<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fannie Mae bailout:  Taxing America&#8217;s poorest citizens to help the richest</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/</link>
	<description>A posting every day; an interesting idea every three months...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:44:43 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/comment-page-1/#comment-94747</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2008 22:15:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/#comment-94747</guid>
		<description>Bob in 29 post is wrong about Fannie Mae.  Under Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae manipulated their accounting books to make a $6 billion dollar loss appear as profit in which they had to restate their books.  Did Mr Raines Have to pay back his $140 million compensation?  The answer is no.  He paid a small fine of a few million dollars.  Bob is right that Fannie bought a lot of loans as mortgage back securites that failed, but you left out the fact that your friends at Fannie were paid millions in compensation that they never had to pay back.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bob in 29 post is wrong about Fannie Mae.  Under Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae manipulated their accounting books to make a $6 billion dollar loss appear as profit in which they had to restate their books.  Did Mr Raines Have to pay back his $140 million compensation?  The answer is no.  He paid a small fine of a few million dollars.  Bob is right that Fannie bought a lot of loans as mortgage back securites that failed, but you left out the fact that your friends at Fannie were paid millions in compensation that they never had to pay back.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jake</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/comment-page-1/#comment-86970</link>
		<dc:creator>Jake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:08:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/#comment-86970</guid>
		<description>I am one but I join the millions of  of others who disapprove of the bailout of the thousands of others who bought real estate knowing they could not afford it. I compare the problem is the same as someone buying stock and when the stock tanked, want their money back.  All gambled and lost and I certainly will not chip in to save them. Get real people!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am one but I join the millions of  of others who disapprove of the bailout of the thousands of others who bought real estate knowing they could not afford it. I compare the problem is the same as someone buying stock and when the stock tanked, want their money back.  All gambled and lost and I certainly will not chip in to save them. Get real people!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: carrie</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/comment-page-1/#comment-86956</link>
		<dc:creator>carrie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:27:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/#comment-86956</guid>
		<description>I too am sick of all the whining from the &quot;so called poor&quot;.  Let me tell you what I see...I see a lot of people with tricked out cars, and cells phones and cable and ipods etc.  They have every maginable thing and have credit cards to the max.  Then they want to tell me that they can&#039;t afford health insurance or that they can&#039;t afford the house payment.  That&#039;s crap!!!  Get rid of some of the other non essential stuff.  I worked 3 jobs to pay for college then when I bought my house I had to put downs 15%, which by the way took years to save.  I did not have cabel or a cell phone until I could afford to pay for them.  I do not think I should have to now pay for those people who made bad lifestlye choices.  They certainly don&#039;t want us telling them how to live, but don&#039;t mind having us bail them out.  Most &quot;so called rich&quot; worked their butt for it, and we are tired of paying for those who don&#039;t!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I too am sick of all the whining from the &#8220;so called poor&#8221;.  Let me tell you what I see&#8230;I see a lot of people with tricked out cars, and cells phones and cable and ipods etc.  They have every maginable thing and have credit cards to the max.  Then they want to tell me that they can&#8217;t afford health insurance or that they can&#8217;t afford the house payment.  That&#8217;s crap!!!  Get rid of some of the other non essential stuff.  I worked 3 jobs to pay for college then when I bought my house I had to put downs 15%, which by the way took years to save.  I did not have cabel or a cell phone until I could afford to pay for them.  I do not think I should have to now pay for those people who made bad lifestlye choices.  They certainly don&#8217;t want us telling them how to live, but don&#8217;t mind having us bail them out.  Most &#8220;so called rich&#8221; worked their butt for it, and we are tired of paying for those who don&#8217;t!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FatherofTwo</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/comment-page-1/#comment-86882</link>
		<dc:creator>FatherofTwo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:38:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/#comment-86882</guid>
		<description>When are we going to stop spending our children&#039;s money?

The national debt will destroy the dollar, and destroy this country.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When are we going to stop spending our children&#8217;s money?</p>
<p>The national debt will destroy the dollar, and destroy this country.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/comment-page-1/#comment-86857</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:58:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/#comment-86857</guid>
		<description>This kind of class whining is so intellectually bankrupt.

The poor pay almost no taxes.  The bottom 35% of American&#039;s pay ZERO Federal tax.  And the other taxes (sales, etc) they pay are essentially zero on a relative basis.  Making a case that the poor subsidize anyone, on a monetary basis, is folly.  One could make an argument about economic fairness and inequitable wealth concentrations - but when the top 50% of Americans essentially pay ALL of the taxes, any argument about how they benefit embarrasses the person making that argument.

Fannie and Freddie made mistakes - no doubt.  But, if you want to understand the REAL reason Fan/Fred are bleeding right now - you need to meander through Fannie&#039;s balance sheet.  Take a look at which loans are going bad and which loans are performing well.

You&#039;ll quickly realize that Fan/Fred made a lot of loans where the borrower put no money down, had very high debt ratios and had iffy credit.  They also made loans to people without verifying their income.

These loans are almost 100% responsible for the losses that Fan/Fred are taking.  The old fashioned, 30 year fixed with a 10% downpayment to people with a job history are performing perfectly.

So, why did Fan/Fred lose their way?  (They only starting making the riskier loans in the past six or seven years).  Answer - congress.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversite (OFHEO), which regulated Fan/Fred would give Fan/Fred annual &quot;housing goals&quot; to meet.  These numbers were pushed HARD by liberal Democrats (and some Republicans as well because, after all, who would ever say no to housing...)

So, not only did Wall Street get greedy - our government got greedy as well.  Bush pushed hard for ever-increasing homeownership goals and the Democrats  pushed extremely hard to get more and more minorities and &quot;underserved&quot; into homes.

How do you get more &quot;underserved&quot; into homes?  You dramatically loosen credit standards.  

It&#039;s popular now to blame the lenders for having the gall to give people six figures so they could own a home - but it&#039;s an absolute truism, when it comes to Fan/Fred, to say they had no choice.

I have friends in senior positions at Fannie.  They would often marvel that the OFHEO goals for homeownership EXCEEDED the market.  In other words, the goals forced them to create loans for people who had no business owning a home.

So, feel good about your Socialist story - but know that it&#039;s dead wrong.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This kind of class whining is so intellectually bankrupt.</p>
<p>The poor pay almost no taxes.  The bottom 35% of American&#8217;s pay ZERO Federal tax.  And the other taxes (sales, etc) they pay are essentially zero on a relative basis.  Making a case that the poor subsidize anyone, on a monetary basis, is folly.  One could make an argument about economic fairness and inequitable wealth concentrations &#8211; but when the top 50% of Americans essentially pay ALL of the taxes, any argument about how they benefit embarrasses the person making that argument.</p>
<p>Fannie and Freddie made mistakes &#8211; no doubt.  But, if you want to understand the REAL reason Fan/Fred are bleeding right now &#8211; you need to meander through Fannie&#8217;s balance sheet.  Take a look at which loans are going bad and which loans are performing well.</p>
<p>You&#8217;ll quickly realize that Fan/Fred made a lot of loans where the borrower put no money down, had very high debt ratios and had iffy credit.  They also made loans to people without verifying their income.</p>
<p>These loans are almost 100% responsible for the losses that Fan/Fred are taking.  The old fashioned, 30 year fixed with a 10% downpayment to people with a job history are performing perfectly.</p>
<p>So, why did Fan/Fred lose their way?  (They only starting making the riskier loans in the past six or seven years).  Answer &#8211; congress.</p>
<p>The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversite (OFHEO), which regulated Fan/Fred would give Fan/Fred annual &#8220;housing goals&#8221; to meet.  These numbers were pushed HARD by liberal Democrats (and some Republicans as well because, after all, who would ever say no to housing&#8230;)</p>
<p>So, not only did Wall Street get greedy &#8211; our government got greedy as well.  Bush pushed hard for ever-increasing homeownership goals and the Democrats  pushed extremely hard to get more and more minorities and &#8220;underserved&#8221; into homes.</p>
<p>How do you get more &#8220;underserved&#8221; into homes?  You dramatically loosen credit standards.  </p>
<p>It&#8217;s popular now to blame the lenders for having the gall to give people six figures so they could own a home &#8211; but it&#8217;s an absolute truism, when it comes to Fan/Fred, to say they had no choice.</p>
<p>I have friends in senior positions at Fannie.  They would often marvel that the OFHEO goals for homeownership EXCEEDED the market.  In other words, the goals forced them to create loans for people who had no business owning a home.</p>
<p>So, feel good about your Socialist story &#8211; but know that it&#8217;s dead wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim B</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/comment-page-1/#comment-85175</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:41:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/#comment-85175</guid>
		<description>People took out home loans they couldn&#039;t afford to repay over the long term. I&#039;d imagine many borrowers were aware of the risks but erred on the side of optimism. Some were speculating. Mortgage lending companies tossed their lending standards out the window because they&#039;d identified bigger suckers than themselves who would buy pieces of the loans and assume the risks. No doubt there was some fraud that went on. If it&#039;s not the business of government to properly regulate these markets, then why is it the business of government to bail out the losers when the chips don&#039;t fall their way, especially when the losers consist of some very economically well off individuals? This is compassionate conservatism in all its glory. 

One sizable component of the taxable income of many rich folks is unearned income from capital gains from investments. This is currently taxed at 15% for investments held longer than 18 months. Joe Sixpack may have some retirement investments and so forth, but I doubt he&#039;s got an income stream from investments, let alone the tax-free municipal bonds that are probably in the portfolios of older rich folks. In short, rich people&#039;s investments are a hedge against inflation and also buy them time, keep them from having to take on debt to deal with tough times. Joe Sixpack doesn&#039;t have that cushion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>People took out home loans they couldn&#8217;t afford to repay over the long term. I&#8217;d imagine many borrowers were aware of the risks but erred on the side of optimism. Some were speculating. Mortgage lending companies tossed their lending standards out the window because they&#8217;d identified bigger suckers than themselves who would buy pieces of the loans and assume the risks. No doubt there was some fraud that went on. If it&#8217;s not the business of government to properly regulate these markets, then why is it the business of government to bail out the losers when the chips don&#8217;t fall their way, especially when the losers consist of some very economically well off individuals? This is compassionate conservatism in all its glory. </p>
<p>One sizable component of the taxable income of many rich folks is unearned income from capital gains from investments. This is currently taxed at 15% for investments held longer than 18 months. Joe Sixpack may have some retirement investments and so forth, but I doubt he&#8217;s got an income stream from investments, let alone the tax-free municipal bonds that are probably in the portfolios of older rich folks. In short, rich people&#8217;s investments are a hedge against inflation and also buy them time, keep them from having to take on debt to deal with tough times. Joe Sixpack doesn&#8217;t have that cushion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Mullen</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/comment-page-1/#comment-84714</link>
		<dc:creator>David Mullen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:03:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/#comment-84714</guid>
		<description>Everything Dan K. said, plus general venting from my personal outlook: I&#039;m in Portland, Oregon as well, I&#039;m a cashier at Safeway, and I live in a tent in the woods. I already have a university education in computer science, but that has turned out to be irrelevant; it&#039;s been decided (by whom I don&#039;t know) that the economy doesn&#039;t need the quaint notion of &#039;jobs&#039; any more. The idea instead is that some of us get rich designing iPods, while the rest of us fight tooth-and-nail to earn enough money to buy those iPods. Sooner or later it will be discovered that this arrangement is not sustainable, but until then, the Rest of Us are supposed to suffer in silence, I guess.

I may be a squatter but I am not a freeloader. So I have had it up to here with right-wingers. They say the minimum wage is evil. Who are they to talk? When they&#039;ve had to worry about getting enough to eat each day, then they can talk about abolishing economic regulations. Some of them even say &quot;taxation is theft.&quot; I don&#039;t mind taxation in itself. What I do mind is seeing 20% of my earnings go to -- not health care for me, not shelter for me, but to fund a bunch of frivolous financial and military adventures that line the pockets of the already-rich. Maybe I&#039;m the only one who&#039;s annoyed at this? Well, &#039;they&#039; had better hope I&#039;m the only one, because otherwise there&#039;s major inter-class trouble brewing in America.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Everything Dan K. said, plus general venting from my personal outlook: I&#8217;m in Portland, Oregon as well, I&#8217;m a cashier at Safeway, and I live in a tent in the woods. I already have a university education in computer science, but that has turned out to be irrelevant; it&#8217;s been decided (by whom I don&#8217;t know) that the economy doesn&#8217;t need the quaint notion of &#8216;jobs&#8217; any more. The idea instead is that some of us get rich designing iPods, while the rest of us fight tooth-and-nail to earn enough money to buy those iPods. Sooner or later it will be discovered that this arrangement is not sustainable, but until then, the Rest of Us are supposed to suffer in silence, I guess.</p>
<p>I may be a squatter but I am not a freeloader. So I have had it up to here with right-wingers. They say the minimum wage is evil. Who are they to talk? When they&#8217;ve had to worry about getting enough to eat each day, then they can talk about abolishing economic regulations. Some of them even say &#8220;taxation is theft.&#8221; I don&#8217;t mind taxation in itself. What I do mind is seeing 20% of my earnings go to &#8212; not health care for me, not shelter for me, but to fund a bunch of frivolous financial and military adventures that line the pockets of the already-rich. Maybe I&#8217;m the only one who&#8217;s annoyed at this? Well, &#8216;they&#8217; had better hope I&#8217;m the only one, because otherwise there&#8217;s major inter-class trouble brewing in America.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/comment-page-1/#comment-84687</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:21:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/#comment-84687</guid>
		<description>Consider this:

Over 70 percent of taxes are paid by the wealthiest 10 percent of the population... and it still has almost NO IMPACT on their lifestyle.

The only way that the wealthy would suffer is if they paid prices for ALL ITEMS in proportion to their wealth. But none of them have to pay $10000 for a gallon of milk. Even with inflation, fixed prices means that money works EXPONENTIALLY for the wealthy... that&#039;s why a $20000 car represents 20 percent of the income of someone making 100K a year but only 2 percent of the income of someone making 1mil a year, .2 percent of someone making 10mil a year, etc. So even at inflated tax brackets, the wealthy pay less in taxes, not only propotionally, but because EVERYTHING they purchase is actually cheaper based on proportionality based on fixed costs. So, not only do the wealthy have more money, everything to them is actually CHEAPER from a mathematical standpoint.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Consider this:</p>
<p>Over 70 percent of taxes are paid by the wealthiest 10 percent of the population&#8230; and it still has almost NO IMPACT on their lifestyle.</p>
<p>The only way that the wealthy would suffer is if they paid prices for ALL ITEMS in proportion to their wealth. But none of them have to pay $10000 for a gallon of milk. Even with inflation, fixed prices means that money works EXPONENTIALLY for the wealthy&#8230; that&#8217;s why a $20000 car represents 20 percent of the income of someone making 100K a year but only 2 percent of the income of someone making 1mil a year, .2 percent of someone making 10mil a year, etc. So even at inflated tax brackets, the wealthy pay less in taxes, not only propotionally, but because EVERYTHING they purchase is actually cheaper based on proportionality based on fixed costs. So, not only do the wealthy have more money, everything to them is actually CHEAPER from a mathematical standpoint.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mother Oftwo</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/comment-page-1/#comment-84540</link>
		<dc:creator>Mother Oftwo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:21:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/#comment-84540</guid>
		<description>Why is it imperative that we bail them out?  Why were our government officials so keen on doing this?  If we let Fannie and Freddie fail, our current underwater government would become even more apparent.  

We are prolonging the pain of the housing market leveling itself back to fundamentals (based on wages).  We are creating &quot;Japan&quot; like conditions, where even people with good credit will not be able to afford a mortgage or home ownership.  

Let us not forget that we aren&#039;t just paying back on housing, we will be paying back for this &quot;war&quot; as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why is it imperative that we bail them out?  Why were our government officials so keen on doing this?  If we let Fannie and Freddie fail, our current underwater government would become even more apparent.  </p>
<p>We are prolonging the pain of the housing market leveling itself back to fundamentals (based on wages).  We are creating &#8220;Japan&#8221; like conditions, where even people with good credit will not be able to afford a mortgage or home ownership.  </p>
<p>Let us not forget that we aren&#8217;t just paying back on housing, we will be paying back for this &#8220;war&#8221; as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roy</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/comment-page-1/#comment-84506</link>
		<dc:creator>Roy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 07:16:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/07/24/fannie-mae-bailout-taxing-americas-poorest-citizens-to-help-the-richest/#comment-84506</guid>
		<description>It is always glad to have people like Scott Mitchell. They have such Pleasantvillle idea. Scott-dude, live in an apartment and then you will realize. You are paying you landlord the biggest chunk of your income. You are hoping that the prices of housing will go down and finally (yes, FINALLY) you (the dog) will have your day to buy your own house. The BIG EVIL EMPIRE (US GOVERNMENT) comes in, takes your money(TAXES), and again makes buying homes unaffordable. Would you like that? In a free market, gains should belong to the investor, losses should belong to the investor. Why are then losses being socialized? What if the renter refuses to pay his/her taxes as his hard earned money goes to buy expensive homes for rich people This just does not make sense. This is worse than communism. This is OLIGARCHY.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is always glad to have people like Scott Mitchell. They have such Pleasantvillle idea. Scott-dude, live in an apartment and then you will realize. You are paying you landlord the biggest chunk of your income. You are hoping that the prices of housing will go down and finally (yes, FINALLY) you (the dog) will have your day to buy your own house. The BIG EVIL EMPIRE (US GOVERNMENT) comes in, takes your money(TAXES), and again makes buying homes unaffordable. Would you like that? In a free market, gains should belong to the investor, losses should belong to the investor. Why are then losses being socialized? What if the renter refuses to pay his/her taxes as his hard earned money goes to buy expensive homes for rich people This just does not make sense. This is worse than communism. This is OLIGARCHY.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
