OT ~ Bushism of the Day
Carl A. in FL
"The more that we can do to stimulate the economy in the short term, the
challenge we've got as everybody knows is that we inherited a big deficit,
and it is at a certain point potentially counterproductive if we're spending
more money than we're having to borrow."--President Obama, July 7
--
Carl A. in FL
http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/
Lone Haranguer
>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 "Carl A. in FL" <cha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "The more that we can do to stimulate the economy in the short term, the
>> challenge we've got as everybody knows is that we inherited a big deficit,
>> and it is at a certain point potentially counterproductive if we're spending
>> more money than we're having to borrow."--President Obama, July 7
>
> gross mismanagement of the economy.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/akron-oh/T7GG2N5342O0NKTO6
"Politically, the pertinent question is this: Which candidate foresaw
the credit crisis and tried to do something about it? As it turns out,
John McCain did — and partnered with three other Senate Republicans to
reform the government’s involvement in lending three years ago, after an
attempt by the Bush administration died in Congress two years earlier.
McCain spoke forcefully on May 25, 2006, on behalf of the Federal
Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005."
"Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the
company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years
were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the
company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion
accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to
say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated
financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses
for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s
former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of
Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied
to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at
Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at
Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to
lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s
examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some
weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement
with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure
reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated
over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that
governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored
entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role
they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing
to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary.
OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed
without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory
Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage
of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American
taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial
system, and the economy as a whole."
>
http://patterico.com/2009/03/19/barney-frank-cannot-hide-his-fannie-role/
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has a piece at the HuffPo, attempting to place
all of the blame for the current economic downturn on Republicans and
pretend he had nothing to do with it, including the implosion of Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac. Frank writes, “we have tools to aid memory —
pencil and paper, word processing, transcripts, newspapers, and the
Congressional record.” Indeed we do, but Frank fails to specifically
cite to or quote any of them. There are reasons for that.
In the real world, Frank opposed increased oversight of Fannie and
Freddie as far back as 1992.
Frank then skips over most of the Clinton Administration, particularly
the series of decisions by HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo between 1997 and
2001 that helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets
without meaningful oversight. Perhaps Frank is hoping everyone will
forget that Frank’s boyfriend at the time was Fannie’s assistant
director for product initiatives. Some might question whether that was
a conflict of interest, though Frank — who once fixed tickets for
another boyfriend on probation for drug possession and for possession of
child pornography — apparently saw no potential conflict.
Frank is proud that he voted against the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, “which
overturned a Depression-era law preventing commercial banks from acting
like investment banks.” Frank again omits that this law had broad
bipartisan support in Congress, as well as the Clinton Administration
(with help from Larry Summers, now one of Pres. Obama’s top economic
advisors). Frank may also be hoping readers do not know that
economists from Tyler Cowen to Brad DeLong agree that the
diversification did considerably more good than harm, as it allowed
sounder commercial banks to help bail out the troubled investment banks.
In 2003, when the Bush administration proposed creating a new agency to
assume supervise Fannie and Freddie, Frank’s response was that Fannie
and Freddie “are not facing any kind of financial crisis… The more
people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these
companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Frank nevertheless touts his efforts during this period with Rep. Mike
Oxley (R-OH) on a bill to increase regulation of Fannie and Freddie,
blaming House Republicans and the Bush Administration for its demise.
Sam Dealey dealt with this bill — and its fate — last year:
A month after warmly receiving [Bush Treasury Secretary] Snow’s
proposal, House Finance Chairman Mike Oxley unveiled a bill. It lacked
two key components, however. First, the new regulator of the sibs would
not be Treasury itself but a newly created “independent unit” within
Treasury. That’s the same arrangement that already existed—the sibs were
presently under an “independent unit” that time and again proved
incapable of detecting Fannie and Freddie shenanigans. Second, the bill
would grant the Housing department oversight—largely toothless because
it lacked the authority to contain the investment risks the sibs were
taking. Faced with stiff opposition from the White House, the Ohio
Republican pulled his bill the night before the committee’s final vote.
In 2005, Oxley (with Frank) tried again. The legislation was
stronger than before, but again failed to provide a regulator with the
authority to curtail the kinds of assets Fannie and Freddie could hold.
Indeed, the bill even expanded Fannie and Freddie’s abilities to
purchase mortgages. Financially responsible people saw the writing on
the wall and threw their support behind a tougher Senate bill [which
died in the face of opposition from Senate Democrats --K].
Regardless, Oxley’s bill passed the House and Frank now leaves the
impression that he supported it…
In fact, praises for bipartisanship notwithstanding, Frank voted
against the 2005 bill. As the chairman tells it, this is because “the
Republican majority inserted language at the last moment that would
prohibit religious organizations from participating” in providing
low-income housing financing. “It is only because of this ridiculous
action by archconservative Republicans that I cast my vote ‘no.’ ”
That’s a pretty loosey-goosey rendering of what went down. The
provision Frank references was his pet project, which would designate 5
percent of the sibs’ after-tax profits for grants to outside
organizations to promote low-income housing. As Frank says, the grants
could have gone to religious groups like the Catholic and Lutheran
churches (it’s good to see Frank now fully supports Bush’s faith-based
initiative, by the way) but also to decidedly secular and politically
active organizations like the Child Welfare League of America and
Volunteers of America.
Many in Congress opposed Frank’s baby because it was a step
backward in reform.
Supporting toothless alternatives is one of the oldest tricks in the
Congressional book. Frank’s true attitude during this period was shown
in 2004, when Fannie’s regulator leveled serious charges amounting to
fraud against Fannie and its executives. Frank commented, “I don’t see
anything in this report that raises safety and soundness problems.”
Frank blasts former Pres. Bush for demanding that Fannie and Freddie
increase the percentage of subprime loans they purchased, “supposedly
because of his belief in an ‘ownership society.’” He ignores that —
however ill-advised — this was a continuation of the aforementioned
Clinton Administration policies and that Bush at least pushed the
independent oversight of Fannie and Freddie that Frank opposed.
Frank also blames the Fed – and cheap money both here and abroad helped
cause the housing bubble. However, Frank ignores that the Boston Fed
(yes, in Frank’s virtual backyard) was among those pushing lower lending
standards across the board in order to make more minority loans — which
Frank has championed for years. Moreover, former Fed Chairman Alan
Greenspan repeatedly warned Frank and his friends that Fannie and
Freddie carried systemic risks requiring legislative action, above and
beyond tighter regulation of these government sponsored enterprises.
Frank turned a deaf ear to these alarms.
Frank ultimately concedes ”that the present financial crisis has many
fathers.” Frank can dance, but he cannot hide from the fact that he was
one of them. Is Frank being intentionally dishonest, or is he merely as
clueless as he claimed to be about the prostitution ring run out of his
apartment? Neither possibility seems very comforting, particularly as
Frank’s plan to “fix” Fannie and Freddie is mostly to give them more
capital.
>
> They got what they wanted, and now they have to live with it.
Wrong again. This is what Democrats wanted and now they refuse to
accept any blame.
http://forum.brokeroutpost.com/loans/forum/2/242135.htm
From 2003
"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any
kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is
on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
(From the Article)
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
and loan crisis a decade ago. . . .
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5
trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside
investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its
accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does
not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
************************
You should work on your ignorance level. It's pathetic.
LZ
Carl A. in FL
news:ihvc5592herp7750e...@4ax.com...
>>challenge we've got as everybody knows is that we inherited a big deficit,
>>and it is at a certain point potentially counterproductive if we're
>>spending
>>more money than we're having to borrow."--President Obama, July 7
>
> gross mismanagement of the economy.
>
> co-idiots who have treasonably crafted to reduce the American economy to
> Depression-level distress. Do you figure that the Rep nitwits possessed
> the
> intelligence to do this all on their own; or did they have help from the
> outside world who is dedicated to the destruction of America??
>
> How can one distinguish from one of these malignant outsiders, and one of
> your run-of-the-mill idiot Republicans????????????
IOW, you couldn't make sense out of the 0bama utterance, could you?
Thanks for playing.