Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Rubio's remarks false

Comments

Return To Article
  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 6:12 a.m.

    NPR's Planet Money team did a fantastic series of investigations several years ago on the housing market collapse. And you're right, the private sector shares a large part of the blame here. Readily approving people for mortgages they could never afford and without doing any income verification. Bundling thousands upon thousands of subprime mortgages into securities and selling them back and forth at incredible profits. It was an unhinged frenzy and companies were raking in the profits. Some companies knew this was a terrible idea and would collapse, decided to bet against the market, and then underhandedly encouraged other companies to continue this risky lending to help ensure the market would collapse so they would get huge payoffs. It was capitalism gone completely amok and a great example of how laissez faire policies can leave incredible damage in their wake.

    But there are two sides to the coin. No one forced millions of homeowners to accept enormous mortgages beyond their income. The lending institutions may have approved them, but they signed the forms chaining them to variable rate mortgages on homes they should have known were out of their reach.

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    Somebody's been reading too much Paul Krugman - that stuff will disconnect you from reality.

    And speaking of reality, government regulations and pressure - most notably under the Community Reinvestment Act - were in fact the major contributors in creating the climate of easy money in the subprime lending industry that took off on the mid 90's. Yes, many other fctors were involved in the subprime crash, but blaming it all on "greed" is just a lazy leftist talking point. Greed has been around for a long, long time, and will always be around in the banking industry just as in every other industry; it's human nature. That wasn't the unique factor causing this particular crash.

    Government pressure really took off in the early 90's as banks were pushed to lend to borrowers who clearly didn't qualify. Not all banks suffered this pressure, but enough did to completely distort the market since mortgage lending is such a competitive industry that behavior by a few banks changes everyone else's; it has to, or they don't survive.

    And bank profits only "took off" after such pressure was applied; profits were flat throughout the mid 90's to the crash.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    The housing bubble and subsequent crash were a market failure. Republicans can't admit that market failures exist, so they had to invent an alternate history to explain it all. Their history has a few grains of truth, but the fundamental cause was thirty years of financial deregulation which lead to the financialization of every aspect of our economy.

    If deregulation had not enabled banks to create Collateralized Debt Obligations, Credit Default Swaps, Derivatives and a myriad other products, none of it would have been possible.

    If U.S. government regulations caused the crash, then why did Spain, Britain, Ireland, Iceland, Estonia, etc. all go through similar bubbles and crashes at the exact same time?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    Re: ". . . there are two sides to the coin."

    Not to true-believing leftist academics. Particularly those in the soft "sciences," who have no real fear of meaningful criticism. In their fields, one theory's as good as another, since there's no real way to prove or disprove an investigators' hypotheses.

    They clearly feel a curious need to disingenuously justify and excuse abject liberal failures, cynically blaming them on those least responsible. It's their vain attempt to defend policies and practices that have an unbroken record of miserable failure.

    It allows them to avoid the introspection and self-examination real people believe is important.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    Lew,
    Let’s address your misconceptions.

    Years of flat wages – According to the census, in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 wages GREW by 1.54%, 3.22%, 5.59%, and 5.42% respectively across all incomes; and for the lower 40%, they grew by 0.8%, 2.19%, 4.27%, and 5.57%, respectively, PLUS 2.15% in 2007 when general wages shrunk. Growth does not equal flat.

    Feeding profits that landed in banks. – finance officers deposit money in banks earning 0.15% when they could pay dividends or buy back shares and increase the ROE? Sorry, not buying it.

    Banks needed to do something with corporate profits so they pushed bad mortgages on people. Who held the gun forcing people into unaffordable mortgages?

    Banks DID push loans, but only because barney frank forced Fanny and Freddie to lower the standard for secondary market loans, meaning more people could “qualify” for loans. Banks made the commission on the loans, which they then dumped into the secondary market. An unnatural increase in mortgages created the bubble; when it burst, it brought down our economy.

    Thank Barney and the Fed

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 27, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    Voice of Reason..Community Reinvestment Act? That is the laziest of talking points. Look at your own argument in comparison to Emajor.."And bank profits only "took off" after such pressure was applied; profits were flat throughout the mid 90's to the crash." Just what was that pressure? It wasn't the government. Low interest, and programs to promote home ownership had been around forever..as you say. What was the pressure..it was simply opportunity. The opportunity to take massive profits put them in an instrument where the risk was first of all passed on and then broken up until it was entirely hidden. Wall Street firms literly imported russian physicists to create the mathematical models that built the financial instruments that housed the securitized mortgages. Yes greed has been around forever but the ability to distort that greed to personal advantage reached new heights in the mid 2000's thanks to creativity and no oversight.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    Government regulations were partially to blame for the housing bubble and collapse, but so were a lot of other factors. To lay the blame solely on government is wrong.

    But so is trying to lay all the blame on big banks and greedy wall street executives. President Obama and other Democrats have done that repeatedly. Do you call them out on that like you just did to Senator Rubio?

    If you did, then you are a fair-minded person. If you didn't, then just another partisan rant.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    There was Government pressure to expand loans to those who really were not qualified in a misguided attempt to increase home ownership: therefore the statement that Rubio lied - is in fact a lie.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 27, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    Failure to understand the mistakes made will greatly increase the chances of a repeat.
    That said, how many people really, I mean REALLY want to know what caused the banking meltdown?

    Looks to me that most will readily accept any explanation that exonerates their party and puts the blame squarely on the other one. Truth has very little to do with it.

    Hate to break it to you, but greed is usually at the heart of most of these types of problems.

    - Greed by the politicians to get donations. (yes, both R and D)
    - Greed by the banking industry to make more and more money
    - Greed by homeowners who thought housing would go up forever.
    - Greed by the mortgage lender on commission
    - Greed by the appraisers

    When in doubt, look at the money.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    Feb. 27, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    You're a little confused, Lew, and you're trying to obviscate the truth.

    The truth is, former Senator Chris Dodd and his Democrat friend in the House, the former Congressman Barney Frank eased the requirement for the purchase of homes so that even the poorest among us, and those who couldn't make monthly mortgage payments could qualify for a mortgage. This looked fairly workable as the housing market had continued to rise for decades so that, even if a buyer defaulted, the property could easily be disposed of for a profit to the seller (or the bank repossesser). Then, when these people started defaulting on payments and the market became flooded with unsold units it started to collapse.

    The cause was not soaring corporate profits as you seem to think. Any soaring profits would not end up in banks but would be paid as dividends to stockholders as they should be. And even if the soaring profits ended up in banks, so what? Banks cannot push mortgage loans onto people in violation of governing laws.

    You Democrats will try almost anything to get out of responsibility for the worst financial disaster in decades.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    Rubio did not "lie", just took a one sided view of the crisis that few on either side would subscribe to. "Greed" is not a problem of the left or the right, it is a human problem. There is no one cause for the bubble breaking unless you want to say it was greed. Politicians, bankers, mortgage brokers paid on commission, rating agencies, insurers will to guarantee sub prime loans when made into collateralized bonds, cash strapped homeowners, people seeing "easy money" to be made by "flipping" properties. There is plenty of blame on all sides here. Everyone wanted their piece of the pie and until the bubble burst they got more pastry than they could eat.

  • Alfred Pheonix, AZ
    Feb. 27, 2013 10:09 a.m.

    @Roland Kayser:
    "The housing bubble and subsequent crash were a market failure."

    No. no. Lawmakers make laws to control markets so failures don't occur. So, if there's a blame it's poorly thought-out laws. And who makes those laws? The government. And who in the government pushed those laws? Democrats Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, leaders of their respective finance committees in the Congress, that's who. And what were those laws? Allowing/pushing home ownership through sub-prime loans. And what are sub-prime loans? Loans to buyers who are at risk of being able to make monthly mortgage payments... examples were folks such as those who were on federal unemployment rolls.

    "If U.S. government regulations caused the crash, then why did Spain, Britain, Ireland, Iceland, Estonia, etc. all go through similar bubbles and crashes at the exact same time?"

    Because many of those countries invested in sub-prime loans or associated collateralize debt obligations... much to their dismay.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 27, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    "Government pressure really took off in the early 90's as banks were pushed to lend to borrowers who clearly didn't qualify."

    Give me a break. No one mandated anything. A customer of mine, BB&T, which holds over 95% of its own paper, didn't write risky loans - it was their own choice to not do so. It was the ability of lenders to monitize bundles of loans where the value of the bundled portfolio of these new investment vehicles was dubious. When you able to hide high risk paper in with quality paper, then turn them into exchangable equities with little transparency, that was the green light to some lenders to cash in on a deeply deregulated industry. There was little accountability to trh originators.

    As to Rubio, I felt for the guy. He was presenting his rebuttal without the benefit of actually seeing the initial case being made. Regardless of side, these rebuttals are so generic in nature they are many more times a waste of energy than the SotU is. They have no context other than standard talking points. It really wasn't his fault.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal,
    "Not to true-believing leftist academics"

    Not to true-believing rightist anti-intellectuals either. Sorry. The problem is "true-believing", not "leftist" or "rightist". See WRZ's and Lost in DC's comments above. It's always the other side.

  • Ford DeTreese Provo, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    Ivan Boesky was wrong. Greed is not good. Conservatives keep trying to spin it so that greed is a positive thing, but theirs is an uphill argument.

    There was a time in America (between the Revolution and the Civil War) when government chartered corporations to serve public purposes. The Founders had had too much experience with the British East India Company and other corporations and did not trust that particular form of business. So they chartered corporations warily and to serve a specific public purpose, and generally corporations were chartered for 20 or fewer years. The railroads changed all that, and eventually they bought enough judges to get corporations declared "persons."

    The result is, well, the mess we have today, where greed is rampant and corporate values have devoured most of society. Can we reverse the trends that have been dominant since the 1860s? Probably not. Maybe economic collapse is the only solution. Then, perhaps, we can learn from our mistakes and devise an economy that does not enthrone self-interest, which, by the way, Adam Smith viewed as the hallmark of a suboptimal or mercenary economy.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 10:48 a.m.

    Bluedevil,
    It was pressure by barney on fannie and Freddie that allowed banks to monetize bundles of loans. two weeks before fannie and freddie failed, barney said they were sound. Denying barney forced them to anything is smiply not true.

    Emajor,
    Thanks for just calling names and not even trying to rebut what I said.

    Let’s take a look at the result of an ill-conceived law, shall we?

    One of the purposes of dudd-frank was to end too-big-to-fail. Did you see the article in the arch-conservative rag “Rolling Stone” (sarcasm off) about how BO’s injustice department is failing to prosecute ANYONE at HSBC involved in the recently uncovered money laundering operation there? The reason the injustice department gave? HSBC was systemically too important, prosecutions would have caused another banking crisis.

    So the dem bill (few if any repubs supported dudd-frank) FAILED miserably to end TBTF and allowed known money launderers, supporting al qaeda and Mexican drug lords, to walk scot-free.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 11:08 a.m.

    @Voice of Reason
    Of course it was greed. The entire bubble was caused by greed. Greed from the banks, who wanted to make money selling those mortgages. Greed from homeowners, who wanted a house without paying any money down and with an artificially low monthly payment because of non standard loans and greed by getting a bigger, more expensive house than they could afford. Greed by the government, because they wanted to keep getting elected and keep their cushy elected positions. It's not unique to this bubble, but this bubble was caused by greed.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    Feb. 27, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    @Ford DeTreese:
    "Greed is not good."

    Greed has synonyms... for example 'eagerness.' Try thinking of it as 'eagerness.'

    I suppose you'd be eager to maximize your wages, wouldn't you? Could you use more income? Do you think of that as 'greed?' I wouldn't think so...

    Now, think of the CEO of a corporation. His job is to maximize income to the investing stock holders. As a stockholder, I appreciate the CEOs' eagerness to accomplish corporate goals.

    "The railroads changed all that, and eventually they bought enough judges to get corporations declared 'persons.'"

    The reason the judiciary declared corporations as 'persons' basically is so that it can sue and be sued. Perhaps it would dispel any anxiety you feel to know that, even though a corporation is a 'person' it can't vote, marry, make love, or do alotta things a 'person' can do. Corporations can only conduct business activity according to their corporate charter filed with the state of incorporation.

    "Then, perhaps, we can learn from our mistakes and devise an economy that does not enthrone self-interest.."

    Sounds like you're thinking about religion...

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 27, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    It funny reading conservative comments.

    Inone line its - The government ALWAYS gets it wrong, they need to get out, and let the free markets decide.
    then it's
    The Government didn't over-see enough of the lending practices and deregulated too much.

    The flip-flopping is astounding.

    It's no wonder at all why they chose Mitt Romney,
    and it's no wonder they keep loosing elections.

  • Mr. Bean Pheonix, AZ
    Feb. 27, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    @Open Minded Mormon:
    "In one line its - The government ALWAYS gets it wrong, they need to get out, and let the free markets decide."

    If the government get's it wrong it usually can be attributed to Democrats like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (who says they have to pass a bill before they know what's in it).

    "Then it's... The Government didn't over-see enough of the lending practices and deregulated too much."

    No, no. It wasn't deregulation. In the case of the recent real estate debacle, is was... Democrats pushing housing regulations... that allowed banks to issue sub-primes, then bundle them to pass them to government entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    "The flip-flopping is astounding."

    I think you're talking about Obama... who pushed for sequestration several years ago and now is vehemently against it. Good grief!

    "It's no wonder at all why they chose Mitt Romney, and it's no wonder they keep loosing elections."

    Romney lost because he was against abortion, illegal immigration, amnesty, and gay marriage... issues Obama and his Democrat friends support. Yuk!

  • Voice ofReason LAYTON, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 12:10 p.m.

    You lefties need to read something besides Mother Jones and Wikipedia on why the subprime crisis happened.

    Of course there was an increased degree of good/bad loan asset mixing going on, which was wrong. Did you see me write that it didn't happen? And do you know WHY banks started doing that to a degree never done before? Again, many factors contributed, but it all got started when mainly the CRA, and a few similar laws, were dramatically strengthened in the early 90's at the behest of Easy Money For Minorities crusaders like Barney Frank who started lowering the boom on banks with largely unfounded accusations of redlining, discrimination, and even racism.
    But the real reason was the borrowers just... couldn't... pay... the... money... back. And yes, Barney had the force of law behind him, since banks who don't knuckle under are frozen and can't grow or expand operations. The real penalty is the very public race-baiting publicity-death for a retail business like mortgage lending-that Barney used like a sledgehammer.

    Bad/good loan bundling didn't suddely poof into existence after banks suddenly became "greedy". It was desperation borne of bad regulation.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 12:39 p.m.

    Lost in DC,
    My first comment already provided a rebuttal to your claim that Democratic federal policies were the only cause of the housing collapse. Pointing out your one-sided partisan argument is not name calling. This was a multifaceted problem and folks on both sides just want to blame the other. You are included in that.

    I don't understand the relevance of your Dodd-Frank argument (Dudd-Frank is only funny the first time you use it, don't run your own jokes into the ground). That bill was passed after the housing bubble collapsed. Weren't we talking about the causes of this crisis?

    Voice of Reason
    "Bad/good loan bundling didn't suddely poof into existence after banks suddenly became "greedy". It was desperation borne of bad regulation."

    This is one "lefty" who has no trouble admitting that people voluntarily took loans they couldn't pay for, and that federal policies had an important role. But I've heard enough analysis of this crisis from sources other than Mother Jones to know that your statement is oversimplifying it. The actions of banks and Wall Street were not simply desperation. They took it much further.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    Feb. 27, 2013 12:49 p.m.

    The Leftists never cease to amaze me with their irrational rationale.

    Congress forced banks to make loans to people who could not afford to pay them back. That created the housing bubble. Period. Look up speeches and policies pushed by Barney Frank and friends -- the proof is all there in public record.

    Asserting that any business would push loans on people who could not pay them back is patently ridiculous! What's the incentive, to lose more money? Only government bureaucrats could concoct such a lose-lose scenario.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 27, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    One small point, or maybe not so small point to conservatives..Freddie and Fannie were almost small players in the real estate crash, and lagged behind, wall street who no one forcred to do anything, by miles in loan failures. Freddie and Fannie putts along from the mid 90's to the mid 2000's with a loan failure rate below 5%. At the same time Wall Street failures jumed into the teens, then skyrocketed into the 30+% range, while Freddie and Fannie never got above the mid teens.

    Utah Blue Devil says it best.. "It was the ability of lenders to monitize bundles of loans where the value of the bundled portfolio of these new investment vehicles was dubious. When you able to hide high risk paper in with quality paper, then turn them into exchangable equities with little transparency, that was the green light to some lenders to cash in on a deeply deregulated industry. There was little accountability to trh originators." That's the difference between 1995 and 2005..not Dodd Frank..or Freddie and Fanny.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Feb. 27, 2013 1:34 p.m.

    But this is what partisan politicians do – they tell only one side of the story, the side that fits their narrative. Is anyone surprised by this?

    Far more disturbing is the trend for large segments of the population to only hear about and believe one side. Millions of people now live in information bubbles designed not to enlighten but to make them feel good about all their own predispositions (and outraged by others).

    To paraphrase J.S. Mill – if you want to get closer to the truth always listen, and incorporate where justified, the best arguments for opposing points of view.

    Or we can just feed our self righteous egos by watching only Fox or reading only the NYT, and if that’s your choice, fine… just don’t confuse narrative confirming half-truths for the Truth.

    Housing Bubble – in this case, Rubio is mostly wrong – the bubble was largely due to the practices driven by Global Finance. If it was due solely (or mostly) to misguided U.S. government policy encouraging home ownership, it would not have been a global phenomenon, which it was...

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Feb. 27, 2013 1:46 p.m.

    Read "After the Music Stopped" by Alan Binder, an economist, and learn that the collapse was caused by a long list of things but primarily the lack of oversight by the folks at the SEC and other agencies charged with keeping tabs on the workings of Wall Street. Standard and Poors, who are paid by the very people they are rating, continued to give AAA ratings to the convoluted and complicated payment structures created by the various banking institutions. Collateralized Debt Obligations (CBOs), Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) and other creations of Wall Streets traders were too complicated for the average Joe to understand and so the creators of those vehicles took the money and ran. Goldman Sach's infamous trader Fabrince Touree bragged to his girlfriend that he might be the "only potential survivor...standing in the middle of all these complex, highly levered, exotic trades" he created without necessarily understanding all the implications of those monstrositieas.

    Wall Street's compensation plans create incentives for key empoyees to take excessive risks with other peoples's money. And that is what they did. There were many to blame not like the Wall Street Bankers and those that oversee them.

  • Ford DeTreese Provo, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 1:55 p.m.

    wrz:

    So, basically, you're saying that you think economic inequality is a good thing, that it will produce a healthy economy. Please explain how. I've never really heard a conservative seriously defend increasing inequality, but the whole conservative economic philosophy is geared toward widening the income and wealth gap. Please explain how we can have sufficient demand in the economy if the consumer classes keep losing ground. Their real income has been steadily decreasing for 30 years. The numbers are truly frightening, including the large percentage of the over-50 crowd that does not save a penny toward retirement. How many can't afford health insurance? How many don't earn enough to pay income tax or put food on the table? Please, enlighten me. I'd love to hear your justification for increasing income inequality.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 27, 2013 2:48 p.m.

    Voice ofReason
    LAYTON, UT
    You lefties need to read something besides Mother Jones and Wikipedia on why the subprime crisis happened.

    But the real reason was the borrowers just... couldn't... pay... the... money... back.

    ============

    You Righties need to realize then it was those like your Tea Party Senator Mike Lee (R) Utah who is to blame then.
    And you for supporting and voting for him.

    BTW - I didn't make this a left-right issue, YOU did.
    FYI - I've ALWAYS paid my "lefty" loans. Being honest with your fellow man is not a left right issue, but a right wrong issue.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 27, 2013 3:04 p.m.

    @lost in DC - if the speed limit is 75, and yet it is snowing and you drive slower, are your forced to drive faster then you feel is safe. Smoking is legal, and yet no one is forced to smoke. BB&T and many other banks saw that just because you can, it wasn't prudent business to monitize the loan packages.

    It gets ever so tiring to hear the endless blame government crowd. Because you can doesn't mean you have to. It was these banks and financial institutions, filled with Harvard and other named MBA programs that choose to go down a risky path. I thought the whole idea of conservatism is government doesn't force you - but when you choose to - you are responsible for the consequences.

    Barny Frank didn't force anyone to do anything. There was not a single sanction that made banks do anything. They choose to drive 80 in a 75 mph zone. Their choice.

  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 4:09 p.m.

    Life would be better for all of us if the government would do less not more. Federal regulations are usually responsible for creating a mess where none existed before. Healthcare will soon be a mess as will climate control soon thereafter. We have become a people dependent on government rather than the opposite way so we are all in trouble.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 4:34 p.m.

    HSF: Does that mean that you don't think healthcare was a mess before Obamacare?

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 7:39 p.m.

    What I read here makes me think that liberals have no idea about human nature.

    When there is a deep pocket there will always be those who will think they can raid it without having any effect on others. The housing bubble was mostly the result of a government program that created a deep pocket of money. Bankers and loan officers felt there was plenty of money for them. Housing speculators bought houses they knew they couldn't afford. But the starting point was the government program guaranteeing loans.

    Health care is going down the same road. Health insurance created a deep pocket, and doctors, drug companies, insurance companies, and individual patients have robbed that deep pocket money through fraud and price gouging. What seems a benevolent program to care for people is a greed fest.

    The US government is the ultimate deep pocket, so when the government creates a health care program there will be more greed sharks gathering to eat it up.

    Market pressures and competition are the only ways to bring the price of health care back down where is it affordable, not because government is evil, but because of the evil in human nature.

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    Feb. 27, 2013 9:57 p.m.

    Hate to get into this, but as I remember banks were told they had to make loans by Clinton's admin or there would be consequences for the bank. So it's taken a while, but it finally blew up. Come on, listen to barney and dudd - they knew nothing! They thought they were encouraging those who could not afford a home to get in and love the dems, so they would vote for them. Gosh it sure worked didn't it? Something about 47%.......

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Feb. 28, 2013 12:42 a.m.

    I thought it was the law signed by Clinton that allowed sub-prime loans and creative financing.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 28, 2013 12:57 a.m.

    "Congress forced banks to make loans to people who could not afford to pay them back."

    Thinkin man, or any other conservative, can you show us the law that did this, and the specific language in that law requiring this?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 28, 2013 5:38 a.m.

    @Christian 24-7 - I actually like the tone of your comment there....nicely done.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Feb. 28, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    @Christian 24-7 - I actually like the tone of your comment there....nicely done.

    I agree… very thoughtful and non-strident.

    That said, I think your points about healthcare miss some key factors. If market forces truly are the answer to reigning in out-of-control costs, then it would follow that countries with the most free market healthcare systems would have the lowest aggregate costs – but in fact the opposite is true.

    The reason is that healthcare (at least the high dollar, life saving kind) has a couple of inherent characteristics that, left free and unfettered, lead to significant market failures. Those features are 1) unbounded demand when people are sick and 2) asymmetrical information.

    Translation – consumers have little knowledge or power when trying to shop for the best deal.

    Healthcare providers are able to behave more like monopolistic utility companies as opposed to, say, a wheat farmer whose prices are much more subject to competitive pressures.

    There’s a reason why every other developed country in the world has some degree of regulation in their healthcare systems… and it’s not because they are all socialists.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 28, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    Emajor,
    You rebutted my arguments in your first post?

    You said rising wages are flat?

    You said banks DID hold guns forcing people to sign bad mortgages?

    You said sophisticated finance managers seek yields of 0.15%?

    You failed to mention slick willy and barney frank meddling with fannie and freddie. Failing to mention something is not rebutting.

    BlueDevil,
    From the NYTimes, that bastian of conservative thought, published 8/5/08, “Once, a high-ranking Democrat telephoned executives and screamed at them to purchase more loans from low-income borrowers, according to a Congressional source.” and that was not the only time. You know barney used his influence to get his lover a high-paying job at one of the GSEs, don't you?

    Deny all you want, Barney forced fannie and freddie into bad debt.

    RichardB,
    Your are correct about slick. Also, when derivative products first appeared in 1997, his treasury secretary and the head of the SEC slick appointed said we should not regulate them, because to do so would stiffle innovation.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Feb. 28, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    Sorry Lew but your information is not correct. The mortgages were not pushed on people that can't afford them by banks. They were pushed upon banks by mandates of Congress to give mortgages to the "underprivilaged".

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 28, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    As I recall it was Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid , Nancy Pelosi and other democrats who pushed hard for "fairness" in home ownership and forced Fanny and Fredie to change their lending policy to accommodate just about ANYONE who wanted a loan. Bush caved in and is also to blame. It was also Frank and Dodd whom oversaw the banking committee and gave rosy forecasts of Fanny and Fredie and caused investors to lose billions. In my mind Rubio is EXACTLY RIGHT about his comments regarding the housing bubble and mortgage melt down. Had the politicians not gotten involved and forced the easy loans this mess would have never happened.

  • ljeppson Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 28, 2013 2:13 p.m.

    Re: Lost in DC, regarding flat wages. According to the U S Bureau of Labor Statistics REAL wages (what wages will buy or in other words adjusted for inflation) were positively absolutely FLAT as a pancake from 1975 through 2005. With the recession, wage performance has no doubt been even worse than that.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    March 1, 2013 5:34 a.m.

    Rubio can't even get his story straight about how and when his parents came to the United States. Why should anynoe listen to him, or believe him, about anything.

  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    March 1, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    Oh my! And where are the millions that Mr. Raines and others stole from the American people as a direct of "cooking the books"? (You can look it up!). Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should NEVER have been created. Now, there is talk of dissolving them. Do YOU think that will EVER happen. Not in our lifetime! Too many bureaucrats feeding at the Federal trough that you and I continue to "fill" with the taxes we pay. What a country!