Reply #83: Whad-da? This just seems so F'd up. I found this confusing so I

[54anickel]

went to look for articles at other sites trying to figure this out, but they all say the same.

It doesn't go far enough? Even the WH says it's too weak. :wow: OMG, this scares the crap out of me cuz I think I agree with that.

It doesn't create an affordable housing fund? Wasn't that originally the main intent of these GSEs?

And :wtf: is this part about?

Democrats focused debate on an agreement struck among Republicans to prohibit groups involved in voter-registration activities from receiving money from an affordable housing fund under the bill. That restriction came as part of a provision aimed at giving hurricane victims priority in receiving affordable housing funds.

Democrats called the language unfair to groups engaged in voter-registration activities.

Other amendments failed, including one to eliminate the companies’ ability to borrow from the U.S. Treasury and a measure that would have stripped from the bill a provision that would allow Fannie and Freddie to buy higher-cost loans in pricey markets.

That's the part I went to check on for a better explanation on the Dems stance regarding this, cuz I don't think the money should be used for "politics" either. Sure, voter registration is important and all, but come on!

This Bloomberg article explains it a little bit more, and I can sort of see where Dems are coming from, but I still don't quite swallow the idea of using funds meant for affordable housing for "politics".

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a27rXgBlyPec&refer=us

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own or guarantee almost half the $7.6 trillion U.S. mortgage market. They make money on the difference between the returns on the mortgages they buy from lenders and their financing costs.

The bill passed the House after lawmakers approved an amendment that directs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to channel 3.5 percent of profits to a fund for expanding affordable. Many Democrats opposed provisions barring politically active non- profit groups from using the estimated $350 million fund.

The bill in the Senate doesn't create a housing fund. The Senate hasn't scheduled a vote on its version, which was approved by the banking committee in July.

Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts and other Democrats say the Republican restrictions on the housing fund will hamstring non-profit groups that are vital to increasing affordable housing. The amendment disqualifies groups that engage in lobbying, get-out-the-vote campaigns and other political activity from tapping the fund.

Republicans claim the legislation without restrictions could allow the groups to use the money as a ``slush fund'' to finance political activism.

I am soooooo confused :crazy: