Bush Wanted To Fix Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Now Bankrupt Quasi Government Mortgage Lending Corporations, Back In 2003.
Proteus
else. But it is not Wall Street or greed or capitalism's failure, with all
due respect to to John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Bill O'Reilly that is to
blame for the current financial U.S. meltdown. This crisis was caused by
foolish populism and corruption in the U.S. government. And the Democrats
are more to blame than the Republican Right.
Last night on Fox News Karl Rove stated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the
"New Deal" type quasi- government lending corporations formed back in 1968
by a Democrat Congress are the cause of the current real estate, mortgage
and financial meltdown in the U.S. Before the meltdown began these two
corporations headed by Clinton- appointed Democrat cronies controlled a 5
trillion dollar share of the housing mortgage market. No down-payment,
sub-prime rate mortgages
were their foolish populist idea to help poor, often African-Americans, buy
a house which they were not financially qualified to buy.
Five years ago, George Bush, seeing trouble ahead, tried to reform or
terminate these institutions but his legislation was killed by the Democrats
and some Republican "do-gooders" and populists in Congress. Thus it is
hypocritical of Obama and the Democrats now to try to blame the bankruptcies
of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on Bush and right-wing Republicans.
In fact Obama is mired up to his elbows in the scandal being the second
biggest beneficiary of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign donations.
Two Democrat Congressman implicated directly in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
fiasco are former head of the Senate Banking Commie Chris Dodd, and
present head of the House Banking Committee Democrat Barney Frank. Also
important is that the holier-than-thou Chicago Democrat machine politician,
Barack
Obama, has been a two-year member of the Democrat-dominated Senate Banking
Committee.
More on Bush's attempt to reform these two Democrat congress-run
institutions below:
--
Beside economic rights, political rights are
unimportant unrealities. Changes in the
form of government amount to nothing
where economic life is not free and a laissez-
faire monarchy [or autocracy] is much better
than a socialistic democracy.--Herbert Spencer
"Ethics of Evolution of Society".
Chom Noamsky
news:G2tAk.139948$5p1.1...@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
You should stop reading junk blogs and start learning real history.
everon...@yahoo.com
>
> --
> Beside economic rights, political rights are
> unimportant unrealities. Changes in the
> form of government amount to nothing
> where economic life is not free and a laissez-
> faire monarchy [or autocracy] is much better
> than a socialistic democracy.--Herbert Spencer
> "Ethics of Evolution of Society".
Yeah, but that was in 2003, before the watershed election of 2006
handed control back to the Democrats. And you note that some
Republican "do gooders" crossed the aisle to join the Democrats.
Soooooo...... apparently the stuff that GWBush wanted were not so
good for America, after all. Won't stop you nazi neocon repugs from
TRYING to scapegoat the Democrats and those "do gooder" Republicans
who crossed the aisle though, will it?
And, again, what is in it for you, our Canadian friend. Seems your
friend in neocondry Patriot Games doesn't like people from other
countries from giving their take on American politics. But he doesn't
seem to mind your posts - he never tells you to go mind your business,
as he tells him. Just more of the heresy of neocons - their fascist
sock puppetry.
everon...@yahoo.com
> "Proteus" <prot...@ambiance.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Proteus is like most neocons, he has to have it spoonfed to him, and
very slowly.
McCain for Trashman
"Proteus" <pro...@ambiance.com> wrote in message
news:G2tAk.139948$5p1.1...@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
McCain is more of a threat to this country than Osama Bin Laden or
Taliban!!!!
Fred
effort though.
ajam...@hotmail.com
I think he just likes the attention that his outrageous statements
garner.
He can't really be as ignorant as he comes across .... can he?
david.de...@gmail.com
wrote:
> I think he just likes the attention that his outrageous statements
> garner.
> He can't really be as ignorant as he comes across .... can he
He is an aging attention whore with a drinking problem. For many
years he worked as public-school teacher, relying on the coercive
power of the state to deliver to him audiences that were not only
captive, but -- if they wanted good marks -- deferential as well.
When his foreced retirement (financed by a taxpayer-funded pension,
made secure by Canada's generous, government-managed universal no-
premiums health-care insurance) robbed him of a captive audience for
his blowhard ramblings, he turned to USENET, where he quickly traded
virtually all of his personal dignity for a tiny little bit of
attention from complete strangers.
On the Canadian newsgroups his name is shorthand for "pathologically-
lying blowhard," and he is viewed by other members of the group as a
source of unintended comedy...
Steve Thomas
> "Proteus" <prot...@ambiance.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
here is the history of the dhimmiKKK-rats and Fannie/Freddie
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575A...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122161010874845645.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/rhetoric-and-po.html
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190&tab=summary
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s...
http://www.acornhousing.org/TEXT/mortgage1.php
http://www.ofheo.gov/media/pdf/FNMSPECIALEXAM.PDF
http://www.smartmoney.com/barrons/index.cfm?story=20060821&afl=yahoo
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/02/AR200...
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/12/nation/na-johnson12
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121660089138069207.html
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=12161
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/27/01/feature2.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/business/yourmoney/23view.html?_r=2...
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie...
http://www.slate.com/id/2124506/
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/Advice_from_Raines.html
527 blue collar worker
Bush is going to emerge as the hero of all this for his efforts to curb
capitalism and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, despite how they were
sabotaged by the all powerful Democrats in 2003. Once again elite Leftist
socialism is to blame for capitalist greed, mismanagement and the crippling
of 3 fifths of America's banking industry!
When will Obama admit that Liberals are to blame for all our problems, in
defiance of the sheer perfection of Republican infallibility?
<ori...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:52:52 -0400, "Proteus" <pro...@ambiance.com>
> wrote:
>
> >There is greed and corruption on Wall Street, just as there is everywhere
> >else. But it is not Wall Street or greed or capitalism's failure, with all
> >due respect to to John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Bill O'Reilly that is to
> >blame for the current financial U.S. meltdown. This crisis was caused by
> >foolish populism and corruption in the U.S. government. And the Democrats
> >are more to blame than the Republican Right.
>
> Up until last Friday Barney Frank was saying Fannie and Freddie were
> in good shape and he didn't see any problems ahead for them.
>
> OBTW: The original intent of Fannie Mae was as a "lender of last
> resort" for lower-income Americans who couldn't quite qualify for a
> bank loan. It was one of the original, "I'm the Government and I'm
> here to help!" programs of FDR's New Deal. In 1968 LBJ spun it off as
> a public-private corporation to "fix" the books and help prevent the
> Treasury from reporting a deficit that year. Since then it's gone its
> own way. As of 2003 auditors reported that low-income loans made up
> only a tiny fraction of either Fannie Mae's or Freddie Mac's
> portfolios. Seems upper management's incentive packages were
> structured around the size and number of loans outstanding and FOR
> SOME TOTALLY UNRELATED REASON they were carrying tons of loans at
> insane terms with lenders who couldn't possibly repay or refinance
> them if the housing market entered a down cycle - as it periodically
> does.
> --
> Three datum points:
>
> - From the DNC Party Platform, adopted unanimously at their
> 2008 convention: ''We oppose laws that require identification
> in order to vote or register to vote.''
>
> - The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)
> has been hit by massive fines and penalties over the past 3 election
> cycles for vote fraud and fraudulent voter registrations, all across
> the country.
>
> - ACORN and Barack Obama are wedded at the hip. Obama worked with
> ACORN in Chicago, ACORN brags about getting Obama elected to the State
> Senate and then the US Senate. ACORN provides many of the political
> workers for his current campaign.
>
hob
left Fannie Mae in 1998 have to do with Bush wanting to fix Fannie mae,
etc.? Other ;links don't say anything about the mortgage crisis, Bush, or
the federal corporations
as an aside - If Bush wanted to fix it, why didn't he do it when he had a
republican majority? Seems kind of dumb to wait until he didn't have
congress to start fixing things.
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8de4106f-f1f1-4661...@c22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575A...
nothing there
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122161010874845645.html I don't think they
understand the housing market at all
anyway, the response to that is
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122162063022546651.html?mod=article-outset-box
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/rhetoric-and-po.html
OK, this one baffles me --besides saying the mortgage crisis is the blacks
and hispanics fault !!, he says(in evidence of his position that lack of
regulation caused the present crisis) that another author warned last year
about tightning down on subprime lending because it would cause a crisis -
and now we have a crisis, evidence of lack of regulation!!
Introducing regulation that slams on the brakes has precipitated EVERY
crash we have had in this country since 1900 (and probablyt before). I am
amazed at how stupid people are, doing the same thing over and over and
expecting different results.
Now we will regulate, and this time, unlike the last 14 times, it will be
different...
http://www.ofheo.gov/media/pdf/FNMSPECIALEXAM.PDF
I don;t know why this was cited - it is only a summary of the bill that
moved the oversight from HUD to an independent board.
http://www.smartmoney.com/barrons/index.cfm?story=20060821&afl=yahoo
An article about a democrat who left Fannie Mae ten years ago - back in
1998.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/02/AR200...
no longer available
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/12/nation/na-johnson12
an article about a vp search.. nothing about Bush, Fannie Mae, or Freddie
Mac, or anything relevant to them for the past 10 years
since the above have nothing to do with the adminstration of the Federal
corporations or their directors since 2001, I will not waste my time
checking the following links.
Steve Thomas
> checked on the links -- what do articles about a Fannie Mae director who
> left Fannie Mae in 1998 have to do with Bush wanting to fix Fannie mae,
> etc.? Other ;links don't say anything about the mortgage crisis, Bush, or
> the federal corporations
>
> as an aside - If Bush wanted to fix it, why didn't he do it when he had a
> republican majority? Seems kind of dumb to wait until he didn't have
> congress to start fixing things.
>
>
> http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/rhetoric-and-po.html
>
> OK, this one baffles me --besides saying the mortgage crisis is the blacks
> and hispanics fault !!, he says(in evidence of his position that lack of
> regulation caused the present crisis) that another author warned last year
> about tightning down on subprime lending because it would cause a crisis -
> and now we have a crisis, evidence of lack of regulation!!
> Introducing regulation that slams on the brakes has precipitated EVERY
> crash we have had in this country since 1900 (and probablyt before). I am
> amazed at how stupid people are, doing the same thing over and over and
> expecting different results.
> Now we will regulate, and this time, unlike the last 14 times, it will be
> different...
>
> http://www.ofheo.gov/media/pdf/FNMSPECIALEXAM.PDF
>
> I don;t know why this was cited - it is only a summary of the bill that
> moved the oversight from HUD to an independent board.
>
> http://www.smartmoney.com/barrons/index.cfm?story=20060821&afl=yahoo
>
> An article about a democrat who left Fannie Mae ten years ago - back in
> 1998.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/02/AR200...
>
> no longer available
>
> http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/12/nation/na-johnson12
>
> an article about a vp search.. nothing about Bush, Fannie Mae, or Freddie
> Mac, or anything relevant to them for the past 10 years
LOL cant even admit Obamas boy helped fuck the lending market
>
> since the above have nothing to do with the adminstration of the Federal
> corporations or their directors since 2001, I will not waste my time
> checking the following links.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121660089138069207.html
>
> http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=12161
>
> http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/27/01/feature2.shtml
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/business/yourmoney/23view.html?_r=2...
>
> http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie...
>
> http://www.slate.com/id/2124506/
>
> http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/Advice_from_Raines.html- Hide quoted text -
Rich Hutnik
It would be beneficial if people did accurately reflect what
happened. Go look up Frank's quote regarding a law that would of
required Fannie and Freddie to have greater solvency. Barney Frank
said those proposing it were scaring people, and thing were just
fine. This was in 2005 I believe.
- Rich
WBY...@ireland.com
wrote:
>There is greed and corruption on Wall Street, just as there is everywhere
>else. But it is not Wall Street or greed or capitalism's failure, with all
>due respect to to John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Bill O'Reilly that is to
>blame for the current financial U.S. meltdown. This crisis was caused by
>foolish populism and corruption in the U.S. government. And the Democrats
>are more to blame than the Republican Right.
Beep - wrong. This was a bubble brought to you by the financial
community and nobody else. Read on, McDuff.
>Last night on Fox News Karl Rove stated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the
>"New Deal" type quasi- government lending corporations formed back in 1968
>by a Democrat Congress are the cause of the current real estate, mortgage
>and financial meltdown in the U.S. Before the meltdown began these two
>corporations headed by Clinton- appointed Democrat cronies controlled a 5
>trillion dollar share of the housing mortgage market. No down-payment,
>sub-prime rate mortgages were their foolish populist idea to help poor,
>often African-Americans, buy a house which they were not financially qualified to buy.
Beep - wrong again. FNMA and FMAC suffered from very poor management.
That said, the loans that they granted and the loans granted by
programs like Fair Lending had a failure rate ......... just a tick
above the nat'l average. (FHA and NAR) These loans were rock solid
until........
>Five years ago, George Bush, seeing trouble ahead, tried to reform or
>terminate these institutions but his legislation was killed by the Democrats
>and some Republican "do-gooders" and populists in Congress. Thus it is
>hypocritical of Obama and the Democrats now to try to blame the bankruptcies
>of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on Bush and right-wing Republicans.
Bush did try to terminate these agencies but not for the reason you
think. The administration loved all those derivatives in the private
sector, and wished to run the mortgage business under that model. FNMA
and FMAC got into trouble when they became uncompetitive due to
stricter down payment and finance percentages. The subprimes and
private mortgages supporting the derivatives were giving the borrower
110% of inflated appraised value with nothing down. If they could fog
a mirror, they got a loan courtesy of greedy underwriters and real
estate agents. When these went bad and drove down home values, FNMA
and FMAC became insolvent. If you really wish to track this problem
correctly, go back to the midnight Congressional session during the
Reagan years when the S&L's were given carte blanche to do what they
wished, and their original charters torn up. Fast forward to the
repeal of Glass-Steagall in '99 and the table was set for disaster -
all brought to us by the "free" market adherents who never saw a Ponzi
Scheme they didn't like. This crisis is brought to you by the
financial community and NOBODY else.
(crap snipped)
WB Yeats
hob
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:52cf1c90-3686-4f11...@a18g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>Five years ago, George Bush, seeing trouble ahead, tried to reform or
>terminate these institutions but his legislation was killed by the Democrats
>and some Republican "do-gooders" and populists in Congress.
ROTFL!! Ah, no. He was just trying to divert the most lucrative part
of that business to his rich friends.
So FOUR years ago, to shovel even more unearned wealth into the
pockets of his already-obscenely-rich cronies, George Bush, heedless
of all economics, history, justice and common sense, told the SEC to
give a special deregulation favor to five of the biggest, richest, and
best-connected investment dealers: Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley,
Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and Bear Stearns.
This special favor to Bush's rich friends was an increased ceiling on
the amount of debt they could over-leverage themselves into: 30x their
net capital instead of the 12x multiple that other, smaller firms had
to stick to. Being able to borrow so much more allowed them to play
it deuces wild, vastly inflating their profits while ignoring the
associated risks. Dozens of obscenely wealthy billionaire CEOs and
shareholders of those companies extracted hundreds of billions of
dollars of unearned wealth in bonuses, stock options, capital gains,
etc., and shoveled it into their own pockets. About 1% of it was
given back to Bush and other crooked Republican politicians.
So it wasn't Fannie and Freddie that caused this meltdown. They just
got stuck with the bad mortgages the five favored investment dealers
cranked out to take advantage of their higher debt ceilings. It was
over-leveraging by Bush's rich cronies at the five favored investment
dealers, THREE OF WHICH HAVE NOW GONE BELLY-UP, that caused the
current crisis.
Capisci?
You may now consider yourself at least slightly more informed on the
issue.
-- Roy L