Warning: This blog is political in nature.

If you are sensitive to political commentary,
please go back to my main Random Thoughts blog.

If you like political discussion, you may also like my Political Positions blog.
Showing posts with label banking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label banking. Show all posts

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Regulatory reform: unnecessary and doesn't even do what it intends

Two major bills are currently being proposed. One is finance oversight regulation, the other is health care reform.

1: Finance oversight.

The major financial problems we've had over the last year was, and most people know this, due largely to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They encouraged, financed, and in many cases even required, lenders to make home loans to "underqualified buyers".

"Underqualified" means that the people couldn't afford them, like someone who makes $20k/year getting a $200k house. How could they even work that? Simple. Give them a low-interest, interest-only loan for the first five years. They don't have to pay on the $200k at all, only the 3% interest. They know that in five years they'll have to start paying principal too, and the interest will go to 9%. They pay $500/month for now. But in five years, that will go to $2028. Why would they even do that? They probably plan to either sell the house at a profit in five years, with a side thought of refinancing into a 30-year fixed at 6% ($1200/month) on an increased income. Problem is that housing values went down. They couldn't sell at a profit. They are "upside-down" in a house they couldn't afford. The bank should never have even lent to them. But Fannie Mae required that they make a certain number of these loans, or else risk losing access to financing sources.

The problem with the proposed legislation?

The new regulation DOES NOT APPLY TO FANNIE MAE OR FREDDIE MAC! AT ALL! The area that actually needs oversight doesn't get it!

2: Health care reform.

President Obama has pushed for this reform, in large part using General Motors as an example. The union "legacy costs", primarily health insurance, is too high, and has greatly contributed to their bankruptcy.

The problem with the proposed legislation? (Ignoring many other issues, like estimated costs of $1 trillion with no funding, and expectations that many employers will dump their current better insurance since the new stuff won't cost them anything...)

The new regulation grandfathers in the union plans! If you have a union, YOU CAN'T GET INTO THE NEW PLAN EVEN IF YOU WANT TO! The industries that need the reform most aren't allowed to use it!

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Government running our businesses

The government is insistent on taking over the banks. They started by loaning the TARP/bailout money to the banks. They they changed that to preferred stocks - some more risk than bonded loans, but still higher in the food chain. Now the government wants to change it to common stock. You know, the stuff that becomes worthless in bankruptcy? Why? Because common stock is VOTING stock! The government wants to tell the banks exactly what to do! (They also get four of nine directors of Chrysler. with the UAW getting one and Canada getting one, totalling six of the nine directors.)

Since when has the government been any good at running a business? Just look at the Postal Service. They keep raising rates all the time. They are slow, and they lose a lot of mail. They don't guarantee their service unless you get the highest (most expensive) options. The major competitors at least guarantee they won't lose your stuff - and they offer tracking included at no extra charge. But they AREN'T ALLOWED to handle non-priority letters! The government knows it's doing such a bad job that it won't let others compete!

Keep the government's hands off of businesses!

FYI on a label I used.
Fascism: One of the major components is the government telling businesses what to do even while those businesses maintain the fascade of being private. Communism includes when those businesses are directly government-owned. Look it up.

Banking "stress test"

We've just gotten results from a "stress test" done on banks by the FDIC. The FDIC does these regularly anyway! It's just more politics.

And the bad news took the Dow Jones down another 102.43 points. Thanks - my 401K (what's left of it) needed that.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

The Federal Governmemnt Is Clueless

OK, the Air Force One flight that served to terrify people in NYC cost closer to $350,000. And the trip to Missouri yesterday was about $20 million. Your tax dollars at work.

Our government over the past year - yes, with both parties and both administrations - are using crisis after crisis to get more power. The government and the unions now control GM and the major banks (and a large portion of Chrysler). They have pushed through cabinet secretaries without proper review, and any objections were overruled in the name of the crisis. We got a tax cheat AS THE HEAD OF THE IRS because we had a crisis. He has since proven worthless; CitiBank and Bank of America are now (based on the "stress test") seen as less stable and more likely to fail AFTER the bailout than before. Now we have someone with a strongly racist beliefs as head of Health and Human Services because of a crisis. It's just a bad flu, at least for now, and all they really need to do is close the border from Mexico to keep sick illegals out.

When I say HHS secretary Sebelius is racist, I mean as in wanting to eliminate all black people. She's scary - check it out, just not with the major news sources since they love everything Obama does. Oh, and as a reminder, Obama's only 1/16 black. With 7/16 Arab and 1/2 white. This is common knowledge, but generally ignored. I don't care what race/heritage someone is, but don't try to convince me of something that's not true. Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger explicitly to eliminate blacks by aborting all black babies. They try to play that down now, but it's still true.