BF2S Forums Barney Frank says Fannie and Freddie should be abolished

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Agreed.   He conveniently lobbies for the end of the same institutions he failed to regulate properly.

Granted, I actually agree that they need to end and that the idea of everyone being a homeowner is ridiculous.

It's too little, way too late. I don't believe that he suddenly came to the realization that everything he created was a pile of shit. I think he still believes that what he created was good legislation.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

It's too little, way too late. I don't believe that he suddenly came to the realization that everything he created was a pile of shit. I think he still believes that what he created was good legislation.

Well yeah, but that's because he's an idiot.  Although he's still not as idiotic as the people who continually re-elect him.

I don't understand Massachusetts at all. It is by far the weirdest state in the northeast and I can't understand why anyone wants to live there

Barney Frank has been all over the airwaves this week with a clear and—we never thought we'd say this—perfectly sound message about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: "They should be abolished."

Well, praise be. Two years ago next month, then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson put the two government-sponsored mortgage-finance giants into conservatorship, and Congressman Frank declared himself pleased that there was a good chance, according to government bean-counters, that the rescue wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime. Also at the time, Mr. Frank scoffed at the Bush Administration's view that Fan and Fred should be wound down, saying it would never happen. One and a half trillion dimes ($149 billion) later, Mr. Frank appears to have seen the light.

Recall that in 2007 Mr. Frank had complained that the reason Fannie and Freddie hadn't been reformed earlier was "the insistence of some economic conservative fundamentalists in the Bush Administration who, to be honest, don't think there should be a Fannie Mae or a Freddie Mac." Welcome aboard, Barney.

In another sign that he's an avid reader of these columns, Mr. Frank even told Fox Business, "If we want to subsidize housing then we could do it upfront and let the budget be clear about that." That is certainly a more honest way to subsidize housing and makes us think we don't write in vain.

We prefer no subsidy for homeownership, not least because the painful experience of the last 40 years is that such policies lead to boom and bust and awful economic harm. Canada has neither a Fannie Mae nor a mortgage-interest tax deduction, and yet its homeownership rate is higher than America's. The homebuilder-Realtor-mortgage banker lobby will object, which is no doubt why Treasury chief Tim Geithner continued to call for some federal role in guaranteeing mortgages at his housing finance gabfest this week. But that road inevitably leads to the Son of Fannie.

The housing reform debate is only beginning, but for now we'll associate ourselves with Mr. Frank's view that if Congress wants to subsidize housing, it ought to do so directly out of annual appropriations, allocating dollars in open and transparent fashion against other priorities.

Varegg wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Agreed.   He conveniently lobbies for the end of the same institutions he failed to regulate properly.

Granted, I actually agree that they need to end and that the idea of everyone being a homeowner is ridiculous.

The wrong kind of regulation seems to be worse than no regulation ...