the abyss... They see Obama keeps hitting the wall. Ryan presented as someone that would actually get something done (or at least huddle with congress to try!) Again, who cares about the validity ... its the perception at this point that matters.

I hear what you are saying. I really do. But c'mon, really? Boener had a REAL budget plan worked out with the president and the tea party wouldn't swallow it. Obama came to the middle and the house walked away.

In the senate we all know the McConnell quote.

The republicans were invited to participate in obamacare and refused. Said "this thing is on you dude." So the dems ran with it. I'm a dem and I wish the republicans WOULD HAVE PARTICIPATED in the process because I think we'd have had a better bill. Instead the republicans went all in on the "obamacare will sink him so let's not play" philosophy.

Again, I totally get what you are saying but apply your logic to Al Qaeda ... or Iran. It takes two to tango and the minority party has made clear that they don't want to play the game if they don't get to make the rules.

Please give specific examples of how the President could have acted in a more bipartisan way. I just don't see it.

[zad0030]

[Iwndr]

Hah! Nice Zad

[robert theisen]

Good one Zad! What i see in here is a bunch of people with their minds already made up,myself included. I know i wan't change. Change is GOOD! Time to sweep out the old dirt and get some new dirt!

[Iwndr]

Good one Zad! What i see in here is a bunch of people with their minds already made up,myself included. I know i wan't change. Change is GOOD! Time to sweep out the old dirt and get some new dirt!

I didn't last time but I'm dam sure voting for some Hope and Change this year!

Going "Forward" or whatever they call it now. Does not look to appealing to me