Bush To Give Billions of Taxpayer $$$ In Corporate Welfard To Bailout Mortgage Companies
asswi...@138mail.com
Republicans that dominate this newsgroup? Will your heroes - gasbags
Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and all the other right wing talk radio
screamers devote their shows denouncing this blatant SOCIALISM?
Of course not. Like you, they are shallow partisan hypocrites
pandering to lemmings with IQ's of rat terriers. Or are you too busy
denouncing single mothers who receive $180 in food stamps to feed
their children while working two jobs?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are expected to be taken
over by the government as soon as this weekend in a bold move designed
to protect the mortgage market from the risk the companies could fail,
a person briefed on the matter said Friday night.
Some of the details of the intervention, which could cost taxpayers
billions, were not yet available, but are expected to include the
departure of Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd and Freddie Mac CEO Richard
Syron, according to the source, who asked not to be named because the
plan was yet to be announced.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Henry
Paulson and James Lockhart, the companies' chief regulator, met Friday
afternoon with the top executives from the mortgage companies and
informed them of the government's plan to take over the troubled
companies in a process known as conservatorship.
The news, first reported on The Wall Street Journal's Web site, came
after stock markets closed. In after-hours trading Fannie Mae's shares
plunged $1.70, or 24 percent, to $5.34. Freddie Mac's shares fell 95
cents, or almost 19 percent, to $4.15.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080905/mortgage_giants_crisis.html
saltyfi...@gmail.com
Bailout the Socialist policies of the Neo-Communist Liberal Fascist
Democrat controlled Congress.
Bankrupt "Exploiters" [ that's you! ]
In one of those front-page editorials disguised as "news" stories, the
New York Times blames "the lucrative lending practices" of banks and
other financial institutions for helping create the current financial
crisis of millions of borrowers and of the financial system in
general.
It must take either a willful determination to believe whatever they
want to believe or a cynical desire to propagandize their readers for
the New York Times to call "lucrative" the lending practices that have
caused many lenders to lose millions of dollars, some to lose billions
and some to go bankrupt themselves.
Blaming the lenders is the party line of Congressional Democrats as
well. What we need is more government regulation of lenders, they say,
to protect the innocent borrowers from "predatory" lending practices.
Before going further down that road, it may be useful to look back at
what got us into this mess in the first place.
It was not that many years ago when there was moral outrage ringing
throughout the media because lenders were reluctant to lend in certain
neighborhoods and because banks did not approve mortgage loan
applications from blacks as often as they approved mortgage loan
applications from whites.
All this was an opening salvo in a campaign to get Congress to pass
laws forcing lenders to lend to people they would not otherwise lend
to and in places where they would not otherwise put their money.
The practice of not lending in some neighborhoods was demonized as
"redlining" and the fact that minority applicants were approved for
mortgages only 72 percent of the time, while whites were approved 89
percent, was called "overwhelming" evidence of discrimination by the
Washington Post.
Some people are more easily overwhelmed than others, especially when
they find statistics that seem to fit their preconceptions. But if we
do what politicians and the media seldom bother to do-- stop and
think-- an entirely different picture emerges.
In our own personal lives, common sense leads us to avoid some
neighborhoods. If you want to call that "redlining," so be it. But
places where it is dangerous to go are often also places where it is
dangerous to send your money.
As for racial differences in mortgage loan application approval rates,
that does not tell you much if you are comparing apples and oranges.
Income, credit history and net worth are just some of the things that
are very different from one group to another.
More important, in the same ways that blacks differ from whites,
whites differ from Asian Americans. The fact that whites are turned
down for conventional mortgage loans, and resort to subprime loans,
more often than Asian Americans do is seldom reported in "news"
stories about lending practices, even though such data are readily
available.
Shocking as it may be to some, lenders are in the business of making
money, and they don't much care whose money it is, so long as they get
paid.
Politicians, on the other hand, are in the business of getting votes,
and they don't much care whose votes it is-- or what they have to say
or do in order to get those votes.
It was government intervention in the financial markets, which is now
supposed to save the situation, that created the problem in the first
place.
Laws and regulations pressured lending institutions to lend to people
that they were not lending to, given the economic realities. The
Community Reinvestment Act forced them to lend in places where they
did not want to send their money, and where neither they nor the
politicians wanted to walk.
Now that this whole situation has blown up in everybody's face, the
government intervention that brought on this disaster in is supposed
to save the day.
Politics is largely the process of taking credit and putting the blame
on others-- regardless of what the facts may be. Politicians get away
with this to the extent that we gullibly accept their words and look
to them as political messiahs.
We don't look to arsonists to help put out fires but we do look to
politicians to help solve financial crises that they played a major
role in creating.
How did the government help create the current financial mess? Let me
count the ways.
In addition to federal laws that pressure lenders to lend to people
they would not otherwise lend to, and in places where they would
otherwise not invest, state and local governments have in various
parts of the country so severely restricted building as to lead to
skyrocketing housing prices, which in turn have led many people to
resort to "creative financing" in order to buy these artificially more
expensive homes.
Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve System brought interest rates down to
such low levels that "creative financing" with interest-only mortgage
loans enabled people to buy houses that they could not otherwise
afford.
But there is no free lunch. Interest-only loans do not continue
indefinitely. After a few years, such mortgage loans typically require
the borrower to begin paying back some of the principal, which means
that the monthly mortgage payments will begin to rise.
Since everyone knew that the Federal Reserve System's extremely low
interest rates were not going to last forever, much "creative
financing" also involved adjustable-rate mortgages, where the interest
charged by the lender would rise when interest rates in the economy as
a whole rose.
In the housing market, a difference of a couple of percentage points
in the interest rate can make a big difference in the monthly mortgage
payment.
For someone who buys a house costing half a million dollars-- which
can be a very small house in many parts of coastal California-- the
difference between paying 4 percent and 6 percent interest would
amount to more than $7,000 a year.
For people who have had to stretch to the limit to buy a house, an
increase of $7,000 a year in their mortgage payments can be enough to
push them over the edge financially.
In other words, government laws and policies at federal, state and
local levels have had the net effect of putting both borrowers and
lenders way out on a limb.
Yet, when that limb began to crack, the first reaction in politics and
in the media has been to look to government to solve this problem
because-- as always-- it was called the market's fault, the lenders'
fault and everybody's fault except those politicians who created this
dicey situation in the first place.
Markets often get blamed for conveying a reality that was not created
by the market.
For example, the fact that "the poor pay more" for what they buy in
stores in low-income neighborhoods is often blamed on those who run
these stores, rather than on those who create extra costs through
crime, vandalism and riots.
If the store owners were making big profits, the big chain stores
would be rushing in to share in the bonanza, instead of avoiding low-
income neighborhoods like the plague.
Markets were also blamed for the Great Depression of the 1930s and New
Deal politicians were credited with getting us out of it. But
increasing numbers of economists and historians have concluded that it
was government intervention which prolonged the Great Depression
beyond that of other depressions where the government did nothing.
The stock market crash of 1987 was at least as big as the stock market
crash in 1929. But, instead of being followed by a Great Depression,
the 1987 crash was followed by 20 years of economic growth, with low
inflation and low unemployment. The Reagan administration did nothing
in 1987, despite outrage in the media at the government's failure to
live up to its responsibility, as seen in liberal quarters. But
nothing was apparently what needed to be done, so that markets could
adjust. The last thing politicians can do in an election year is
nothing. So we can look for all sorts of "solutions" by politicians of
both parties. Like most political solutions, these are likely to make
matters worse.
jf...@my-deja.com
John McCain would approve. He helped Charles Keating get more than $2
billion of taxpayer money after Keating and his cronies gave $112,000
to the McCain "campaign".
saltyfi...@gmail.com
>
> John McCain would approve. He helped Charles Keating get more than $2
> billion of taxpayer money after Keating and his cronies gave $112,000
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of
corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the
larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The
five senators, Alan Cranston (DEMOCRAT-CA), Dennis DeConcini (DEMOCRAT-
AZ), John Glenn (DEMOCRAT-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), and Donald W.
Riegle (DEMOCRAT-MI), were accused of improperly aiding Charles H.
Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan
Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal
Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB).
After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined
in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had
substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its
investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain
were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having
exercised "poor judgment".
All five of the senators involved served out their terms. Only Glenn
and McCain ran for re-election, and they were BOTH RE-ELECTED.
Don't let the Neo-Communist Liberal Fascist get away with propaganda
LIES!
jf...@my-deja.com
> ....propaganda
> LIES!
What lies? Did John McCain's "campaign" get more than $100,000 from
Charles Keating and other Keating buddies, or did it not? Did John
McCain later help Charles Keating get billions from the US Treasury,
or did he not?
Or are you bragging about John McCain's "poor judgement"?
RHF
AWS - Another Democrat Lie and Liberal Distortion :
Point-of-Fact : Bush Can Not Do Jack Shit [.]
- - - With Out The US Congress and the US Congress
Hasn't Done Jack Shit for Two Years since the 2006
Elections when the Democrats took control of both
Houses of Congrees Lead by Pelosi and Reid.
First - It will take an Act of the US Congress both the House
and Senate before Bush 'could' Sign any Bill into Law.
That would be the US House that is Controlled by the
Democrat Party and Lead by Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
A True and Correct Subject Line would Read : Democrats
Pelosi & Reid About to Give Billions of Taxpayer $$$ in
Corporate Welfare to Bailout Mortgage Companies
* Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi : Democrat-California
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi
That would be the US Senate that is Controlled by the
Democrat Party and Lead by Harry Reid (D-NV).
* Harry Mason Reid : Democrat-Nevada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid
IMPEACH PELOSI and REID
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2047008/posts
.
BACK TO BASICS - Now Lets See . . .
All Federal Funding {Budgets and Budget Cuts}
Starts with the US House of Representatives
which is Headed by Nancy Pelosi a Democrat
and Control by the Democrat Party of the USA.
.
ABOUT - The United States House of Representatives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives
Note - That the US Constitution provides that the approval
of both Houses of Congress is necessary for the passage
of Legislation {Funding}.
.
Reminder - The US Constitution provides that : "All Bills for
raising Revenue {Funding} shall originate in the US House
of Representatives."
http://www.house.gov/
http://speaker.gov/
http://www.majorityleader.gov/
http://majoritywhip.house.gov/
http://www.dems.gov/
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/
http://sadbastards.wordpress.com/2006/11/09/who-is-nancy-pelosi-what-...
.
Coming Soon : One-Party-One-Vote :
The House Democrats => http://www.housedemocrats.gov/
.
Oops - And the US Senate is also controlled by the
Democrats {The Good Guys} too. Lead by Harry Reid
a Democrat with a majority of Democrats in Control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid
.
Point # 1 - Out of Control US Government Spending :
Credit the Democrats for the plummeting value of the dollar.
{ But the Liberals Want You To Blame Bush. }
.
Point # 2 - No New US Oil Production : High Cost of Fuel
- - - Credit the Democrats for skyrocketing energy prices .
{ But the Liberals Want You To Blame Bush. }
.
Point # 3 - DOUBLE DIGIT EVERYTHING : Credit the
Democrats for 'unregulated financial industry lunacy'.
{ But the Liberals Want You To Blame Bush. }
.
ABOUT - The Democratic Party of the USA
{The Peoples Party of National Unity and World Brotherhood}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29
.
.
the real blame belongs with a spend-spend-spend
and still doing nothing everyday us congress ~ RHF
.
RHF
- - On Sep 6, 3:02 pm, saltyfishsa...@gmail.com wrote:> ....propaganda
- - LIES!
The Two Faces of the Liberal Lying Democrats - "The Keating Five"
Senators Were All John "Smiley" McCain - NOT !
Point-of-Fact : The Keating Five were Five (5) United States
Senators :
Alan Cranston (D-CA) {Guilty}; Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ) {Guilty};
Donald W. Riegle (D-MI) {Guilty}; John Glenn (D-OH) {NOT Guilty};
and John McCain (R-AZ) {NOT Guilty}.
- What lies? Did John McCain's "campaign" get more
- than $100,000 from Charles Keating and other Keating
- buddies, or did it not?
Not Exactly -read- John "Smiley" McCain and the Keating Five :
Actually the Keating Three Minus Two
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/aca20a552fb2c12e
Note - John "Smiley" McCain (R-AZ) was NOT Guilty.
- Did John McCain later help Charles Keating get billions
- from the US Treasury, or did he not?
Not Exactly -read- John "Smiley" McCain and the Keating Five :
Actually the Keating Three Minus Two
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/aca20a552fb2c12e
Note - John "Smiley" McCain (R-AZ) was NOT Guilty.
Point-of-Fact : The Democrat Controlled US Congress Did.
- Or are you bragging about John McCain's "poor judgement"?
NO - You are Telling another Democrat Lie and Liberal Distortion.
-read- John "Smiley" McCain and the Keating Five :
Actually the Keating Three Minus Two
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/aca20a552fb2c12e
Note - John "Smiley" McCain (R-AZ) was NOT Guilty.
aws - the truth will set you free be free ~ RHF
.
D Peter Maus
> On Sep 5, 7:59 pm, asswides...@138mail.com wrote:
>> Where is the outrage of all your CONservative "free market"
>> Republicans that dominate this newsgroup? Will your heroes - gasbags
>> Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and all the other right wing talk radio
>> screamers devote their shows denouncing this blatant SOCIALISM?
>>
>> Of course not.
Actually, they already have.
jf...@my-deja.com
> John McCain would approve. He helped Charles Keating get more than $2
> billion of taxpayer money after Keating and his cronies gave $112,000
John McCain has approved.
According to the heavily referenced article in Wikipedia, McCain
actually got a lot more than $112,000:
"McCain and Keating had become personal friends following their
initial contacts in 1981.[8] Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had
received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and his
associates.[14] In addition, McCain's wife Cindy McCain and her father
Jim Hensley had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in
April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his
family, and their baby-sitter had made nine trips at Keating's
expense, sometimes aboard Keating's jet. Three of the trips were made
during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay.
McCain did not pay Keating (in the amount of $13,433) for some of the
trips until years after they were taken, when he learned that Keating
was in trouble over Lincoln.[6][15]"
It also says that McCain participated in the senatorial pressure on
the Federal regulators:
"On April 2, 1987, a meeting with chairman Gray of the FHLBB was held
in DeConcini's Capitol office, with Senators Cranston, Glenn, and
McCain also in attendance.[6] DeConcini started the meeting with a
mention of "our friend at Lincoln."[6] Gray told the assembled
senators that he did not know the particular details of the status of
Lincoln Savings and Loan, and that the senators would have to go to
the bank regulators in San Francisco that had oversight jurisdiction
for the bank. Gray did offer to set up a meeting between those
regulators and the senators.[6]"
"On April 9, 1987, a two-hour meeting[4] with three members of the
FHLBB San Francisco branch was held, again in DeConcini's office, to
discuss the government's investigation of Lincoln.[8][6] Present were
Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, McCain, and additionally Riegle.[6] The
regulators felt that the meeting was very unusual and that they were
being pressured by a united front, as the senators presented their
reasons for having the meeting.[6] "
McCain claims he was not trying tp apply political pressure. Yeah,
right.
"McCain said, "One of our jobs as elected officials is to help
constituents in a proper fashion. ACC [American Continental
Corporation] is a big employer and important to the local economy. I
wouldn't want any special favors for them.... I don't want any part of
our conversation to be improper." "
The Senate Ethics Committee may have let him off the hook, but there
is no doubt that McCain was actively involved:
"The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the
scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against
him.[17][16] McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising
"poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's
behalf.[6] The report also said that McCain's "actions were not
improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the
level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain
has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the
United States Senate."[20] "
RHF
-ps- Keating 'front-man' with the Five US Senators was . . .
"The Great One" [Sir] Alan Greenspan, KBE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating#Failure_of_Saving_.26_Loan.2C_the_Keating_Five
Democrats Rewriting History : The Keating Five
Four out of Five of the Keating Five members of the
US Senate that were 'accused' were in-fact Democrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment
-but- The Democrats only talk about the one Republican.
Three out of Five of the Keating Five members of the
US Senate that were 'Guilty' were in-fact Democrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt
-but- The Democrats only talk about the one Republican
who in-fact was found Innocent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent
FORGET THE FACTS & FORGET THE TRUTH :
Blame John "Smiley" McCain : He's a Republican... They're All Evil !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain#2008_presidential_campaign
* Sarah Palin : She's a Republican... She's Evil Too !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
Another Democrat Lie and Liberal Media Distortion of the
True Facts and the Truth about the Keating Five ~ RHF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
.