Frank: [Americans] shouldn’t be allowed “total freedom” in their financial decisions

[red states rule]

So, which party is the Nanny State party? Which one the one to infringe our liberties? Which one better equipped to manage the finances of individuals?



Barney Frank: Marijuana, Internet Gambling O.K. for Americans, but not ‘Total Freedom’ in Financial Matters
Friday, April 24, 2009
By Matt Cover

CNSNews.com) – Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told CNSNews.com Thursday that, if it were up to him, Americans would be completely free to smoke marijuana and gamble on the Internet -- but they shouldn’t be allowed “total freedom” in their financial decisions because those risky decisions might adversely affect others.

“I would let people gamble on the Internet,” Frank said. “I would let adults smoke marijuana; I would let adults do a lot of things, if they choose.”

He added: “But allowing them total freedom to take on economic obligations that spill over into the broader society? The individual is not the only one impacted here, when bad decisions get made in the economic sphere, it causes problems.”

CNSNews.com asked Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, to respond to criticism from his Republican counterpart on the committee, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), during a hearing Thursday on the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2009.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47107

[red states rule]

I wonder who he thinks should manage our finances.

Him??

Considering the mess he's help make so far, no thanks

After all, Frank said there was NO problem with fannie and Freddie when pres Bush wanted to reform them and tighten credit standards for borrowers

[PostmodernProphet]

as I recall, this is no change from his earlier position.....after all, he was the one who was opposed to letting banks make the decisions whether people should receive mortgages or not.....he wanted to make that decision instead of the banks.....

[crin63]

This is just a different spin on an old Democratic belief that Americans are too stupid to be trusted with their own money. They believe we should give it the them and let them tell us how to spend it and live.

This was the actual turning point for me when I went from live and let live as far as Democrats are concerned to completely despising all that Democrats stand for and completely opposing them.

I spent 10 months in 1995 laid up after ligament reconstruction on my ankle watching C-Span. I watched congress and the senate in session every day for months, I heard the actual words coming out of the Democrats mouths and they hate Americans. They hate our freedom, they hate not dictating to us how we should live every single moment of our lives. They think that they are so intellectually superior to all of us, that we should make obeisance to them and that we should be so overwhelmed with appreciation for their condescension to even consider us little people that giving them all we have should be a trivial act of service to them. Their hatred for Americans is only outweighed by their arrogance.

This is the kinder, gentler version of how I feel now at this point in my life. In 1995 after what I heard from Democrats I wouldn't have walked across a street to urinate in a Democrats ear if their brain was on fire because I despised them so much.

[Little-Acorn]

Oddest thing about all this, is that there are still some people who believe that his (and Obama's) agenda does NOT include control and dominnation of a large central government.

[red states rule]

The people that made the biggest negative impact on society are people like Frank. His stint on the banking committee and his actions (and inactions) are directly connected to the overall failure of the American economy.

No private citizen with one mortgage could have done more damage to the economy than what Frank (and his fellow liberals) actively did (and did not do in Congress.

[red states rule]

and Barney does like toget close to his friends

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/149955.jpg

[actsnoblemartin]

barney frank, is he a leprecuan or something

:lol:


The people that made the biggest negative impact on society are people like Frank. His stint on the banking committee and his actions (and inactions) are directly connected to the overall failure of the American economy.

No private citizen with one mortgage could have done more damage to the economy than what Frank (and his fellow liberals) actively did (and did not do in Congress.

[red states rule]

barney frank, is he a leprecuan or something

:lol:

He always gets it right in the end Martin

[5stringJeff]

The only party that supports marijuana legalization, legalized online gambling, AND freedom in banking is: the Libertarian Party! :thumb:

[red states rule]

Liberalism: Protecting the stupid people from themselves.

This is like Frank instead of blaming the engineers, blaming the people driving over a bridge for its collapse.

[bullypulpit]

Liberalism: Protecting the stupid people from themselves.

This is like Frank instead of blaming the engineers, blaming the people driving over a bridge for its collapse.

Or, as with the previous administration, failing to provide the funding to upgrade and maintain the nation's infrastructure.

More to the point, predatory lenders victimize those who can afford it the least. The aged, people faced with medical expenses and, of course, those to stupid to draw a breath.

Mortgage brokers, whose only interest is in selling the loan, will thus make crap loans to people who would otherwise never qualify for them. Once the loans are of their books, their responsibility is ended. They made their money in fees, but mostly when they sold the loan. They bear no responsibility for making a bad loan to someone who can't afford it. And this is what led to the melt-down of the sub-prime mortgage industry and the economy in general.

Until these so-called fiscal conservatives and free-market advocates that make up the GOP understand and accept the simple fact that unfettered free markets presuppose a rational society, which we clearly do not have, we will continue to have such debacles as the financial crisis we are currently faced with.

All you right wing tools need to look at the big picture, but that requires the capability for abstract thought and the ability to deal on more than one narrowly focused non-issue at a time.

[red states rule]

Or, as with the previous administration, failing to provide the funding to upgrade and maintain the nation's infrastructure.

More to the point, predatory lenders victimize those who can afford it the least. The aged, people faced with medical expenses and, of course, those to stupid to draw a breath.

Mortgage brokers, whose only interest is in selling the loan, will thus make crap loans to people who would otherwise never qualify for them. Once the loans are of their books, their responsibility is ended. They made their money in fees, but mostly when they sold the loan. They bear no responsibility for making a bad loan to someone who can't afford it. And this is what led to the melt-down of the sub-prime mortgage industry and the economy in general.

Until these so-called fiscal conservatives and free-market advocates that make up the GOP understand and accept the simple fact that unfettered free markets presuppose a rational society, which we clearly do not have, we will continue to have such debacles as the financial crisis we are currently faced with.

All you right wing tools need to look at the big picture, but that requires the capability for abstract thought and the ability to deal on more than one narrowly focused non-issue at a time.

Having freedom also means having the freedom to fail.

But that shouldn't justify taking others down. When the government grants people the freedom to buy houses they can't afford, who gets stuck with the mess when the bubble pops? There will always be those who need the government to tell them how to manage their lives.

BP, time to take a trip down memory lane. Who set the groundwork for the economic mess we are in? Who tried to reform Fannie and Freddie but were told by Dems there was no problem?


1999 NY Times - Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
October 1, 2008 — budsimmons
September 30, 1999

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

By STEVEN A. HOLMES

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.

http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/1999-ny-times-fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending/

and


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cMnSp4qEXNM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cMnSp4qEXNM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


and of course BP lets not forget the $7 billion Obama gave to Chrysler. That is now gone and the US taxpayer will never be paid back

Oh well, its only $7 billion - right?