Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Unregistered
aliases
- Fran Smith
- Fran Smith
- Fran Smith
- Fran
Fran Smith
Is this you? Claim Profile »
6 months ago
in Paul M. Weyrich, RIP on OpenMarket.org
Very nice tribute to Paul Weyrich, Myron. He was also ahead of his time in investing in the media to bring the direct message to his constituents and others -- perhaps too far ahead. Just think what his television studio could have been doing on YouTube.
9 months ago
in Investing in Communal Failure: The Current Economic Crisis as a Result of Regulation on OpenMarket.org
Kim--
This press release from Fannie in the year 2000 may be of interest to you re the pressures exerted on banks for more community-based lending -- with lower standards. Their plan was to purchase $20 billion of such CRA mortgages in 10 years.
Fannie Mae Announces Pilot to Purchase $2 Billion of "MyCommunityMortgage" Loans; Pilot Lenders to Customize Affordable Products For Low- and Moderate-Income Borrowers
http://www.csrwire.com/PressRelease.php?id=482
10/30/2000
MyCommunityMortgage product options give flexibility to lenders by allowing variances that borrowers need to qualify for loans, often unique to particular communities. These variances apply to basic loan features such as loan-to-value ratio, borrower contribution, housing expense-to-income ratio, and others. For example, the need for down payment assistance may be a critical borrower need in one part of the country, while the need for 2-to-4-family housing may be foremost in another part of the country.
• Community 97 is a new 97 percent loan-to-value product option for single-unit borrowers who need to devote more of their income to housing.
• Community 100 is a new 100 percent loan-to-value product option for single-unit borrowers who lack cash and reserves, but have good credit.
• Community 2-Family offers underwriting flexibilities for 2-unit properties to 95 percent LTV.
• Community 3- and 4-Family offers underwriting flexibilities for 3- and 4-unit properties to 90 percent LTV.
• Customized CRA-Eligible Flow Product Option provides lenders with approval recommendations for CRA-eligible flow product that does not fit within the parameters of the four options listed above.
•
. . . Today’s announcement is part of Fannie Mae’s goal to purchase $20 billion in special targeted CRA-eligible loans over the next ten years, and is part of the company’s $2 trillion "American Dream Commitment" to increase homeownership rates and serve 18 million targeted American families.
This press release from Fannie in the year 2000 may be of interest to you re the pressures exerted on banks for more community-based lending -- with lower standards. Their plan was to purchase $20 billion of such CRA mortgages in 10 years.
Fannie Mae Announces Pilot to Purchase $2 Billion of "MyCommunityMortgage" Loans; Pilot Lenders to Customize Affordable Products For Low- and Moderate-Income Borrowers
http://www.csrwire.com/PressRelease.php?id=482
10/30/2000
MyCommunityMortgage product options give flexibility to lenders by allowing variances that borrowers need to qualify for loans, often unique to particular communities. These variances apply to basic loan features such as loan-to-value ratio, borrower contribution, housing expense-to-income ratio, and others. For example, the need for down payment assistance may be a critical borrower need in one part of the country, while the need for 2-to-4-family housing may be foremost in another part of the country.
• Community 97 is a new 97 percent loan-to-value product option for single-unit borrowers who need to devote more of their income to housing.
• Community 100 is a new 100 percent loan-to-value product option for single-unit borrowers who lack cash and reserves, but have good credit.
• Community 2-Family offers underwriting flexibilities for 2-unit properties to 95 percent LTV.
• Community 3- and 4-Family offers underwriting flexibilities for 3- and 4-unit properties to 90 percent LTV.
• Customized CRA-Eligible Flow Product Option provides lenders with approval recommendations for CRA-eligible flow product that does not fit within the parameters of the four options listed above.
•
. . . Today’s announcement is part of Fannie Mae’s goal to purchase $20 billion in special targeted CRA-eligible loans over the next ten years, and is part of the company’s $2 trillion "American Dream Commitment" to increase homeownership rates and serve 18 million targeted American families.
11 months ago
in Philosopher’s Corner: The Justice of Carbon Taxes/Permits on OpenMarket.org
Alex--
You note that libertarians usually endorse one of three approaches to dealing with climate change. There is another option not mentioned: resiliency and adaptation, as noted in this 1997 quote from Fred at a CEI conference:
"Should we be considering a prevention strategy or should we be considering an adaptation strategy? In the face of change, should we try freeze the world and make nothing change? Or should we be trying to adapt to a world where there will be risks in the future but we are not exactly sure what those risks are likely to be? Should we try to prevent the one possible risk of global warming? Or should we try to become smarter and wealthier so that we can adapt ourselves to whatever risks occur, whether it be warming or cooling, or drier or hotter, or maybe an asteroid or a disease, or many other risks that the world will certainly face in the 21st Century? As we learn more, we can gradually reduce the uncertainties associated with those. And we'll be able to know more. And do we have to act today or do we have to act in December in Kyoto? There are risks in both directions."
You note that libertarians usually endorse one of three approaches to dealing with climate change. There is another option not mentioned: resiliency and adaptation, as noted in this 1997 quote from Fred at a CEI conference:
"Should we be considering a prevention strategy or should we be considering an adaptation strategy? In the face of change, should we try freeze the world and make nothing change? Or should we be trying to adapt to a world where there will be risks in the future but we are not exactly sure what those risks are likely to be? Should we try to prevent the one possible risk of global warming? Or should we try to become smarter and wealthier so that we can adapt ourselves to whatever risks occur, whether it be warming or cooling, or drier or hotter, or maybe an asteroid or a disease, or many other risks that the world will certainly face in the 21st Century? As we learn more, we can gradually reduce the uncertainties associated with those. And we'll be able to know more. And do we have to act today or do we have to act in December in Kyoto? There are risks in both directions."
1 year ago
in McCain’s Colombian trip: Strong support for free trade on OpenMarket.org
Allen--
His visits to Canada, Colombia and Mexico and his discussions in those countries are primarily focusing on free trade. Many commentators are saying that his support for free trade may be a political risk in the current anti-trade climate.
He may not be a "pure" free trader, but I think it's accurate to call him a "strong" supporter.
His visits to Canada, Colombia and Mexico and his discussions in those countries are primarily focusing on free trade. Many commentators are saying that his support for free trade may be a political risk in the current anti-trade climate.
He may not be a "pure" free trader, but I think it's accurate to call him a "strong" supporter.
1 year ago
in More than Rotten Teeth in the UK on OpenMarket.org
Michelle--
Of course, fluoride's not the complete answer to better teeth. Genetics, culture, diet, hygiene, and, yes -- access to dentists -- are all other factors affecting tooth health.
However, while fluoride isn't a panacea, it has been an important factor in better teeth.
And, those "recent studies" showing otherwise? They have been carefully selected from a wealth of other research by the anti-fluoridation group that maintains the website where the truncated studies appear.
Anti-fluoride activists come from both the right and the left. On the far right, fluoridation is a conspiracy to control people through the water supply; on the far left, it's to poison people through "chemicals."
Of course, fluoride's not the complete answer to better teeth. Genetics, culture, diet, hygiene, and, yes -- access to dentists -- are all other factors affecting tooth health.
However, while fluoride isn't a panacea, it has been an important factor in better teeth.
And, those "recent studies" showing otherwise? They have been carefully selected from a wealth of other research by the anti-fluoridation group that maintains the website where the truncated studies appear.
Anti-fluoride activists come from both the right and the left. On the far right, fluoridation is a conspiracy to control people through the water supply; on the far left, it's to poison people through "chemicals."
1 year ago
in John Berlau in the news on subprime “fix” on OpenMarket.org
Dear Rin Tintin--
You might enjoy perusing CEI's website to find out what positions the organization takes on a range of issues. www.cei.org
CEI espouses personal liberty and responsibility and the ability of people to make their own decisions. As noted on its site CEI is "dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that individuals are best helped not by government intervention, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace."
The organization also opposes government subsidies of every type and stripe. For example, CEI opposes farm subsidies, which primarily go to wealthier, larger farms and harm consumers, taxpayers, and the poor, particularly in developing countries.
I hope that your next communique references CEI's issues and positions.
You might enjoy perusing CEI's website to find out what positions the organization takes on a range of issues. www.cei.org
CEI espouses personal liberty and responsibility and the ability of people to make their own decisions. As noted on its site CEI is "dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that individuals are best helped not by government intervention, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace."
The organization also opposes government subsidies of every type and stripe. For example, CEI opposes farm subsidies, which primarily go to wealthier, larger farms and harm consumers, taxpayers, and the poor, particularly in developing countries.
I hope that your next communique references CEI's issues and positions.
1 year ago
in Rise of the Uber-Wikipedians on OpenMarket.org
I'm not a Wiki fan. My previous organization's page and citation was regularly being edited with incorrect and malicious information. I regularly tried to correct it. Guess what -- Wiki completely deleted the page and citations because it was controversial. My view was that somebody in the hierarchy of editors didn't like the organization and exerted his/her influence.
I would have been happier with a biased article.
For definitions and fast quick facts about bland topics, it's fine. Just don't trust those democracies too much.
I would have been happier with a biased article.
For definitions and fast quick facts about bland topics, it's fine. Just don't trust those democracies too much.
1 year ago
in “Turkeys on the Hill” on OpenMarket.org
Gary--
Take a closer look at CEI's positions on these issues www.cei.org and I think you'll find that our positions would help protect consumers, taxpayers, and citizens.
Check out who's likely to benefit from the 2007 Farm Bill that I list as "first turkey." The average income of farmers is projected to be over $86,000 this year, and major subsidies -- 24% -- go to just 1% of wealthy farmers. Even the USDA is saying that the bills aren't fair to taxpayers.
The energy bills would raise the cost of energy for consumers -- for transportation mobility and for fuel. Plus people would be forced into smaller cars, which are less safe than larger cars and result in much higher death and injuries in accidents.
In relation to LOST -- I and other people don't want an international agency to have jurisdiction over the oceans and the waterways that flow into them.
CPSC, in many cases, may actually diminish consumer safety. By raising the costs of many consumer products, consumers may substitute other less safe products. (For example, how much good does a "perfectly safe" ladder do if people can't afford it and put a chair on a table to replace a light bulb?)
Legislation addressing the subprime issue would make credit much more expensive and difficult to access, with the lower-income but still credit-worthy bearing the brunt of restrictions.
Think all of these positions would help the middle-class, and indeed the poor.
Take a closer look at CEI's positions on these issues www.cei.org and I think you'll find that our positions would help protect consumers, taxpayers, and citizens.
Check out who's likely to benefit from the 2007 Farm Bill that I list as "first turkey." The average income of farmers is projected to be over $86,000 this year, and major subsidies -- 24% -- go to just 1% of wealthy farmers. Even the USDA is saying that the bills aren't fair to taxpayers.
The energy bills would raise the cost of energy for consumers -- for transportation mobility and for fuel. Plus people would be forced into smaller cars, which are less safe than larger cars and result in much higher death and injuries in accidents.
In relation to LOST -- I and other people don't want an international agency to have jurisdiction over the oceans and the waterways that flow into them.
CPSC, in many cases, may actually diminish consumer safety. By raising the costs of many consumer products, consumers may substitute other less safe products. (For example, how much good does a "perfectly safe" ladder do if people can't afford it and put a chair on a table to replace a light bulb?)
Legislation addressing the subprime issue would make credit much more expensive and difficult to access, with the lower-income but still credit-worthy bearing the brunt of restrictions.
Think all of these positions would help the middle-class, and indeed the poor.
