without knowing the facts on how we arrived to where we are it this entire post is meaningless.
I think there's some truth to this. The forces that brought about this situation should be fair game. But not in the normal political mud slinging way. Just saying it is the fault of ___ and ___ is not providing facts. If you want to quote from legislation, press releases or stock holder meetings where ___ said we're doing ___ so that ___, then I think that would side step the political mudslinging and be sticking to the facts of the original post.
For example,
look at this old copy of fannie maes website which says "Our mission is to tear down barriers, lower costs, and increase the opportunities for homeownership".
or this one that says "The Fannie Mae Foundation is showing America a new way home both by expanding affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income families, minorities, new immigrants, and other groups facing barriers to homeownership"
Or this one that says "In addressing HUD痴 percentage-of-business goals for 2000, the company reported that of low- and moderate-income units financed by Fannie Mae last year, 72 percent went to those with incomes at or below 80 percent of their area痴 median income, 36 percent went to those with incomes between 60 and 80 percent of the median, and 36 percent went to those with incomes at or below 60 percent of the median."
So you have an entity that basically runs the mortgage industry by buying loans from banks so banks can loan again, that is backed by the government, that is getting told by the government (HUD) to make sure low income people can get financed. Obviously the 'free market' was not getting financing to those people else the govt wouldn't have to force it. And they are proud that they are getting homeownership into markets defined as below 60% of the median income.
Trying to get more people to buy homes is going to create greater demand for homes, driving up the prices. The reason that low income people weren't getting homes before is that the market didnt 'think' the reward was worth the risk. If the risk reward ratio was right, you'd bet that some investor would have been setting up loans for these people before the govt had time to think about it.
The same thing is happening to college degrees. "we need to increase number of people with college degrees" hmmm.. college costs SKYROCKETING. people coming out of college with degrees have huge debt from college and CANNOT find work. Employers looking for non college degree level jobs cant find employees. How does this make sense?
It's already happening again folks.
Keith
