Re:Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - 1999
by yummyfajitas on Tuesday September 30, 2008 @08:40AM
(#319519)
>wasn't making bushel barrels of money for the people who helped keep a certain political party in power for most of this last decade, that it would have been allowed to remain?
Exactly right. Bush did try to push some sort of regulatory scheme back in 2003 which may have prevented some of this, but a certain political party prevented it.
"Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing."
The difficulty in this situation is that the Dems had a lot to gain by opposing regulation, while Republicans would gain very little by pushing it. So why waste political capital? Also, think about the narrative:
Anti-regulation: We want to help low income and minority homeowners.
Pro-regulation: We need to reduce lending to higher risk borrowers because someday in the future, house prices might not go up, and that would be bad because [insert all sorts of technical words here].
Exactly right. Bush did try to push some sort of regulatory scheme back in 2003 which may have prevented some of this, but a certain political party prevented it.
"Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF...
The difficulty in this situation is that the Dems had a lot to gain by opposing regulation, while Republicans would gain very little by pushing it. So why waste political capital? Also, think about the narrative:
Anti-regulation: We want to help low income and minority homeowners.
Pro-regulation: We need to reduce lending to higher risk borrowers because someday in the future, house prices might not go up, and that would be bad because [insert all sorts of technical words here].