Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Monday, December 28, 2009

The Obama administration's decision to cover an unlimited amount of losses at the mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the next three years stirred controversy over the holiday. The Treasury announced Thursday it was removing the caps that limited the amount of available capital to the companies to $200 billion each.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

iraqibukkake

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Unlimited access to bailout funds through 2012 was "necessary for preserving the continued strength and stability of the mortgage market," the Treasury said.

Nothing says stability like unlimited funding for unknown and unlimited losses.

As if we needed any more proof that Obama will fuck American taxpayers on the bankers behalf indefinitely, well...here it is.

Hope and change

SUCKERS

The CEO's of Fannie, and Freddi only make $6million a year what did you expect?
www.latimes.com

This is all really starting(lolz!) to get @#$%ed up. These billions and trillions of dollars are going directly into a black hole that is nothing more than a few friends of the governments, left and right.

Hahaha, there is no left and right here. Face it, it's all about money nowadays.

Imagine if every American man, woman and child actually got a piece of Bush and Obama's $13 trillion "stimulus" plans. That's $43,000 each. There's your economy right there, but there's no money in it for Government & Friends who can share it all between themselves.

The typical clueless moron on this site still doesn't get it that the federal government is heading straight for default. Governments are immune to legal bankruptcy; they just stop paying their debts and obligations when they can no longer be financed. Thanks to modern computerized version of printing presses, the feds can drag this out to the point of systematic collapse. I wouldn't bet against them.

Ray I hope it does happen. I don't live in fear of it like you do. I'll live better after it happens. Remember the old saying "A fool and his gold are soon separated."

There's another old saying: "He who has the gold makes the rules." Watch gold soar in the immediate years ahead as the dollar tanks. You have to be a fool to believe this reckless spending and borrowing can continue without severe consequences.

Ray I already told you 10 times Gold will not matter if the economic collapse occurs. Gold will be little more than a silly trinket. If I were you I would cash it all in and buy yourself an arsenal of every weapon you can.

Paper money always goes to its market value of zero. Gold always goes in the opposite direction - no exceptions in all history. Save the stupid lectures. You don't have a clue to what you're talking about.

Ray,

Hate to say it but I'm with Jackass in a systematic collapse I would much rather have a shotgun than a gold bar. If I have a shotgun and you have a gold bar pretty soon I'll have a shotgun and a gold bar.

Hate to say it but I'm with Jackass in a systematic collapse I would much rather have a shotgun than a gold bar. If I have a shotgun and you have a gold bar pretty soon I'll have a shotgun and a gold bar.

You can have both, you know.

Hate to say it but I'm with Jackass in a systematic collapse I would much rather have a shotgun than a gold bar. If I have a shotgun and you have a gold bar pretty soon I'll have a shotgun and a gold bar.

exactly. Even if Ray is correct and gold is truly priceless in an economic collapse, what difference will it make to him? If he tries to tender payment with it one time or if someone knows he has it then the game is up.

I would rather own commodities like fuel, grain, beef etc...

but then again, like Ray, I would have to be prepared to protect it.

The type of people who buy gold buy guns too. Don't think for a second it will be that easy. More so, your dollar assets are ripe for confiscation by the feds. They have lots and lots of guns.

FYI - the dollar has lost 98% of its value to gold since 1913. Since 2001, gold has risen four times against the dollar. The days of the dollar are numbered. If it doesn't go to zero, it will be close to it. History repeats - again.

Oh, BTW, this is not news to the economists in the "know". they already knew that Fanniefreddie would never pay back and they would be saved.

FYI - the dollar has lost 98% of its value to gold since 1913.

yes, if you left that dollar under your pillow since 1913.

however, if you put that dollar into motion then your comparison changes a bit.

If he tries to tender payment with it one time or if someone knows he has it then the game is up.

First, there will always be a national currency because our government cannot operate without one.
Second, the high value of gold and silver assures a robust supply of dealers. Using specie money on the street is stupid. The typical dolt on the street wouldn't know its value anyway.

I would rather own commodities like fuel, grain, beef etc...

They are too bulky to store and hide.

yes, if you left that dollar under your pillow since 1913.

That's not the point. The point is the strength of the trend which I alluded to by noting gold has risen four times against the dollar since 2001. If the feds had any concern for destroying the dollar, they would have stopped long ago.

That's not the point.

are you or are you not assuming that the dollar is not in motion when comparing it to the value of gold over a period of time?

"Oh, BTW, this is not news to the economists in the "know". they already knew that Fanniefreddie would never pay back and they would be saved."

Not to worry, Barney Frank says Freddie and Fannie are solid. No need to regulate them any further....

"During a hearing on September 10, 2003 before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Frank stated:

"I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury."

www.examiner.com

I'm not sure what you mean by not in motion? The dollar price of gold has certainly fluctuated over the decades, but gold is a reasonable proxy for consumer goods. Roughly speaking, an ounce of gold will buy the same today as it did in 1913. A dollar buys 98% less.

"A fool and his gold are soon separated."
#6 | Posted by jackass

Referring to Obama supporters?

Roughly speaking, an ounce of gold will buy the same today as it did in 1913. A dollar buys 98% less.

of course. most things, including many other commodities are the same.

this is another way of saying that the value of some things, like gold, have moved accordingly with inflation.

I'm not sure what you mean by not in motion?

dollars investing in something that generates a return. 1 dollar in 1913 invested in the stockmarket is worth more than that 1 dollar today. (or many other avenues as well)

of course. most things, including many other commodities are the same.
this is another way of saying that the value of some things, like gold, have moved accordingly with inflation.

Yes.

dollars investing in something that generates a return. 1 dollar in 1913 invested in the stockmarket is worth more than that 1 dollar today. (or many other avenues as well)

Stock market averages adjusted for inflation have actually lost purchasing power since the 70s. It's one of those cases where inflation creates an illusion of prosperity. Without realizing it, Americans are being drained of their wealth through inflation.

Unless of course the dollar falls in value eberly. That dollar may turn into 1,000,000 dollars, but if one million dollars become equivalent to value of the 1 dollar in 1913, then you have wasted a lot of time, and you have far less bying power than with Gold.

You may have more quanitity, but you do not have more quality. I think this is what Ray is getting at.

Gold will hold value, when the dollar becomes less valuable, you need more of it to get less goods. Not so with gold. You will at this point need less gold to get more goods.

Ray I already told you 10 times Gold will not matter if the economic collapse occurs. Gold will be little more than a silly trinket. If I were you I would cash it all in and buy yourself an arsenal of every weapon you can.

#8 | Posted by jackass


I wouldn't mind having a little gold tucked away somewhere.
Both of you are right to a degree. Gold doesn't mean shit internally to a starving population. However, the transition to third-world status would likely greatly benefit a gold-holder. Besides, I'm sure other countries whose economy isn't taking as hard would be happy to trade gold with you.

This exactly how the Feds distort the Free Market, by balling out a GSE or non-GSE, there is no incentive to watch your Ps & Qs.

In the days before the IRS and the Federal Reserve, when the Free Market failed they payed the price, there were no bailouts.

Hilarious!

In the days before the IRS and the Federal Reserve, when the Free Market failed they payed the price, there were no bailouts.

Let's get one thing clear. Free markets do not fail, they are not a creature of action. It is financial management that fails. The state of market is the messenger.

The Gold Confiscation Of April 5, 1933
From: President of the United States Franklin Delano Roosevelt
To: The United States Congress
Dated: 5 April, 1933
Presidential Executive Order 6102

The Gold Confiscation Of January 1, 2010
From: President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama
To: The United States Congress
Dated: January 1, 2010
Presidential Executive Order 666

Ray, what happens when the Gov't comes along and passes another Gold Confiscation Act.

History repeats itself in many ways...

I think that is when senators and congressmen along with supreme court leaders end up in cells in civilian basements as 100 million individuals march on Washington DC with intent to burn down the white house, president and all.

Norquist and a guy named hamshire...a liberal have called for the resignation of RHOM the ballet dancing chicago mobster...

they allege that he knew all about the failure of both mae and mac ahead of time.......

hhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmm interesting

None of these billions in the stimulas package (either under Bush nor now under Obama) ever seems to trickle down to the average Joe in any way, shape, or form. Loans are still difficult for many to obtain and the banks don't seem to want to renegotiate prior mortgages on better terms for the borrower -- all of which was suppose to be part of the stimulus deal.

I'm afraid what we're seeing is the massive transfer of our own tax money from the U.S. Treasury into the pockets of those who propose a New World Order -- and this transferring of wealth is one of the necessary first steps for those who want to establish their "one world" government, starting with the wealthiest countries first.

That's bordering on glennbeck crazy, CC...you want run off the Retort? Keep it up....

None of these billions in the stimulas package (either under Bush nor now under Obama) ever seems to trickle down to the average Joe in any way, shape, or form. Loans are still difficult for many to obtain and the banks don't seem to want to renegotiate prior mortgages on better terms for the borrower -- all of which was suppose to be part of the stimulus deal.
I'm afraid what we're seeing is the massive transfer of our own tax money from the U.S. Treasury into the pockets of those who propose a New World Order -- and this transferring of wealth is one of the necessary first steps for those who want to establish their "one world" government, starting with the wealthiest countries first.

That is exactly what you are seeing Chris.

Obama and his guild of thieves, just like the thieves before him, are doing everything they can to mitigate the losses of corrupt bankers. They will do everything in their power to artificially inflate housing prices and pass those losses on to the American people. I'm sure the doubling of the 8k for first time buyers and zero down loans are just around the corner.

...and the spectre of commercial real estate looms in the background.

All this talk of gold. Stupid really. You can't burn gold!!!

;~}

Hate to say it but I'm with Jackass in a systematic collapse I would much rather have a shotgun than a gold bar. If I have a shotgun and you have a gold bar pretty soon I'll have a shotgun and a gold bar.

#10 | Posted by TaoWarrior

But can you imagine the arsenal and army Ray will have?

Ray, what happens when the Gov't comes along and passes another Gold Confiscation Act.

History repeats itself in many ways...

#29 | Posted by Petrous

And pray tell how they will confiscate it when many who purchase it have no record of that purchase?--also, the confiscation acts didn't actually produce the gold out there.

I'm sure other countries whose economy isn't taking as hard would be happy to trade gold with you.

#25 | Posted by R0B0T

Sorry, robot, gold has been rising against EVERY currency---worldwide, a lack of confidence is developing in every currency---gold is becoming the currency of choice like it has for thousands of years---it's obvious that as a civilization we're no smarter then folks 300-400 years ago--sometimes I think we're actually stone dumb (we sure have more hubris but that is fast fading.

But can you imagine the arsenal and army Ray will have?

24 kt. gold guns

Ray sounds like a bond villain...

Just getting...you don't need go back that far. Barney urged them to raise equity in 07 and 08..which they did. As AA rated quasi gov agencies...right before they defaulted. That was over 20 billion raised in 4 months..which the gov defaulted on and STIFFED investors out of. The largest fraud and malfeasance of it's time.

If elected officials were subject to sarbanes oxley laws US corps must comply with, all those assholes would be IN JAIL...

i.e. steal as much as you want. the taxpayer gets to cover it.

You BushSkanks really amaze me. 6 years of Jeff Gannon's idiot girlfriend giving blowjobs while his REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED congress passed all kinds of laws deregulating this shit and you bitch because the adults now have to clean up the mess.

Go get a room with the chickenrapist. Maybe he will screw you like your god and savior GWB did the American taxpayers and their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

of course they will! are you kidding me... what a joke...

Running up the credit card is not how adults fix things, Axe. Granted, it is how your parents fix your car for you because you spend your excess income on ditch weed and OE, but that's not how most adults fix things.

Sent this to all three of my Federal Representatives:

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae get unlimited funding!!!!! Oh my God They are part of if not the reason for the housing market collapse. This is a relatively simple scenario. It goes like this: Consumer wants mortage. Banks wants to sell said mortage. Government has regulations specifing that they (the consumer) get mortage almost without any ability to pay (Fair Housing Act to the Community Reinvestment Act). Now that the consumer has a mortgage and the Bank wants an immediate profit. The bank sells it to either Freddie or Fannie. Instant profit realized without any exposure to risk. It does not matter whether or not the mortgage was good or bad. The bank is happy. The consumer is happy. The government bureaucrats (that would be you) get to take credit for making sure the little people are taken care of. Oh and Freddie and Fannie executives give you money ..... for your campiagns of course.
In this scenario there is NO incentive to insure that the mortgages are good. That is what has happened. AND now you have allowed the President (Executive branch -the Administration)to 'give' unlimited funding to these quasi governmental organizations. Let me direct you to that piece of paper you swore to uphold and protect. The Constitution says the congress owns the purse strings not the executive. Hello read Article One and then read Article Two.

You must be wondering why I put this under TAXES. Well HELLO who do you think was just put on the hook for the administration's foolish dream of unlimited funding for Freddie and Fannie. So what I'm saying is MAN UP and fight this utter stupidity.

End of message to my idiots

What the idiots in Washington have forgotten is that they are in control only as long as We wish it. Ballot or the Sword. We have followed the ballot they had better get honest or the Sword may be applied. Which is our Constitutional Right. For those of you who haven't read any of our founding documents Read the Declaration of Independence and I quote "... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destrutive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ...."

Read your Constitution, then defend it. Otherwise we will lose our ability to rant on blogs like this. Oh and for the women out there reading this (and disagreeing) break out your burka,your now required to be pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen.

if we are going to bail everyone out except the little guy, why the fuck would we have a "free marketplace" to begin with.

you live by the sword, you die by the sword, unless you are a bankster or his BFF.

sad times and only getting worse!

The Treasury also relaxed its timeline for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to shrink their portfolio of retained mortgages. Previously, the companies were instructed to shrink their portfolios at a rate of 10 percent a year.

This is called "kick the can down the road"

Wait until double digit inflation kicks-in. Obama is nothing more then a "Carter on Steroids". Once all the people waiting for their "hope & change" realize any gains they have made will be wiped out by inflation and their dollar will buy less and less while the feds are on their reckless spending spree on borrowed money.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid are steering this country into a death spiral on many fronts.

Another question:
Why hasn't mainstream media said anything about Freddie and Fannie? When AIG when up in smoke the NY Times went nuts about all the big bonuses and lost tax money. But now very little, as more and more tax money is poured down the black hole of Freddie and Fannie, and "government employees" are given huge bonuses for failing.

Hoax and chains--per Obama..

Wait until someone --anyone-- reports the bonuses F&F people get.

Maybe someone will report it.....

Like when Jamie Gorelick got millions...

Or Rubino got millions....

Or...

Hey Murph...you're comments are needed on the Session/Stanford thread on the back page.

I'm sure you've got plenty to say. I mean, you DO hold both parties accountable to the same standards, right?

Odd that you haven't commented on it yet. : )

So now Fannie& Freddie are going to be the dumping ground for fraud. After stealing half this countries savings, they're going for orders of magnitude more.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." ABRAHAM LINCOLN

"The nobility system of other countries having been established by force,and being supported by force, can perhaps be go rid of only by force.

But our American Nobility system being founded in fraud and supported by fraud, can be rid of in no other way than by effectually exposing the nature of that fraud...", US Democratic Review 1839

But if you are a Corporation that makes substantial campaign contributions (bribes) you will be bailed out.


if we are going to bail everyone out except the little guy, why the fuck would we have a "free marketplace" to begin with.

you live by the sword, you die by the sword, unless you are a bankster or his BFF.

#47 | Posted by AuntieSocial at 2009-12-28 07:29 PM

We haven't had free markets in DECADES.... educate yourself and share with your family and friends.

mwhodges.home.att.net

Hope and change

SUCKERS

#2 | Posted by chickenrancher at

now chicken

come on.......OBAMA doesnt WANT to do this, but you see...he just has to.......

Hope and Change ---> I HOPE I have some CHANGE left in my paycheck after all the new taxes!

By the way, repealing a tax cut is exactly the same thing as a tax increase!!!

Washboard, afkabl2, cmon, do not worry. The system worked fine. It has done its job. No need for concern.

Oh wait... never mind now that we have had our two term presidency, we realize that the system has failed miserably. Sorry. Just wanted to prevent a panic.

Liberalism seeks to destroy and rebuild or "change" the country. This action completes the framework so property may now begin to be scooped up. The liberal will say housing is a right, healthcare is a right, a job is a right, all which require massive government takeovers. Sound familiar? No?? Well, then just Google "Socialism". All this has been done to you, for you, on your behalf, which is the worst type of tyranny. You are quietly, or even exuberantly going along with all of this. Silence is violent agreement in politics.

"Washboard, afkabl2, cmon, do not worry. The system worked fine. It has done its job. No need for concern.

Oh wait... never mind now that we have had our two term presidency, we realize that the system has failed miserably. Sorry. Just wanted to prevent a panic."

plenty of blame to go around on why the economy collapsed. you do realize that Republicans proposed increased oversight and regulation of Fannie and Freddie, but Democrats fought it huh???

"These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis", said 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."

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing," Mr. Watt said.

One of the primary reasons so many bad mortgage loans were made in the first place is that ACORN spent decades pressuring banks and bank regulators to do more to make mortgages available to people without much in the way of income, assets, or credit.

Here's an interesting article on the business of doing business with bulimic Fannie Mae.

www.nytimes.com

And from their website...

www.fanniemae.com

This bailout is where and when they (the investors) want it...every quarter on the quarter to keep them from losing their asses...uh,....I mean assets.

Now I know what was going on behind closed doors in the middle of this "open administration".

"One of the primary reasons so many bad mortgage loans were made in the first place is that ACORN spent decades pressuring banks and bank regulators to do more to make mortgages available to people without much in the way of income, assets, or credit."

Really?

Because banks were able to loan to folks who couldn't pay back for centuries. It was only when greed and stupidity recently took over they began to loan to deadbeats. Did any laws force "liar's loans"? Did any legislation demand folks like Lehman leverage bad paper against bad paper at 100-1? The fact a lot of banks saw the imbecility and avoided subprime loans like the plague speaks more to the bank's desire for market share rather than some forced government plan.

mae and mac

THIS is an area that I would like to see an investigtation...
why???

follow the money..

"Because banks were able to loan to folks who couldn't pay back for centuries. It was only when greed and stupidity recently took over they began to loan to deadbeats. Did any laws force "liar's loans"? Did any legislation demand folks like Lehman leverage bad paper against bad paper at 100-1? The fact a lot of banks saw the imbecility and avoided subprime loans like the plague speaks more to the bank's desire for market share rather than some forced government plan."

and again let me say, the republicans tried to add more regulation but it was shot down by the dems...

"The Bush administration recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios." Democrats pushed back.

yes sir "follow the money.." libs dont care about the truth though...

AND cmon...as I said on another thread..we have to be carefull at least until next november

if this leads to problems for frank and others...reid and pelosi will give them hundreds of millions of our money to help get them out of trouble like reid did for dodd........

yep, I just hope people wake up by next November...

One of the primary reasons so many bad mortgage loans were made in the first place is that ACORN spent decades pressuring banks and bank regulators to do more to make mortgages available to people without much in the way of income, assets, or credit."

Really?

Because banks were able to loan to folks who couldn't pay back for centuries. It was only when greed and stupidity recently took over they began to loan to deadbeats. Did any laws force "liar's loans"? Did any legislation demand folks like Lehman leverage bad paper against bad paper at 100-1? The fact a lot of banks saw the imbecility and avoided subprime loans like the plague speaks more to the bank's desire for market share rather than some forced government plan.

#68 | Posted by Danforth

Hate to say it Danforth but Acorn was part of the problem---both parties were a part of the problem and cmon is right also--every president screws up, but Bush did make an effort to control Fanny and Freddy but was blocked in that effort.

"Hate to say it Danforth but Acorn was part of the problem---both parties were a part of the problem and cmon is right also--every president screws up, but Bush did make an effort to control Fanny and Freddy but was blocked in that effort."

yes sir, we agree on something i guess... greenspan and the bush crew share the blame as well... like I said plenty of blame to go around... and dont get me wrong i hate both parties... would love to see real 'change' but for now I'm forced to pick the lesser of 2 evils as i see it...

We haven't had free markets in DECADES.... educate yourself and share with your family and friends.

#58 | Posted by Washboard

Agree---I've been threading that for some time--we've been living with increased socialism over the last 60 years---socialism occurs when government interferes in the free markets and allocates capital---and they allocated a lot of it through their policies or lack thereof to large corporations, investment banking, etc. If you notice the middle class is always the ones paying for that mis-allocation and they're now going to pay when the socialism morphs to the other end of the spectrum.

"Hate to say it Danforth but Acorn was part of the problem"

Really? What legislation did ACORN write that forced only some banks to get into the leveraged lending business with sub-prime loans?

"...but Bush did make an effort to control Fanny and Freddy but was blocked in that effort."

Too rich. I guess facts are more fun when you get to make them up.

rawstory.com

"Democrats pushed back."

And rightly so. It would have changed the oversight & control from one branch of government to another.

Interesting, how the author willfully skips the salient point.

and interesting how you missed this point, notice he did not mention anything about changing the oversight & control from one branch of government to another???

"These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis", said 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."

Clinton administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes.

but to me the past is the past... like i said... plenty of blame to go around on this one!

ever take a look at The Community Reinvestment Act???

"Clinton administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes."

Hello? I remember exactly where I was the first time I saw a 125% LTV ad, and Dubya was in the White House.

like i said, plenty of blame to go around, but you don't want all the facts just the one that suits your liberal agenda!

"ever take a look at The Community Reinvestment Act?"

Um...yeah. Did you ever understand it?

Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it's even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren't subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: "In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat." Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley.

www.businessweek.com

"you don't want all the facts just the one that suits your liberal agenda!"

Funny, coming from the guy now surprised by all the facts.

2 sides to every story....

"Some commentators have charged that the CRA contributed in part to the 2008 financial crisis, as it encouraged banks to make unsafe loans. For example, economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry.[49] In a commentary for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee on Financial Services, charged that the CRA with "forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."[55] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, economist Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized low-income housing by pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country.[56]
"

"Some commentators have charged..."

Gee, what empirical evidence! Some commentators! Let me guess: Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly....

"a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry"

So? A lot of banks avoided them. Sounds more like greed and desire for market share at the expense of sound business decisions to me.

" "forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks.""

Again...how was it only some banks that were "forced"?

"In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece..."

You can stop right there. The WSJ Opinion Page has a sorry history of making statements that would get a first-year Econ student flunked out.

"economist Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized low-income housing by pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country"

Yet it was the smaller banks, in the poorer regions of the country, that stayed away from the sub-prime mess. Go figure. And did you read the Business Week paragraph I posted? The CRA loans had a lower rate of default. Hello???

The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.

you are correct that CRA loans didn't default at higher rates than other mortgages. But i believe that the CRA required lax lending standards spread to the rest of the mortgage market. That helped fuel the mortgage boom and bust.

and I also realize that Bush pushed hard for lax lending standards, just don't believe this mess was all his fault! plenty of blame to go around...

because the CRA loans didn't default at a higher rate, bankers began to believe that old lending standards were just too conservative. wasn't like you needed to twist the arms of these assholes to get them to make bad loans. problem is Wealthier, or more sophisticated borrowers ruthlessly default when their mortgage goes underwater. they make no attempt to keep the home...

Three huge stories occured on Christmas Eve day. This was one. The attack on Yemen (day before event on Delta) and Obama's executive order declaring full diplomatic immunity for Interpol operations.

"The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. "

You mean Bush's regulators? Again, what force did they use?

"i believe that the CRA required lax lending standards spread to the rest of the mortgage market."

But they didn't. You still haven't explained how some banks avoided lousy loans altogether.

"That helped fuel the mortgage boom and bust."

Really?

You're really going to sit there and blame those at the bottom of the economic rung because a bunch of business-school educated bankers chose lousy business practices?

Here's a clue: CRA loans amounted to less than 10% of the problem. The real problem was leveraging of bad paper against bad paper, sometimes to the tune of 100-1.

"because the CRA loans didn't default at a higher rate, bankers began to believe that old lending standards were just too conservative. "

Well now you're just making shit up.

see post 45 for more info and another take on it:

This is a relatively simple scenario. It goes like this: Consumer wants mortage. Banks wants to sell said mortage. Government has regulations specifing that they (the consumer) get mortage almost without any ability to pay (Fair Housing Act to the Community Reinvestment Act). Now that the consumer has a mortgage and the Bank wants an immediate profit. The bank sells it to either Freddie or Fannie. Instant profit realized without any exposure to risk. It does not matter whether or not the mortgage was good or bad. The bank is happy. The consumer is happy. The government bureaucrats (that would be you) get to take credit for making sure the little people are taken care of. Oh and Freddie and Fannie executives give you money ..... for your campiagns of course.

Keep on spending, Obammy!

"You still haven't explained how some banks avoided lousy loans altogether."

Not all banks fell into the trap of easy money.

just to be clear, your saying the the lax lending standards started by the CRA had nothing to do with the bust? It was all Bush's fault?

and your happy with fannie and freddie?

"i believe that the CRA required lax lending standards spread to the rest of the mortgage market."
But they didn't. You still haven't explained how some banks avoided lousy loans altogether.

can I hear how you think the CRA did not contribute to lax lending standards to the rest of the market?

A huge driver of the demand for subprime loans was the demand for CRA bonds. Banks operating under the CRA could meet their obligations by buying up CRA loans or MBS built from CRA loans. The CRA created a demand that the mortgage servicers were meeting.

What's more, many smaller mortage service companies hoped to be acquired by larger banks. Increasing their CRA lending made them more attractive take-over targets.

"can I hear how you think the CRA did not contribute to lax lending standards to the rest of the market?"

You're joking, right? The CRA is from 1977. How could a law that worked fine for 17 years suddenly "contribute to lax lending"?

The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.

again, I'm not saying CRA caused all the problems, I just think it helped fuel it.

I also think People need to take a little responsibility for their own actions. If you making 40 grand a year and buying a 400k home you outta be able to figure out that you can't really afford that house.

how much protection from the government do you need???
but in this age of credit cards and "I want it now" that's how it is...

my wife and I worked hard together to come up with a down and buy a home 15 years ago. no short cuts in life and I certainly never expected the govt to assist me if I defaulted on it...

Ray is correct that having hold is worth having.

According to the bank in England that was raided and people lost their family jewels along with money, gold, etc. there was an underlying theme:

The people said they kept those jewels, gold, etc in the safe because if they needed to flee their country, these were assets that people would take in exchange for helping them flee and live.

In America, we don't think like that, but to older Europeans that survived the world wars, having such treasures could save their lives.

We just don't think like that because we've never had to live through it. When I think about my great aunt who died and we found money and jewelry throughout the house, we realized how hoarding was important to her, she didn't trust banks, and she was prepared if everything went to pot. Fearing for their lives as immigrants from overseas - I never really thought of it...

my wife and I worked hard together to come up with a down and buy a home 15 years ago. no short cuts in life and I certainly never expected the govt to assist me if I defaulted on it...

If everyone was as financially responsible as you and your wife, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.

"I also think People need to take a little responsibility for their own actions."

I agree. However, a few things still bother me:

1. Isn't it referred to as loan approval? And isn't the process of approval a (seemingly) guarded secret?

2. Aren't there at least two sets of signatures on the loan, including one set who presumably graduated business school?

3. If banks were forced, how did a lot of banks resist that force?

"If you making 40 grand a year and buying a 400k home you outta be able to figure out that you can't really afford that house."

Whaaaa...but if you're a lender, you shouldn't be able to figure that out?!? Again, these guys are supposed to know better.

Cmon,

One little hint: around here, if you post someone else's work, it's best to post the link or add the byline. Otherwise it's considered plagiarism.

1. Isn't it referred to as loan approval? And isn't the process of approval a (seemingly) guarded secret?

2. Aren't there at least two sets of signatures on the loan, including one set who presumably graduated business school?

3. If banks were forced, how did a lot of banks resist that force?

"If you making 40 grand a year and buying a 400k home you outta be able to figure out that you can't really afford that house."

Whaaaa...but if you're a lender, you shouldn't be able to figure that out?!? Again, these guys are supposed to know better.

points taken. I learned some stuff I was wrong on by reading your links and researching some more.

I started thinking what I would have done 15-20 years ago if a lender told me I could buy a home I knew I could not afford... awful big carrot to turn down when your young and not as smart...

Cmon,

One little hint: around here, if you post someone else's work, it's best to post the link or add the byline. Otherwise it's considered plagiarism.

thanks for the tip!

how did you do the italics on your quotes???

awful big carrot to turn down when your young and not as smart..

Right after my wife and I married, we stupidly got into debt to the tune of $3,000. It took us 3 years to pay it off. We swore we would never buy anything on credit again. Since then we've saved for everything we ever bought -- even cars. Mortgage excluded, of course. Life's been so much easier since we made that decision.

"Not all banks fell into the trap of easy money."

What you're saying is some banks were willing to employ bad business practices, and some weren't. Since they're supposed to know better, since they get monetary rewards for taking the risks, and since their signatures represent 50% of the agreement, I'd but the majority of blame squarely in their court. The banks that were driven by market share and profit more than by sound business practices are the culprits.

how did you do the italics on your quotes???

#110 | Posted by cmon at 2009-12-29 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

< i >

Stuff in italics

< / i >

Do it all on the same line. use B instead of I for BOLD.

how did you do the italics on your quotes???

Precede the quote with [i] and put [/i] at the end. But substitute the brackets in the example above with < and >

thanks!

What you're saying is some banks were willing to employ bad business practices, and some weren't. Since they're supposed to know better, since they get monetary rewards for taking the risks, and since their signatures represent 50% of the agreement, I'd but the majority of blame squarely in their court. The banks that were driven by market share and profit more than by sound business practices are the culprits.

yeah, I guess I would have to agree.

as much as it pains me to say...

but still don't think we should keep bailing out fannie and freddie. doesnt seem that fixes anything...

look at the auto bailouts... we bailed em out and they still went bankrupt...

how did you do the italics on your quotes???

If you are doing a lot of them, especially with blockquotes, it is easier to compose your post in a word processor then hit the option for "show HTML tags" and C&P that to the DR.

Right after my wife and I married, we stupidly got into debt to the tune of $3,000.

That is not debt Goatman. Hell my bills are $3,000 a month. That does not include credit card bills as I pay them off at the end of every month when I use them which is rare.

lol I was thinking the same thing!!!! but i agree with goatman that not using credit cards and saving for purchases is the way to go!!!!

That is not debt Goatman. Hell my bills are $3,000 a month

This was in 1984. We had a new house, new baby, and I made $20k/yr. It was tough on us. That's why we swore off debt forever.

Credit Cards???? Who the hell uses credit cards. I have them but pay them off at the end of the month when I use them. I remember getting a credit card at Home Depot because it was interest free for large purchases. When I got the bill the interest was 25%. I paid that off and closed that sucker. The finance company with Citi. Figures. It is such a shitty bank. You really have to be foolish to do business with them. Even when I was trading TRS's with Citi I hated doing business with them

Credit Cards???? Who the hell uses credit cards. I have them but pay them off at the end of the month when I use them.

I agree. You can't beat their convenience at the gas pump or internet purchases. But I have only one, American Express, and it gets paid off each month with no interest.

"You're joking, right? The CRA is from 1977. How could a law that worked fine for 17 years suddenly "contribute to lax lending"?"

Real easy, Danny...it DIDN'T necessarily work fine for 17 years. Rememeber, we have a Congress which is constantly tampering with things also, and isn't always "transparent" when doing it. You ARE aware, aren't you, that they're trying to expand CRA lending as we speak?
Notice too, that from 1992 to 2007 the lending practices were REALLY liberalized. I seem to remember that Barney Frank said no further regulation was required in 2003 also....Read this, written by the chief credit officer of Fannie Mae in the 1980's.

Left off the report...here it is:

"Whatever the precise magnitude of the CRA's role, there is no question that as the government pursued affordable-housing goalswith the CRA providing approximately half of Fannie's and Freddie's affordable-housing purchasestrillions of dollars in high-risk lending flooded the real-estate market, with disastrous consequences. Over the last 20 years, the percentage of conventional home-purchase mortgages made with the borrower putting 5 percent or less down more than tripled, from 8 percent in 1990 to 29 percent in 2007. Adding to the default risk: of these loans with 5 percent or less down, the average down payment declined from 5 percent to 3 percent of the loan's value.

As for Fannie and Freddie, most of the loans with 5 percent or less down that they had acquired by 2005 had down payments of 3 percent or even no down payment at all. From 1992 to 2007, the two entities acquired over $3.1 trillion in low-down-payment or credit-impaired loans and private securities backed by credit-impaired loansand these are performing horribly: the delinquency rate on Fannie's and Freddie's remaining $1.1 trillion in such high-risk loans is 15.5 percent as of this past June 30, about 6.5 times the rate on the entities' traditionally underwritten loans. All this risky lending, of course, drove the nation's homeownership rate up and inflated a housing-price bubble.

Taxpayers deserve to know why not one regulator had the common sense to track the performance of CRA loans. They also deserve to know why the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and other regulators appear to have no idea how trillions of dollars in CRA loans are performing now. But above all, they deserve to know that the damage done by the CRA won't happen again. Incredibly, the House Financial Services Committee is considering legislation that would broaden the scope of the CRA. Before it takes any action on HR 1479which would expand the CRA's mandates from banks to bank subsidiaries, mortgage bankers, credit unions, insurance companies, and other nonbank financial institutionsthe committee should demand that regulators request detailed CRA performance data from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as from the four banks that have announced 94 percent of the nation's $6 trillion in CRA commitments: Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America. These six institutions should be able to provide performance information for an estimated 70 percent of outstanding CRA loans.

The pain and hardship that CRA has likely spawned are immeasurable. What is measurable, though, is exactly how the trillions in past CRA loans are performing and what we can learn from this debacle."

Edward Pinto, a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry, was the chief credit officer at Fannie Mae in the 1980s.

"Since they're supposed to know better, since they get monetary rewards for taking the risks, and since their signatures represent 50% of the agreement,..."

But there was no risk...the government backed those loans and removed the risk. You might have missed it, Danny, but the government (that's you and me, Danny) have rewarded those lenders with OUR money for making those loans. They didn't go broke, DID they?

"I'd but the majority of blame squarely in their court. The banks that were driven by market share and profit more than by sound business practices are the culprits."

Why? If there was no risk to them in making the loans, what did they have to lose. After all, the lenders aren't exactly a branch of Social Services obligated to offer borrowing advice now, are they? Besides, those borrowers had ACORN looking out for them, didn't they?

And Warren Buffett buys a rail road.... AKA, democrats are going to force the taxpayers to fix the tracks... or is it democrats are going to hide their tracks... or is it, Obama gets railroaded....who can keep up....

Barney Frank got a woodie over this one.

Most importantly the failed leadership will get mind boggling bonuses for fucking up, not just their company, but the whole country. They can only do this by having a politician in their pocket.

So to be successful, you must bribe a politician. Better get going.

"Real easy, Danny...it DIDN'T necessarily work fine for 17 years."

Do you hear yourself? Any law succeeding for 17 years is a good law; if it ultimately failed, it was the fault of the legislators who tinkered with it in the wrong ways.

"You ARE aware, aren't you, that they're trying to expand CRA lending as we speak?"

Expand from what? The nothing that followed the Bush Bust & Bailout?

"Notice too, that from 1992 to 2007 the lending practices were REALLY liberalized."

And the Republicans controlled the Congress for the vast majority of that time, including the most recent, and didn't seem to believe anything was wrong enough to fix.

"I seem to remember that Barney Frank said no further regulation was required in 2003"

And I seem to remember in 2003 the Republicans controlled everything, and as a minority member of a majority-Republican committee, with Republicans controlling the agenda, and Republicans controlling the votes, Frank would have all the power of a fart in a windstorm.

Exactly, Danforth - Barney Frank is blamed for what the Republican majority voted for - classic hypocrisy, for which they can of course be relied on.

"Besides, those borrowers had ACORN looking out for them, didn't they?"

Jest, that may be the most addled thing you've ever posted.

First you point out how the Republican government set up Fannie & Freddie to absorb half the loans...

...and then you suggest it was ACORN behind it.

Thanks for the laugh!

My favorite was when Dodd filibustered McCains bill in 2006 calling for tougher regulations on Fannie while he was a friend of Angelo.

How can I become of friend of Angelo. When I refinanced in late 2007. I went down to 5 5/8% on a 30 year. THe mortgage company sold my mortgage to Countrywide which became BofA. It is kind of funny because my original mortgage was done by ML. They gave me a crap rate in 2006 because my credit sucked back then. I did a refi to get away from ML. I did one big circle


And I seem to remember in 2003 the Republicans controlled everything, and as a minority member of a majority-Republican committee, with Republicans controlling the agenda, and Republicans controlling the votes, Frank would have all the power of a fart in a windstorm.

#132 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-29 11:07 PM

You might want to check your research because the Republicans did not have the CONTROL that you are referring to in 2003.

In 2003, the republicans held a 2 seat majority over the democrats. 50-48 with 1 independant in the senate

In the house, the republicans had a 13 seat majority over the democrats, 220 - 209

en.wikipedia.org

Very far from the CONTROL that you are implying. Very far from the CONTROL that the current democratic congress has.

"You might want to check your research because..."

And then you proceed to prove me right. Republicans chaired EVERY committee and controlled EVERY agenda.

"Very far from the CONTROL that you are implying.'

I was calling bullshit on the thought that Barney Frank had CONTROL in 2003. You might want to check your research. If the Republicans had majorities, yet no control, what chance would one Senator without a controlling vote have?

I was calling bullshit on the thought that Barney Frank had CONTROL in 2003. You might want to check your research. If the Republicans had majorities, yet no control, what chance would one Senator without a controlling vote have?

#138 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-30 02:20 AM

Wow, you really got me there. I proved you right by showing that the republicans held a couple more seats than the democrats in the house and senate? That was very far from what you were trying to push as CONTROLing anything

Btw, in 2003, Barry Frank was the ranking democrat on the Finacial Services Committee which denied a Bush proposal to impose stricter regulations and oversite of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. He then stated below.

''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.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

You might also like to know that in 2003, the Fincial Services Committee was made up of 33 Democrats and 32 active Republicans so in my estimate, Barney Frank did have some CONTROL in 2003 to help the situation

Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations.

"In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat."

Very much THIS.

/TY Danforth fer that quote.

So ...not subject to regulation though desperately in need of same?

No corporate risk at all as the the risks were being covered by the US taxpayer while their initial profits were being socked away?

The more one looks at the sub prime meltdown the more one sees not an accident but a deliberate attempt to funnel money from public coffer into private cash registers.

And now Obama has removed the 200 billion dollar caps on losses while extending the time period for FM/FM to to make returns?

* head desk *

There's covering yer losses then there's covering yer asses and then there's covering yer Fanny fer unlimited losses.

The last one.

So. Do. Not. Want.

More corporate shenanigans at a time when the public's faith in government's ability to act responsibly has already been shaken to it's core.

Not good.

Be Well.

Currently the Democrats have a super majority and are having trouble passing legislation, so back in 2003 the Republicans had a razor thin majority.

So it's very simple math if it's hard with super majority it's even harder with a razor thing majority.

So to get the votes to regulate or reign in on Fannie and Freddie would have been very difficult.

So Barney Frank did have some power.

In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then controlled by Republicans, adopted tough regulatory legislation that would have established more auditing and oversight of the two agencies. But it was passed out of committee on a partisan vote, and with no Democratic support it never came to a vote.

Again the Republicans had a razor thin majority

From 2005 through 2007, Fannie and Freddie were binging on risky mortgages. Back then, Mr. Frank was the bartender, denying that there was any cause for concern, and claiming that he wanted to "roll the dice" on subsidized housing support.

By the end of 2008, Fannie and Freddie held or guaranteed approximately 10 million subprime and Alt-A mortgages and mortgage-backed securities (MBS)risky loans with a total principal balance of $1.6 trillion. These are now defaulting at unprecedented rates, accounting for both their 2008 insolvency and their growing losses today.

So there is plenty of blame to go around the public sector and the private sector, both contributed to the mess we are currently in.

There is more to this housing crisis. New research shows that Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, and they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime or Alt-A.

It is easy to see how this misrepresentation played a major role in the cause of the financial crisis.

Most economists were unaware of the number of subprime and Alt-A mortgages infecting the financial system in late 2006 and early 2007. Of the 26 million subprime and Alt-A loans outstanding in 2008, 10 million were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie.

Why Fannie and Freddie did this is still to be determined. But HUD's affordable housing regulations, which by 2007 required that 55% of all the loans the agencies acquired had to be made to borrowers at or below the median income, with almost half of these required to be low-income borrowers.

So Fannie and Freddie started rolling the dice in 1993, and HUD regulations helped fan the flames.

So anyone who thinks the the private sector was the only culprit in this mess need to do some more research.

The nothing that followed the Bush Bust & Bailout?

#132 | Posted by Danforth

The bailout was passed by a Democrat Controlled House. It's a joint venture with these two parties.

Considering 100 years of Congress/WH, there are two parties that are always there for the good and bad decisions. They both own it.

"The bailout was passed by a Democrat Controlled House."

After a half-dozen years of Republican control that got us into the mess.

And don't kid yourself: had Congress been 100% Republican, the bailout would have passed. Paulson & Bush left no other choice. And nearly half the Republicans voted for it. After passage was guaranteed, members of both parties went to hide behind their skirts, particularly those up for re-election.

"They both own it."

Agreed. But it's foolish to pretend it wasn't one party's philosophy that screwed us all.

#146 | Posted by Danforth

Agreed. But it's foolish to pretend it wasn't one party's philosophy that screwed us all.
------------------
Are you living on the mooon. Republicans didn't push for Fannie and Freddie, the Democrats did.

"Republicans didn't push for Fannie and Freddie, the Democrats did. "

And Republicans had a half-dozen years to fix it if they thought there was anything wrong. Instead, they stayed silent, except when they overruled the states when the states wanted to enforce stricter lending rules.

It's amazing when people who want to pretend Obama was responsible the minute he got the steering wheel don't want to admit the Republicans were responsible after four years in control.

#148 | Posted by Danforth

It's amazing when people who want to pretend Obama was responsible the minute he got the steering wheel don't want to admit the Republicans were responsible after four years in control.

--------------------------
I'm blaming both parties, and not blaming Obama, and you trying to pin the blame on the Republicans.

The seeds for this crisis were laid in 1993 when Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans; who controlled congress the Democrats, and who was President a Democrat.

In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then controlled by Republicans, adopted tough regulatory legislation that would have established more auditing and oversight of the two agencies. But it was passed out of committee on a partisan vote, and with no Democratic support it never came to a vote. Again the Democrats stopped this

However as long as people like you keep on thinking the Democrats who routinely get more money from Wall Street had nothing to do with this crisis this will happen again.

I knew I should have just quit paying my mortgage and waited for another bailout instead of getting a second job.

"However as long as people like you keep on thinking the Democrats who routinely get more money from Wall Street had nothing to do with this crisis this will happen again."

When did I ever suggest that?

"In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then controlled by Republicans, adopted tough regulatory legislation that would have established more auditing and oversight of the two agencies. "

And changed the oversight from the legislative branch to the executive branch. Interesting how that salient point is always avoided.

Yeah, and the big shots running these losing government subsidized "businesses" get huge multi-million $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ bonuses despite these overwhelming losses and their failure as executies. At the same time the private sector banks who took our money (or were forced to participate) get their pay cut and zeroed out by an unconstitutional Pay Czar.

Can anyone believe we in this free country have a Pay Czar telling people what they can earn?

Fannie and Freddy should be forced to operate as a business and those running it should suffer the same consequences as those running private entities, answerable to the market and to the taxpayers who support them.

Not one penny should go to these so-called "executives", failures all. The whole thing is one big scam on the American taxpayer, run by insiders who take huge salaries and bonuses, then move on to bigger and better things political.

I'm sure Barney's FB deserved every penny.

but still don't think we should keep bailing out fannie and freddie. doesnt seem that fixes anything...

#118 | Posted by cmon

Cmon, enjoyed reading your threads on the CRA and fannie and freddie---it was well done and logical--you're absolutely correct; they also were culpable part players in the economic meltdown.

but still don't think we should keep bailing out fannie and freddie. doesnt seem that fixes anything...

#118 | Posted by cmon

Cmon, enjoyed reading your threads on the CRA and fannie and freddie---it was well done and logical--you're absolutely correct; they also were culpable part players in the economic meltdown.

#154 | Posted by matsop

Also, I might add I agree that both parties (and partisans) bear a responsibility.

yeah, lots of good stuff from both sides on this thread.

It's amazing when people who want to pretend Obama was responsible the minute he got the steering wheel don't want to admit the Republicans were responsible after four years in control.

#148 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-30 12:53 PM

Don't get me wrong, I blame everyone in Washington but I don't hold Obama up on high as you do.

No only did Obama get the steering wheel, he also got the brakes and the gas peddle and from what I've seen, he has a lead foot on the gas.

I also like the way how you never responded to my previous post when I actually provided the facts.

Barney Frank and the Dem's were a big reason why there additional regulation and oversite was not put in place over Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. If this was done in 2003, we might not have had such a huge fail in the housing/mortgage sector.

"Wow, you really got me there. I proved you right by showing that the republicans held a couple more seats than the democrats in the house and senate? "

Yes. "A couple more seats" means MAJORITY, including chairing every committee. The majority controls the votes and the agenda. Without majority consent, nothing gets to the floor.

"I also like the way how you never responded to my previous post when I actually provided the facts."

You're joking, right? In post #151, pointed out what you like to call "a Bush proposal to impose stricter regulations and oversite of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac" was actually a proposal to shift oversite from the legislative branch to the executive branch. Don't the Federalist Papers discourage that?

This biggest flaw in the Obama administration is that in his first year in office he did not recognize the fundamental rule that the greatest harm to any Presidency generally comes from his own party. Even Bush understood that which is why he refused many of the ultra right attempts at changing policy such as immigration reform and then signed the Democrat's TARP Bill. Even when he had nothing politically to gain. So regardless of what Obama accutally signed or not, he gets and "F" for allowing the far left to hi-jack the laws of this once great nation. It will be interesting how history holds Bush and Obama. Right now Bush is winning hands down if for no other reason than people had jobs, and at least the illusion that they had something positive to look forward too. Obama has even taken hope away.

And one more thing. Bush never attacked or slandered his own nation. Oabam can't exactly say that.

You're joking, right? In post #151, pointed out what you like to call "a Bush proposal to impose stricter regulations and oversite of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac" was actually a proposal to shift oversite from the legislative branch to the executive branch. Don't the Federalist Papers discourage that?

We'll never know.. Rahmbo burned them on inauguration day. And I hear that he has plans for the Constitution for New Year's Eve. Something about a Bonfire on the South Lawn.

Yes. "A couple more seats" means MAJORITY, including chairing every committee. The majority controls the votes and the agenda. Without majority consent, nothing gets to the floor.

You're joking, right? In post #151, pointed out what you like to call "a Bush proposal to impose stricter regulations and oversite of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac" was actually a proposal to shift oversite from the legislative branch to the executive branch. Don't the Federalist Papers discourage that?

#158 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-30 09:21 PM

Barney Frank had the power to kill anything in his committee even though he didn't chair it. As you know from the Health Care Bill in the Senate, one person could have killed the senate health care bill. To say Barney Frank could not have done anything by himself was wrong. Even though the Republicans chaired the Financial Services Committee, the Democrats had the majority votes in it. Repubicans control agenda, Democrats controlled the votes.

www.nytimes.com

It's pretty obvious that the legislative branch wasn't providing the needed oversite of Fanny Mac and Freddie Mae. Maybe it had to do with the payouts the representatives were receiving from these entities.

The Bush administration predicted what would happen and attempted a change, the democrats shot it down stating that nothing was wrong. It's pretty clear cut.

"Repubicans control agenda, Democrats controlled the votes."

In other words, the subject won't even come up unless the Republicans choose. And why didn't Republicans seat enough to get a majority?

"and attempted a change"

You're minimizing what would have been a seismic shift of control from one legislative branch to another.

This biggest flaw in the Obama administration is that in his first year in office he...

This biggest flaw in the Obama administration is that he's an un-American and Marxist-trained sack of shit that inherently despises the country the American news media eleceted him the leader of.

You can't really break it down any more simply than that.

You're minimizing what would have been a seismic shift of control from one legislative branch to another.

#162 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-30 09:59 PM

You're minimizing what did become a major housing crash in which something could have been done but the people you defend said that there was nothing wrong.

"Also, I might add I agree that both parties (and partisans) bear a responsibility."

Even that's a simplification. The biggest culprits in this whole mess are "we the people" I can't accept the argument that people knowingly took out loans they knew they couldn't afford simply because Barney Frank encouraged them to. The truth is that lots of people were making lots of money because of Fannie and Freddie, and had any politician in 2000 demanded that they be regulated on the basis that they could pose a significant risk to the economy, that politician would have been tossed out on his ass. Republican or Democrat. It's only now, when we as a society have to pay the cost for our irresponsibility that we decide that some form of fiscal responsibility is a good thing, and even then it's a lesson that won't stay learned long. Even now there is support for public programs that are unfunded to the order of trillions and trillions of dollars. No biggie, you just open another credit card.

Yes, Barney Frank is a world class fucktard and an embarrassment to the state of Vermont. But then again, he's less stupid when he's placed next to a dude making $50k a year that took out a variable rate mortgage on a $500k home.

Yes, Barney Frank is a world class fucktard and an embarrassment to the state of Vermont

Why would Vermont be embarassed,hehehe

"but the people you defend said that there was nothing wrong."

And the people you defend had 6 years to fix it if they thought it was wrong. Add to that: the concept we have operated under any financial bill not written by Republicans in the last 15 years is ludicrous.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not exonerating the Dems...I'd just like to see, just once, the 'party of responsibility' take some responsibility.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable