Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

The Buyout- Your opinions

Should there be a bail out?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 22.2%
  • No

    Votes: 28 77.8%

  • Total voters
    36
Friends,

The richest 400 Americans -- that's right, just four hundred people -- own MORE than the bottom 150 million Americans combined. 400 rich Americans have got more stashed away than half the entire country! Their combined net worth is $1.6 trillion. During the eight years of the Bush Administration, their wealth has increased by nearly $700 billion -- the same amount that they are now demanding we give to them for the "bailout." Why don't they just spend the money they made under Bush to bail themselves out? They'd still have nearly a trillion dollars left over to spread amongst themselves!

Of course, they are not going to do that -- at least not voluntarily. George W. Bush was handed a $127 billion surplus when Bill Clinton left office. Because that money was OUR money and not his, he did what the rich prefer to do -- spend it and never look back. Now we have a $9.5 trillion debt. Why on earth would we even think of giving these robber barons any more of our money?

I would like to propose my own bailout plan. My suggestions, listed below, are predicated on the singular and simple belief that the rich must pull themselves up by their own platinum bootstraps. Sorry, fellows, but you drilled it into our heads one too many times: There... is... no... free... lunch. And thank you for encouraging us to hate people on welfare! So, there will be no handouts from us to you. The Senate, tonight, is going to try to rush their version of a "bailout" bill to a vote. They must be stopped. We did it on Monday with the House, and we can do it again today with the Senate.

It is clear, though, that we cannot simply keep protesting without proposing exactly what it is we think Congress should do. So, after consulting with a number of people smarter than Phil Gramm, here is my proposal, now known as "Mike's Rescue Plan." It has 10 simple, straightforward points. They are:

1. APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO CRIMINALLY INDICT ANYONE ON WALL STREET WHO KNOWINGLY CONTRIBUTED TO THIS COLLAPSE. Before any new money is expended, Congress must commit, by resolution, to criminally prosecute anyone who had anything to do with the attempted sacking of our economy. This means that anyone who committed insider trading, securities fraud or any action that helped bring about this collapse must go to jail. This Congress must call for a Special Prosecutor who will vigorously go after everyone who created the mess, and anyone else who attempts to scam the public in the future.

2. THE RICH MUST PAY FOR THEIR OWN BAILOUT. They may have to live in 5 houses instead of 7. They may have to drive 9 cars instead of 13. The chef for their mini-terriers may have to be reassigned. But there is no way in hell, after forcing family incomes to go down more than $2,000 dollars during the Bush years, that working people and the middle class are going to fork over one dime to underwrite the next yacht purchase.

If they truly need the $700 billion they say they need, well, here is an easy way they can raise it:


a) Every couple who makes over a million dollars a year and every single taxpayer who makes over $500,000 a year will pay a 10% surcharge tax for five years. (It's the Senator Sanders plan. He's like Colonel Sanders, only he's out to fry the right chickens.) That means the rich will still be paying less income tax than when Carter was president. This will raise a total of $300 billion.

b) Like nearly every other democracy, charge a 0.25% tax on every stock transaction. This will raise more than $200 billion in a year.

c) Because every stockholder is a patriotic American, stockholders will forgo receiving a dividend check for one quarter and instead this money will go the treasury to help pay for the bailout.

d) 25% of major U.S. corporations currently pay NO federal income tax. Federal corporate tax revenues currently amount to 1.7% of the GDP compared to 5% in the 1950s. If we raise the corporate income tax back to the level of the 1950s, that gives us an extra $500 billion.

All of this combined should be enough to end the calamity. The rich will get to keep their mansions and their servants, and our United States government ("COUNTRY FIRST!") will have a little leftover to repair some roads, bridges and schools.

3. BAIL OUT THE PEOPLE LOSING THEIR HOMES, NOT THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BUILD AN EIGHTH HOME. There are 1.3 million homes in foreclosure right now. That is what is at the heart of this problem. So instead of giving the money to the banks as a gift, pay down each of these mortgages by $100,000. Force the banks to renegotiate the mortgage so the homeowner can pay on its current value. To insure that this help does no go to speculators and those who have tried to make money by flipping houses, this bailout is only for people's primary residence. And in return for the $100K paydown on the existing mortgage, the government gets to share in the holding of the mortgage so that it can get some of its money back. Thus, the total initial cost of fixing the mortgage crisis at its roots (instead of with the greedy lenders) is $150 billion, not $700 billion.

And let's set the record straight. People who have defaulted on their mortgages are not "bad risks." They are our fellow Americans, and all they wanted was what we all want and most of us still get: a home to call their own. But during the Bush years, millions of them lost the decent paying jobs they had. Six million fell into poverty. Seven million lost their health insurance. And every one of them saw their real wages go down by $2,000. Those who dare to look down on these Americans who got hit with one bad break after another should be ashamed. We are a better, stronger, safer and happier society when all of our citizens can afford to live in a home that they own.

4. IF YOUR BANK OR COMPANY GETS ANY OF OUR MONEY IN A "BAILOUT," THEN WE OWN YOU. Sorry, that's how it's done. If the bank gives me money so I can buy a house, the bank "owns" that house until I pay it all back -- with interest. Same deal for Wall Street. Whatever money you need to stay afloat, if our government considers you a safe risk -- and necessary for the good of the country -- then you can get a loan, but we will own you. If you default, we will sell you. This is how the Swedish government did it and it worked.

5. ALL REGULATIONS MUST BE RESTORED. THE REAGAN REVOLUTION IS DEAD. This catastrophe happened because we let the fox have the keys to the henhouse. In 1999, Phil Gramm authored a bill to remove all the regulations that governed Wall Street and our banking system. The bill passed and Clinton signed it. Here's what Sen. Phil Gramm, McCain's chief economic advisor, said at the bill signing:


"In the 1930s ... it was believed that government was the answer. It was believed that stability and growth came from government overriding the functioning of free markets.

"We are here today to repeal [that] because we have learned that government is not the answer. We have learned that freedom and competition are the answers. We have learned that we promote economic growth and we promote stability by having competition and freedom.

"I am proud to be here because this is an important bill; it is a deregulatory bill. I believe that that is the wave of the future, and I am awfully proud to have been a part of making it a reality."

This bill must be repealed. Bill Clinton can help by leading the effort for the repeal of the Gramm bill and the reinstating of even tougher regulations regarding our financial institutions. And when they're done with that, they can restore the regulations for the airlines, the inspection of our food, the oil industry, OSHA, and every other entity that affects our daily lives. All oversight provisions for any "bailout" must have enforcement monies attached to them and criminal penalties for all offenders.

6. IF IT'S TOO BIG TO FAIL, THEN THAT MEANS IT'S TOO BIG TO EXIST. Allowing the creation of these mega-mergers and not enforcing the monopoly and anti-trust laws has allowed a number of financial institutions and corporations to become so large, the very thought of their collapse means an even bigger collapse across the entire economy. No one or two companies should have this kind of power. The so-called "economic Pearl Harbor" can't happen when you have hundreds -- thousands -- of institutions where people have their money. When you have a dozen auto companies, if one goes belly-up, we don't face a national disaster. If you have three separately-owned daily newspapers in your town, then one media company can't call all the shots (I know... What am I thinking?! Who reads a paper anymore? Sure glad all those mergers and buyouts left us with a strong and free press!). Laws must be enacted to prevent companies from being so large and dominant that with one slingshot to the eye, the giant falls and dies. And no institution should be allowed to set up money schemes that no one can understand. If you can't explain it in two sentences, you shouldn't be taking anyone's money.

7. NO EXECUTIVE SHOULD BE PAID MORE THAN 40 TIMES THEIR AVERAGE EMPLOYEE, AND NO EXECUTIVE SHOULD RECEIVE ANY KIND OF "PARACHUTE" OTHER THAN THE VERY GENEROUS SALARY HE OR SHE MADE WHILE WORKING FOR THE COMPANY. In 1980, the average American CEO made 45 times what their employees made. By 2003, they were making 254 times what their workers made. After 8 years of Bush, they now make over 400 times what their average employee makes. How this can happen at publicly held companies is beyond reason. In Britain, the average CEO makes 28 times what their average employee makes. In Japan, it's only 17 times! The last I heard, the CEO of Toyota was living the high life in Tokyo. How does he do it on so little money? Seriously, this is an outrage. We have created the mess we're in by letting the people at the top become bloated beyond belief with millions of dollars. This has to stop. Not only should no executive who receives help out of this mess profit from it, but any executive who was in charge of running his company into the ground should be fired before the company receives any help.

8. STRENGTHEN THE FDIC AND MAKE IT A MODEL FOR PROTECTING NOT ONLY PEOPLE'S SAVINGS, BUT ALSO THEIR PENSIONS AND THEIR HOMES. Obama was correct yesterday to propose expanding FDIC protection of people's savings in their banks to $250,000. But this same sort of government insurance must be given to our nation's pension funds. People should never have to worry about whether or not the money they've put away for their old age will be there. This will mean strict government oversight of companies who manage their employees' funds -- or perhaps it means that the companies will have to turn over those funds and their management to the government. People's private retirement funds must also be protected, but perhaps it's time to consider not having one's retirement invested in the casino known as the stock market. Our government should have a solemn duty to guarantee that no one who grows old in this country has to worry about ending up destitute.

9. EVERYBODY NEEDS TO TAKE A DEEP BREATH, CALM DOWN, AND NOT LET FEAR RULE THE DAY. Turn off the TV! We are not in the Second Great Depression. The sky is not falling. Pundits and politicians are lying to us so fast and furious it's hard not to be affected by all the fear mongering. Even I, yesterday, wrote to you and repeated what I heard on the news, that the Dow had the biggest one day drop in its history. Well, that's true in terms of points, but its 7% drop came nowhere close to Black Monday in 1987 when the stock market in one day lost 23% of its value. In the '80s, 3,000 banks closed, but America didn't go out of business. These institutions have always had their ups and downs and eventually it works out. It has to, because the rich do not like their wealth being disrupted! They have a vested interest in calming things down and getting back into the Jacuzzi.

As crazy as things are right now, tens of thousands of people got a car loan this week. Thousands went to the bank and got a mortgage to buy a home. Students just back to college found banks more than happy to put them into hock for the next 15 years with a student loan. Life has gone on. Not a single person has lost any of their money if it's in a bank or a treasury note or a CD. And the most amazing thing is that the American public hasn't bought the scare campaign. The citizens didn't blink, and instead told Congress to take that bailout and shove it. THAT was impressive. Why didn't the population succumb to the fright-filled warnings from their president and his cronies? Well, you can only say 'Saddam has da bomb' so many times before the people realize you're a lying sack of shite. After eight long years, the nation is worn out and simply can't take it any longer.

10. CREATE A NATIONAL BANK, A "PEOPLE'S BANK." If we really are itching to print up a trillion dollars, instead of giving it to a few rich people, why don't we give it to ourselves? Now that we own Freddie and Fannie, why not set up a people's bank? One that can provide low-interest loans for all sorts of people who want to own a home, start a small business, go to school, come up with the cure for cancer or create the next great invention. And now that we own AIG, the country's largest insurance company, let's take the next step and provide health insurance for everyone. Medicare for all. It will save us so much money in the long run. And we won't be 12th on the life expectancy list. We'll be able to have a longer life, enjoying our government-protected pension, and living to see the day when the corporate criminals who caused so much misery are let out of prison so that we can help reacclimate them to civilian life -- a life with one nice home and a gas-free car that was invented with help from the People's Bank.
Michael Moore
 
more posting from michael moore. That stuff is bound to be credible and unbiased.....

Again, the BUY OUT, not bail out isn't giving anyone ANYTHING. Quit being a ****ing idiot.
 
wrong on so many levels. the crisis doesn't just affect the rich. taking away dividends from all stockholders...what about the middle class stockholders who you vow to protect under your rescue plan? All you need is a leotard and a cape, and we can call it the "bionic blunder's rescue plan"

the crisis isnt because of insider trading, or illegal transactions, its because banks and lenders were giving out mortgages at subprime ADJUSTABLE rates. Once the rates went up, and people were unable to pay the debt, the mortgage backed securities that Lehman and all the other investment banks bought from banks were suddenly worth nothing. suddenly banks have less assets than they thought they did, they have little to no lending power, refuse loans that would normally be accepted, make it so the general public cannot finance their typical spending, including houses and cars. no spending = no liquidity in the market place, and low confidence. give the banks back their lending power (the proposed bailout) and watch the economy recover.
 
how does the government know this is going to work, you may ask? because they did the same thing circa 1985 when the housing market crashed and securities were worth nothing (sound familiar?) and they (the government) made a huge profit. was that not patriotic, caped crusader? was it not righteous enough to gain 300% profit on their investment for the good of the taxpayer?

governments done it before and it worked. thats why they're running the government and you are going to stop them by posting on a bodybuilding forum.

and thank you rugger...i agree with your last statement 300% (the same amount of profit the government made 20 years ago...coincidence; I THINK NOT):thumbsup:
 
This talk is irrelevant as its a done deal that Congress will pass the bill....

This won't be the end. Congress will be on a mission to kill America.

Individuals making money is what made America great....yet democrats in congress and the white house (god save us) will continue to over-regulate and abuse businesses with ungodly taxes until they leave the US.......then they will curse them for leaving.

Pretty soon government will "be forced" to put taxpayer money into and nationalize the remaining businesses to stop them from "being unpatriotic" and leaving to go somewhere where they will actually be able to turn a profit.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the country can embrace capitalism and leave the businesses to making money and in the process make America's economy strong, or they can continue this "mixed economy" crap and continue to rot the country from the inside out.
 
do you understand the idea of the economy being a measure of consumer confidence and liquidity in the market (do you know what those terms mean?)? That being said, do you also understand what happened to the DOW when the senate voted down the bill? It dropped 777 points in a day!

More to my point, the government isnt handing out the money like its candy (or free samples of our favorite supps). The government is a business. When the government buys up $700 billion of "mortgage backed securities", it isnt going to write it off. when the CONSUMER CONFIDENCE goes back up in a year or 2 after the bailout, the government is going to sell the securities for 3 - 4 times what they paid for them.

How does a 1.4 - 2.1trillion dollar profit sound to the government in 2 years? I'd say that its an investment worth making.

The crisis we're in now is not a Wall Street problem, it is a "Main Street" problem, meaning that small businesses cannot get credit to finance their businesses. what happens when small business owners have to close and fire their employees?? They have no money to spend - no LIQUIDITY to add to the market.

No bailout is a bad move and i say it again; the bail out is NECESSARY FOR THE ECONOMIC WELL BEING OF THIS COUNTRY

Or something like this happens (from Invalid Link Removed)

"The bailout, I mean rescue plan, can be seen as nothing less than a new Ponzi scheme. It works like this:

Fed as only lender, in an attempt to keep the financial system from imploding;

TARP needed to keep Fed balance sheet intact so that it can continue as only lender;

Treasury will need to significantly increase the amount of Ts (public money) auctioned to fund TARP;

Panic serves to encourage T. buyers, especially for bills;

This represents a liquidity trap: TARP recipients of Ts will hoard cash to buy Ts: rinse and repeat.

This results in drying up of lending to corporations/crowding out private capital - no new credit lines;


The Fed becomes a holder of private capital, the later of which is now frozen to protect that capital from deteriorating, The rollover scheme will restrict even more lending in the private sphere for purposes of keeping the financial sphere on life support, but with the consequence of furthering the deterioration of the 'real' economy."

You think banks that are so shaky that have to use TARP are going to lend to consumers? Not likely.

Why would you look at the one day of market moves for policy decisions? The Dow dropped 777, so what? It gained 500 the next day. Wall Street thinks about 6 months ahead, not too much past that. Plus, the Dow Jones 30 is not main street.

Making 2.1 Trillion dollars? Please. I have heard prices as high as 65 cents on the dollar. The banks won't sell at market prices, that is why the assets are illiquid. Besides, the government is not in the business of making money.

Again, you are describing what happens when credit seizes up, this bill may not help that at all. Also, you think constant bail outs are a good way to raise confidence?

Liquidity is not the main problem, solvency and transparency are the two biggest issues. This suspends FASB 157 (mark to market) and keeps weak banks around.
 
This talk is irrelevant as its a done deal that Congress will pass the bill....

This won't be the end. Congress will be on a mission to kill America.

Individuals making money is what made America great....yet democrats in congress and the white house (god save us) will continue to over-regulate and abuse businesses with ungodly taxes until they leave the US.......then they will curse them for leaving.

Pretty soon government will "be forced" to put taxpayer money into and nationalize the remaining businesses to stop them from "being unpatriotic" and leaving to go somewhere where they will actually be able to turn a profit.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the country can embrace capitalism and leave the businesses to making money and in the process make America's economy strong, or they can continue this "mixed economy" crap and continue to rot the country from the inside out.
rob,

honestly, you gotta get off the "dems are going to kill it, etc..." at the end of the day, both parties are such crap that it is quite sad. Also, I continually get the feeling that Obama will take the White House, and the prospect is that the Dem congress could see some changes in the next elections. That might be the best balance we could ask for.

In recent history we have seen a rep. Pres with a dem congress and it has been terrible. Time to see the reverse, which did a fairly moderate job in the 90's. It will just take time
 
rob,

honestly, you gotta get off the "dems are going to kill it, etc..." at the end of the day, both parties are such crap that it is quite sad. Also, I continually get the feeling that Obama will take the White House, and the prospect is that the Dem congress could see some changes in the next elections. That might be the best balance we could ask for.

In recent history we have seen a rep. Pres with a dem congress and it has been terrible. Time to see the reverse, which did a fairly moderate job in the 90's. It will just take time

Reaper,

I understand where you're coming from and how I may sound, but you have to understand the foot in the door method that the *socialist* politicians use.

Once government's role is expanded, it is never diminished. I challenge you to find one time in the last 230 years that there has ever been a move to shrink the government or its role. The very idea is counterintuitive to a congressperson or politician trying to justify their role to their constituency.

You're right, I am being partisan by naming the democrats. I say democrats because they have been the primary perpetrators of this movement in the past 100 years. Republicans have had their problems, but you can't honestly say anyone compares to LBJ and FDR when it comes to increasing the role of government in American's lives.
 
how does the government know this is going to work, you may ask? because they did the same thing circa 1985 when the housing market crashed and securities were worth nothing (sound familiar?) and they (the government) made a huge profit. was that not patriotic, caped crusader? was it not righteous enough to gain 300% profit on their investment for the good of the taxpayer?

governments done it before and it worked. thats why they're running the government and you are going to stop them by posting on a bodybuilding forum.

and thank you rugger...i agree with your last statement 300% (the same amount of profit the government made 20 years ago...coincidence; I THINK NOT):thumbsup:

Not that I disagree completely with what you say, but I think you are WAY too optimistic about the Government's potential to make money on this deal. These are the same bafoons that encouraged this whole mess in the first place and placed their political cronies in position to run companies like fannie and freddie into the ground. Please tell me WTF they are going to do to PREVENT this from happening all over again?

And why arn't these CEO's in jail yet? Oh, wait, one of them is Obama's economic advisor. Why arn't there criminal investigations happening into which senators/congressmen who opposed regulation, oversight, and reform of institutions like these when it was brought before their commitees while their campaigns received millions in donations from the same institutions they should have been watching?

We have a fire fighting crew made up of arsonists working on this emergency as far as I'm concerned.

Also, I have heard a congressman from my state tell of several options THE PRESIDENT could do through his administration that would ease up a lot of this pressure WITHOUT involving tax payer money. Damn them for trying to scare us into giving our money away without doing everything in their power to fix it without involving our hard earned money first. Lying, scheming bastards.

As far as I can tell there are no prosecutorial meassures made and no preventative measures attached to this money. They should get nothing until these 2 issues are dealt with firmly.
 
And why arn't these CEO's in jail yet? Oh, wait, one of them is Obama's economic advisor. Why arn't there criminal investigations happening into which senators/congressmen who opposed regulation, oversight, and reform of institutions like these when it was brought before their commitees while their campaigns received millions in donations from the same institutions they should have been watching?

Well, I can tell you that most federal law enforcement agencies would be afraid to go after a large number of congresspersons who have pull....not good for their annual funding.

Also we're not talking about a $50,000 in the icebox kind of case. This is sleazy crap, but its just as much wishful thinking and incompetence as it is criminal in nature...at least in my eyes.

None of those congressmen in bed with Fannie and Freddie will ever have one iota of ramification for their actions.
 
The government isnt "giving away" free money. Until you understand the reasoning behind the buy out, then you have no reason to complain about it.

the government will get $700 billion of securities worth 1/4 of what they should be...

so i ll say it for a 4th time...

when the government sells the securities back after, they will make a 300% profit. c'mon guys, dont live up to the "muscle head" stigma...
 
In jail for what? It isn't illegal to give a risky adjustable rate mortgage and use the assumed assets to invest in other areas. It's funny that people complain about government intervention and regulation but then want the government to arrest CEOs for doing nothing illegal.
 
The government isnt "giving away" free money. Until you understand the reasoning behind the buy out, then you have no reason to complain about it.

the government will get $700 billion of securities worth 1/4 of what they should be...

I understand. I understand why they're doing it. I understand why they feel its "necessary". I disagree with the move.

so i ll say it for a 4th time...

when the government sells the securities back after, they will make a 300% profit. c'mon guys, dont live up to the "muscle head" stigma...

Wow....social security will pay for itself too, right?

I investigate fraud in a government entitlement program for a living....I've seen the efficiencies in government programs first hand. That 300% profit will be lost in 600% expenses and fraud.

If the government really wants to spend money....or print money....or deflate money...or whatever the f uck you want to call it...they should bring in experts to determine the best way to implement the program.

I've heard proposals from Steve Wynn, Donald Trump, and Warren Buffet, all of which are intriguing. Instead of circle jerking each other, congress should hear from these guys who got their position based upon skills with money and not merely being the most popular kid on the block.
 
how does the government know this is going to work, you may ask? because they did the same thing circa 1985 when the housing market crashed and securities were worth nothing (sound familiar?) and they (the government) made a huge profit.

If your referring to the RTC, they received the assets for free.

From wikipedia (but also common knowledge)

"The Resolution Trust Corporation pioneered the use of so-called 'equity partnerships' to help liquidate real estate and financial assets which it inherited from insolvent thrift institutions."
 
The government isnt "giving away" free money. Until you understand the reasoning behind the buy out, then you have no reason to complain about it.

the government will get $700 billion of securities worth 1/4 of what they should be...

so i ll say it for a 4th time...

when the government sells the securities back after, they will make a 300% profit. c'mon guys, dont live up to the "muscle head" stigma...

I don't dispute it's "possible" we can make money on the deal. I understand that it will even effect me getting a student loan, car loan, ect, That businesses may have to squeeze out a few less than necessary people/positions. I listen to economic/political debates and have studied a lot of this in college too. I just think this bailout is not going to solve anything fundamental to the problem's causes. It is essentially free money in the fact that there are no real strings attached.

If these "assets" are such a "good deal" why is noone else clamoring to buy them? I mean the oil countries in the middle east are ROLLING in money enough to build artificial skiing buildings; why arn't they investing in this "great opportunity"? Why isn't China investing with their sovereign fund into this "guaranteed money maker" you say this is? What about Europe and Russia? Rich countries with power to invest that arn't even coming close to touching these; could it be for any kind of reason that these ARN'T solid investments?

If these were "solid investments" then just why is it that these same "wonderous assets" brought our economy to its knees?

Some thoughts I'm pondering as I think about this.
 
Reaper,

I understand where you're coming from and how I may sound, but you have to understand the foot in the door method that the *socialist* politicians use.

Once government's role is expanded, it is never diminished. I challenge you to find one time in the last 230 years that there has ever been a move to shrink the government or its role. The very idea is counterintuitive to a congressperson or politician trying to justify their role to their constituency.

You're right, I am being partisan by naming the democrats. I say democrats because they have been the primary perpetrators of this movement in the past 100 years. Republicans have had their problems, but you can't honestly say anyone compares to LBJ and FDR when it comes to increasing the role of government in American's lives.

Bush has increased government a bit, and on top of it, that dumbass spent like a damn teenager given their first credit card.
 
this is a very narrow minded response to the problem and it reveals a sever lack of education on the subject...letting the lenders fry? why is there a lack of consumer confidence and a lack of liquidity in the market, driving the economy down? why did the DOW fall 777 points earlier this week? because the lenders are frying.

True I have a lack of education on the subject. However I am a middle
class consumer with a lack of confidence in the economy and a degree in international business. I spend less because I can afford less as things are getting so expensive. Maybe if we weren't spending all that money in Iraq things wouldn't have gotten so bad. Another example of using fear and anger to pass something in congress. Since my response is so narrow minded and showing such a lack of education I guess yours are all knowing and highly educated? I am pretty sure this is the same attitude of people who contributed to this situation. You should run for office since you are so much smarter than the masses.

however, i agree, the borrowers should be accountable. there is nothing that can/will be done however. bailout is the only option at this point. it sucks NOW but wait until 3-5 years from now. read my post above and you'll see that the bailout is a necessary measure for this country's economic well being

I don't disagree with you on it being necessary, but I do disagree with you on it being the fault of the borrowers only. Like I said before it's the lenders, borrowers and the government. There has to be more regulations in place. In two to three years I will own a house with a fixed rate mortgage with a high interest. So in 3-5 years I will continue the financial trend I have followed my whole life which is not making stupid financial decisions and paying back what I borrow. I also own my own business and need to borrow money soon for a project, but we'll see how that goes. And continue to dance to the beat :djparty:
 
True I have a lack of education on the subject. However I am a middle
class consumer with a lack of confidence in the economy and a degree in international business. I spend less because I can afford less as things are getting so expensive. Maybe if we weren't spending all that money in Iraq things wouldn't have gotten so bad. Another example of using fear and anger to pass something in congress. Since my response is so narrow minded and showing such a lack of education I guess yours are all knowing and highly educated? I am pretty sure this is the same attitude of people who contributed to this situation. You should run for office since you are so much smarter than the masses.



I don't disagree with you on it being necessary, but I do disagree with you on it being the fault of the borrowers only. Like I said before it's the lenders, borrowers and the government. There has to be more regulations in place. In two to three years I will own a house with a fixed rate mortgage with a high interest. So in 3-5 years I will continue the financial trend I have followed my whole life which is not making stupid financial decisions and paying back what I borrow. I also own my own business and need to borrow money soon for a project, but we'll see how that goes. And continue to dance to the beat :djparty:

How has it affected you? I ask this because I personally, have not seen the effects of "economy" in fact, it's the been the same for the last 3 years for me, no noticeable difference.

I ask because I don't notice any changes other than

a-People complaining about "rising prices"

b-People saying the economy is bad

I find most people that complain of it are the ones who spend maybe $400-500 dollars on non essential items and are upset because they're broke :rolleyes:....You know the ones I'm talking about? the ones that smoke everyday, drink everyday, have 5000 channels, eat out everyday, buy expensive clothes that actually look worse than $10 t-shirts and some are on food stamps......:lol:

I'm not saying that's you, you don't seem like the kinda person, but that's what I'm noticing from the people who say the economy is bad.

Maybe I'm super adaptable and super effective at coming up with solutions to keep moving and advancing myself, possibly, or is it possible that I just make better financial decisions, know that no one owes me ANYTHING and anything I want essential or non essential is mine because I work for it hard and earn it and WHEN AND IF I have an excess after accquiring my essentials, I will do whatever pleases me with the excess money, NOT Vice versa as it seems most people are.

I just think this situation is blown WAYY out of proportion, with people being too much out of their comfort zone and complaining that instead of putting the spoon in their mouths, now it's "pick up the spoon and eat" for now at least.

I'm not saying those corporate f**ks are right or I agree with the government, most definitely not, just a bunch of theives that I'd like to see being thrown into a mob of angry people.....:hammer:

I'd like to hear your input on this.

Don't steal....the government doesn't like competition......:smite:
 
How has it affected you? I ask this because I personally, have not seen the effects of "economy" in fact, it's the been the same for the last 3 years for me, no noticeable difference.

I ask because I don't notice any changes other than

a-People complaining about "rising prices"

b-People saying the economy is bad

I find most people that complain of it are the ones who spend maybe $400-500 dollars on non essential items and are upset because they're broke :rolleyes:....You know the ones I'm talking about? the ones that smoke everyday, drink everyday, have 5000 channels, eat out everyday, buy expensive clothes that actually look worse than $10 t-shirts and some are on food stamps......:lol:

I'm not saying that's you, you don't seem like the kinda person, but that's what I'm noticing from the people who say the economy is bad.

Maybe I'm super adaptable and super effective at coming up with solutions to keep moving and advancing myself, possibly, or is it possible that I just make better financial decisions, know that no one owes me ANYTHING and anything I want essential or non essential is mine because I work for it hard and earn it and WHEN AND IF I have an excess after accquiring my essentials, I will do whatever pleases me with the excess money, NOT Vice versa as it seems most people are.

I just think this situation is blown WAYY out of proportion, with people being too much out of their comfort zone and complaining that instead of putting the spoon in their mouths, now it's "pick up the spoon and eat" for now at least.

I'm not saying those corporate f**ks are right or I agree with the government, most definitely not, just a bunch of theives that I'd like to see being thrown into a mob of angry people.....:hammer:

I'd like to hear your input on this.

Don't steal....the government doesn't like competition......:smite:

Don't smoke, don't drink, don't dress in excess, I have lately been spending a bit on doctors, supps and such eat out about once a week and that is pushing it with the wife, basic cable is included in my rent, no food stamps even though it is common where I live....I understand "wants" and "needs", but sometimes I want some instant gratification, but I still have an eye on the future. It effects my life more than most, because I live on an island in the middle of the Pacific almost everything on island is imported so with the gas prices rising steadily lately so has the cost of living. Also there is an impending military build up so rent across the board has gone up here. Airplane tickets are on the rise too. Guam's to main incomes are tourism and federal moneys. I see people here on food stamps perfectly capable of working and not doing so with nice clothes or nice cars and the f*cking live in section 8. Then I hear about stuff like there not being enough books in the schools. Whatever the government here is a crock and it won't change, but it bothers me that this happened mostly. I want to buy a house I am building credit and saving a down with my wife. I hope it works out.

I am not going to pretend I know a bunch of stuff. I am only 26 and I am still learning, but like you said things got blown out of proportion and if you think about it maybe it was on purpose. Just like when we went into Iraq. I mean I know they saw this coming they have been talking about it all year on different new casts. Why did it have to be last minute? Why wasn't anything done earlier? I think Bush is a stupid piece of sh*t. One of the worst presidents ever. They said this started 10 years ago which is pretty convenient considering that would mean it started before he was in office. He's a douche. My main concern is it is taxpayer money that is helping bail out lenders and borrowers. Nothing else I realize inflation is inevitable.

:dance:
 
Reaper,

I understand where you're coming from and how I may sound, but you have to understand the foot in the door method that the *socialist* politicians use.

Once government's role is expanded, it is never diminished. I challenge you to find one time in the last 230 years that there has ever been a move to shrink the government or its role. The very idea is counterintuitive to a congressperson or politician trying to justify their role to their constituency.

You're right, I am being partisan by naming the democrats. I say democrats because they have been the primary perpetrators of this movement in the past 100 years. Republicans have had their problems, but you can't honestly say anyone compares to LBJ and FDR when it comes to increasing the role of government in American's lives.
Well I think you can use this current administration as an example of overextending the reach of the government. Now, regardless of "time of war" the current administration has gone quite far out of their parties typical platform. Which in turn is basically whiping their rear ends with the constitution.

I dont disagree about FDR, and could never understand peoples fascination with him, when if they did the research, they would understand that it was the industry that developed out of the war, that truly pulled us from the depression.

I will state that both parties are the culprits here, and I have to agree with JP, Kruger or whatever he is calling himself, time to vote out all incumbants that are up for reelection
 
"look at the birdie, look at the birdie" then pow punches you in the face. Half the guys in here dont want to get punched or have been already the other half ar arguing if the bird exists, what species is it or that it does exist and justifying it.
Crude, yes. Childish, yes. Focusing on the details will prevent you from seeing the entire picture.
 
"look at the birdie, look at the birdie" then pow punches you in the face. Half the guys in here dont want to get punched or have been already the other half ar arguing if the bird exists, what species is it or that it does exist and justifying it.
Crude, yes. Childish, yes. Focusing on the details will prevent you from seeing the entire picture.

Your stupidity is never ending.
 
Well I think you can use this current administration as an example of overextending the reach of the government. Now, regardless of "time of war" the current administration has gone quite far out of their parties typical platform. Which in turn is basically whiping their rear ends with the constitution.

I dont disagree about FDR, and could never understand peoples fascination with him, when if they did the research, they would understand that it was the industry that developed out of the war, that truly pulled us from the depression.

I will state that both parties are the culprits here, and I have to agree with JP, Kruger or whatever he is calling himself, time to vote out all incumbants that are up for reelection

I don't disagree with pretty much everything you said. FDR is glorified mainly because he was a Socialist and the guys rewriting history love their Socialists and Communists. Just like how McCarthyism got a horrible reputation even though there were Soviet spies all over America at the time.

Bush is not and has not been representative of traditional Republican, conservative ideals. However, I disagree that he wiped his rear end with the constitution. I think the liberal supreme court justices have done a fantastic job rewriting the constitution to fit whatever whim suits them.

Nonetheless, Obama is to the FAR left. Moreso than possibly every other senator. Obama HATES big business and vows to tax and regulate the hell out of it. Obama wants rich people to give over half of everything they make to fund his social programs, while the poor and middle class will not have to pay any taxes to fund the programs designed for their benefit. Its evil and immoral, and I would rather we fight China, Russia, and Canada simultaneously than sacrifice the most American ideal of allowing individuals the ability to selfishly make money to better themselves and those they care about.
 
where's all the money coming from?

$585,012,200,000 spent on iraq war to date and now this bail out

crazy numbers!

good luck guys, whatever the outcome.
 
Rob, this is getting a bit frightening that we are agreeing so much recently :rofl:

However, the last sentence is a bit disturbing :thumbsup:

regarding the current admin. I agree, not a true fiscal conservative and it has been an ultimate disaster thus far. The next few decades could change that a la Truman, although I doubt it. Also, I believe that Bush has in fact wiped his hind parts with the constitution, just as an example with hte patriot act. Many rights have been taken away in the name of counter terrorism, which is something that should be hard to swallow.

At the end of the day it seems that both parties want the same thing, but the repubs. hide it and try to feed it to us with a little sugar while the dems shove it down our throats.
 
Also, I believe that Bush has in fact wiped his hind parts with the constitution, just as an example with hte patriot act. Many rights have been taken away in the name of counter terrorism, which is something that should be hard to swallow.

Which rights does the Patriot Act trample? I understand this is a common viewpoint, but I'd like to understand why you think that it goes against the constitution.
 
Which rights does the Patriot Act trample? I understand this is a common viewpoint, but I'd like to understand why you think that it goes against the constitution.

not which, but how many?

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

W sucks and will go down as the worst president in history.
 
ok rugger

Ok rugger. I dug this up.

In theory-

Key provisions of the $700 billion financial industry bailout and sweeteners added by the Senate to attract votes from constituencies.

The underlying legislation would:

— Authorize $700 billion for the government to purchase troubled assets and buy equity in distressed financial firms.

— Require the Treasury Department to make rules to prevent excessive compensation for executives whose companies benefit from the rescue, and cap deductibility of executives' pay packages at $500,000 for firms that get $300 million or more from the program.

— Establish an oversight board for the program, a special investigator general to monitor it and regular government audits.

— Require that the president establish a plan to recoup the cost from the financial industry if, after five years, there are any losses.

— Phase in the money for buying troubled assets, with $250 billion available immediately, $100 billion to be released if the president certifies it is needed, and the last $350 billion available with another certification, but subject to a congressional vote.

Among the sweeteners added are those that would:

— Provide business tax breaks, including for production of, investment in, and use of renewable fuels.

— Require group health plans that include mental health or addiction treatment to provide coverage for those conditions that is equitable to other medical coverage.

— Increase personal credits against the AMT, shielding more than 20 million taxpayers from the tax.

— Grant tax relief to victims of natural disasters in the Midwest and elsewhere.

— Extend through 2011 a program that funds rural schools and local governments that have low property-tax bases because they lie within or are adjacent to federal lands.

— Extend until end of 2009 the deduction for state and local general sales taxes.

— Extend until end of 2009 individual tax breaks, including deductions for higher education costs and teachers' personal expenses.

— Increase, from $100,000 to $250,000, the limit on federal bank deposit insurance.


IT all sounds good, it really does.

Will it fix everything?

Will it cause more harm than good?

Will it be adhered to?

Will all funds be accounted for?

I can go on and on with questions.

I mean the focker(W) cant spell potato, is he really in a position to be giving financial advice for this country?

To be honest. I just dont trust the fockers. Maybe I will be proven wrong. I certainly hope so.

Actually, its an 850 billion dollar bill now.
 
Last edited:
Ok rugger. I dug this up.

In theory-

Key provisions of the $700 billion financial industry bailout and sweeteners added by the Senate to attract votes from constituencies.

The underlying legislation would:

— Authorize $700 billion for the government to purchase troubled assets and buy equity in distressed financial firms.

— Require the Treasury Department to make rules to prevent excessive compensation for executives whose companies benefit from the rescue, and cap deductibility of executives' pay packages at $500,000 for firms that get $300 million or more from the program.

— Establish an oversight board for the program, a special investigator general to monitor it and regular government audits.

— Require that the president establish a plan to recoup the cost from the financial industry if, after five years, there are any losses.

— Phase in the money for buying troubled assets, with $250 billion available immediately, $100 billion to be released if the president certifies it is needed, and the last $350 billion available with another certification, but subject to a congressional vote.

Among the sweeteners added are those that would:

— Provide business tax breaks, including for production of, investment in, and use of renewable fuels.

— Require group health plans that include mental health or addiction treatment to provide coverage for those conditions that is equitable to other medical coverage.

— Increase personal credits against the AMT, shielding more than 20 million taxpayers from the tax.

— Grant tax relief to victims of natural disasters in the Midwest and elsewhere.

— Extend through 2011 a program that funds rural schools and local governments that have low property-tax bases because they lie within or are adjacent to federal lands.

— Extend until end of 2009 the deduction for state and local general sales taxes.

— Extend until end of 2009 individual tax breaks, including deductions for higher education costs and teachers' personal expenses.

— Increase, from $100,000 to $250,000, the limit on federal bank deposit insurance.


IT all sounds good, it really does.

Will it fix everything?

Will it cause more harm than good?

Will it be adhered to?

Will all funds be accounted for?

I can go on and on with questions.

I mean the focker(W) cant spell potato, is he really in a position to be giving financial advice for this country?

To be honest. I just dont trust the fockers. Maybe I will be proven wrong. I certainly hope so.

It's okay, we don't have to do anything. Lets just let the system collapse, watch the banks snatch up 10 million houses, watch US and international commerce along with any amount of growth come to a grinding halt and standstill for the next 10 years. Why would we even bother trying to help out. Beats me.
 
Your stupidity is never ending.

Thank you very much, and even tho your mean god would want me to love you so i do, even if we dont agree on anything.

B-unit summed it up $585,012,200,000 spent on iraq war. Atleast they found the WMD's, and its only been 7 plus years. It had nothing to do with getting oil, it was for freedom, they were waiting for some terrorist to steal a plane, and magically got an excuse.

So here we are well down the line of a chain of dominos, justifying what has to be done....... NOW 7 years later you still think bush is good for the world. ahha.

The only reason anyone has to debate this problem is the problems that preceeded it, the federal reserves illegal activity, and the fact that bush has weaked the economy and his stupid anouncements that killed the investors confidence.
The past is not irrelevant it got us here!
 
Last edited:
Oil is freedom you idiot. Doesn't take a genius to make the cynical connection. Funny you mention that, though. I haven't seen any increase in oil output, lower raw costs or reflection of the "oil war" in the futures market, have you?
 
The only reason anyone has to debate this problem is the problems that preceeded it, the federal reserves illegal activity, and the fact that bush has weaked the economy and his stupid anouncements that killed the investors confidence.
The past is not irrelevant it got us here!

You're right the past is not irrelevant. But your logic is fundamentally flawed. It was Bush's competitors that were in bed with Fannie Mae and shielded them from regulation even after their chief officers were shown to have committed fraud, even after Greenspan, Bush, and McCain warned that the "sky could be falling" if Fannie wasn't regulated. The Dems and a few shady Reps who got voted out in '06 were making too much money off of Fannie to even consider basic regulations on their quasi-government sweetheart.

And they brought the market down with them. They tried to steer the invisible hand of the market....that hand just *****-slapped all of us.
 
Friggin daily show and colbert report rocked last nite.

The spin these guys put on current events are so much better than Fox. lol

Last nite, Naomi Klein stated it best.

"Bush's administration= 7.75 years of shuttling public money into private hands, .25 years of shuttling private debt into public hands." lol.

Also this metaphor of the bailout by the "formidable opponent" is hilarious.

You will need adobe flash 9.

Invalid Link Removed
 
Last edited:
You're right the past is not irrelevant. But your logic is fundamentally flawed. It was Bush's competitors that were in bed with Fannie Mae and shielded them from regulation even after their chief officers were shown to have committed fraud, even after Greenspan, Bush, and McCain warned that the "sky could be falling" if Fannie wasn't regulated. The Dems and a few shady Reps who got voted out in '06 were making too much money off of Fannie to even consider basic regulations on their quasi-government sweetheart.

And they brought the market down with them. They tried to steer the invisible hand of the market....that hand just *****-slapped all of us.
You may be right, that his logic is "fundamentally flawed," but AFAICT your assertions are fundamentally unsupported. Do you have an argument, any evidence to shore up this position?
 
You may be right, that his logic is "fundamentally flawed," but AFAICT your assertions are fundamentally unsupported. Do you have an argument, any evidence to shore up this position?

Here's some......

Media Mum on Barney Frank's Fannie Mae Love Connection
Democratic House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive.


By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
9/24/2008 4:00:57 PM


Are journalists playing favorites with some of the key political figures involved with regulatory oversight of U.S. financial markets?



MSNBC’s Chris Matthews launched several vitriolic attacks on the Republican Party on his Sept. 17, 2008, show, suggesting blame for Wall Street problems should be focused in a partisan way. However, he and other media have failed to thoroughly examine the Democratic side of the blame game.



Prominent Democrats ran Fannie Mae, the same government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) that donated campaign cash to top Democrats. And one of Fannie Mae’s main defenders in the House – Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a recipient of more than $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie since 1989 – was once romantically involved with a Fannie Mae executive.



The media coverage of Frank’s coziness with Fannie Mae and his pro-Fannie Mae stances has been lacking. Of the eight appearances Frank made on the three broadcasts networks between Jan. 1, 2008, and Sept. 21, 2008, none of his comments dealt with the potential conflicts of interest. Only six of the appearances dealt with the economy in general and two of those appearances, including an April 6, 2008 appearance on CBS’s “60 Minutes” were about his opposition to a manned mission to Mars.



Frank has argued that family life “should be fair game for campaign discussion,” wrote the Associated Press on Sept. 2. The comment was in reference to GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and her pregnant daughter. “They’re the ones that made an issue of her family,” the Massachusetts Democrat said to the AP.



The news media have covered the relationship in the past, but there have been no mentions since 2005, according to Nexis and despite the collapse of Fannie Mae. The July 3, 1998, Reliable Source column in The Washington Post reported Frank, who is openly gay, had a relationship with Herb Moses, an executive for the now-government controlled Fannie Mae. The column revealed the two had split up at the time but also said Frank was referring to Moses as his “spouse.” Another Washington Post report said Frank called Moses his “lover” and that the two were “still friends” after the breakup.



Frank was and remains a stalwart defender of Fannie Mae, which is now under FBI investigation along with its sister organization Freddie Mac, American International Group Inc. (NYSE:AIG) and Lehman Brothers (NYSE:LEH) – all recently participants in government bailouts. But Frank has derailed efforts to regulate the institution, as well as denying it posed any financial risk. Frank’s office has been unresponsive to efforts by the Business & Media Institute to comment on these potential conflicts of interest.



While the relationship reportedly ended 10 years ago, Frank was serving on the House Banking Committee the entire 10 years they were together. The committee is the primary House body which along with the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) has jurisdiction over the government-sponsored enterprises.



He has served on the committee since becoming a congressman in 1981 and became the ranking Democrat on the committee in 2003. He became chairman of the committee, now called the House Financial Services Committee, in 2007.



Moses was the assistant director for product initiatives at Fannie Mae and had been at the forefront of relaxing lending restrictions at the company for rural customers, according to the Feb. 23, 1998, issue of National Mortgage News (NMN).



“Herb Moses, who helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs, has left the mortgage industry,” Darryl Hicks wrote for NMN. “Mr. Moses - whose last day was Feb. 13 - spent the past seven years at Fannie Mae, most recently as director of housing initiatives. Over the course of time, he played an instrumental role in developing the company’s Title One and 203(k) home improvement lending programs.”



Hicks explained in his story how Moses orchestrated a collaborative effort between Fannie Mae and the Department of Agriculture.

“The Dartmouth grad also played a crucial role in brokering a relationship between Fannie Mae and the Department of Agriculture,” Hicks wrote. “This led to the creation of Fannie Mae’s rural housing program where the secondary marketing agency agreed to purchase small farm loans insured through the department.”



While Moses served at Fannie Mae and was Frank’s partner, Frank was actively working to support GSEs, according to several news outlets.



In 1991, Frank and former Rep. Joe Kennedy, D-Mass., lobbied for Fannie to soften rules on multi-family home mortgages although those dwellings showed a default rate twice that of single-family homes, according to the Nov. 22, 1991, Boston Globe.



BusinessWeek reported in its Nov. 14, 1994, issue that Fannie Mae called on Frank to exert his influence against a Housing & Urban Development proposal that would force the GSE to focus on minority and low-income buyers and police bias by lenders regardless of their location. Fannie Mae opposed HUD on the issue because it claimed doing so would “ignore the urban middle class.”



Moses left Fannie in 1998 to start his own pottery business. National Mortgage News called Moses a “mortgage guru” and said he developed “many of Fannie Mae's affordable housing and home improvement lending programs. Moses ended his relationship with Frank just months after he left Fannie.



Even after the relationship ended, however, Frank was a staunch defender of Fannie Mae even as other experts suggested there were serious problems building in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.



According to an article by Kathleen Day in the Oct. 8, 2003, Washington Post, Frank opposed giving the Bush administration the right to approve or disapprove business activities that “could pose risk to the taxpayers.” He told the Post he worried the Treasury Department “would sacrifice activities that are good for consumers in the name of lowering the companies’ market risks.”



Just a month before, Frank had aggressively thwarted reform efforts by the Bush administration. He told The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s problems were “exaggerated,” a gross miscalculation some five years later with costs estimated to be in the hundreds of billions.



“These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” Frank said to the Times. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”



Frank has also reaped campaign contribution benefits from Fannie Mae and its counterpart Freddie Mac. According a front page story in the Sept. 19, 2008, Investor’s Business Daily by Terry Jones, Frank has received $40,100 in campaign cash over the past two decades from the GSEs.



Frank is ranked 16th on a list that includes both houses of Congress and fifth among his colleagues in the House. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets.org, political action committees financed by both Freddie and Fannie have contributed $3,017,797 to members of Congress since 1989. And according to the July 16 issue of Politico, the two entities have spent a whopping $200 million to buy influence – including not only campaign donations to members of Congress, but also presidential campaigns and lobbying efforts.



In a July 23 op-ed, Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot put the blame for the GSEs’ collapse firmly on the members of the liberal establishment who took money from Freddie and Fannie. “Fan and Fred also couldn't prosper for as long as they have without the support of the political left... This includes Mr. Frank and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) on Capitol Hill, as well as Mr. [Paul] Krugman and the Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein in the press.”



Frank was asked by CNN’s John Roberts on the Sept. 22, 2008 “American Morning” about this and his opposition to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Originally, he claimed he didn’t think the two GSEs were facing any problems when the issue first surfaced in 2003. He instead blamed the Republican-controlled Congress for their ultimate fall, failing to mention his friendly relationship with Fannie Mae and the contributions it had made to his campaign over the years.



“Yes, I did not think we were facing a crisis in 2003, but that didn't mean we didn't have to have reform,” an animated Frank said when confronted with the question. “Here’s the deal, the Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 through 2006. They did zero to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”



However, on Sept. 17, 2008, former Bush administration Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove elaborated on the Bush administration’s efforts to curb abuses at the two GSEs in 2003. He told Fox News’ “Hannity & Colmes” that Frank was among the most aggressive opponents of White House attempts to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.



“All of this bad stuff on Wall Street happened because people got greedy and the greed started at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” Rove said. “And I know this because five years ago, the administration was alerted by the regulator, James Lockhart, that there was insufficient authority and that these institutions – particularly Fannie – were out of control.”



Rove said the Bush administration’s efforts to reform Fannie and Freddie were opposed by congressional Democrats – specifically Frank and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.



“And I got to tell you, for five years, I was part of an effort at the White House to fight this and our biggest opponents on the Hill who blocked this every step of the way were people like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. And Fannie and Freddie are the $200 billion contagion at the center of this.”



Frank has been quick to blame deregulation for some of the problems in the financial environment, as he did on Bloomberg television’s Sept. 19 “Political Capital with Al Hunt.” However, as earmark crusader Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. pointed out – it’s not deregulation, but it was the structure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that had been guarded by Frank and other members of Congress.



“Some people point at deregulation,” Flake said to the Business & Media Institute on Sept. 23. “It’s not deregulation at all. We have for far too long shielded Fannie and Freddie for example, with the implicit and now explicit guarantee. I just found it humorous.”



Flake specifically named Frank as one of the members behind letting allegations of transgressions at the two GSEs for slipping by without oversight from Congress.



“Just a few minutes ago, a reporter was asking me about this and saying, ‘Barney Frank is saying that’s just – because there were allegations,’ correct ones – ‘that Fannie and Freddie have been the playground for politicians for years and now the other side is saying Fannie and Freddie were just a small part of this and this goes far beyond.’ It does, but these same people a couple of weeks ago said, ‘You got to bail out Fannie and Freddie because they touch everything out there. They touch nearly every mortgage out there.’ And because of that explicit guarantee – that we would come and bail them out, nobody has been subject to market discipline.”



Frank claims differently, according to a letter to the editor published in the Sept. 17, 2008 Wall Street Journal. Frank noted that in 2005 he supported regulating compensation for Fannie and Freddie executives.



“In fact, my reform efforts had begun when we were still in the minority. In 2005, I joined Michael Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, in supporting legislation to increase the regulation of Fannie and Freddie that passed the House by a vote of 330 to 90,” Frank wrote. “When former Congressman Richard Baker proposed to examine the compensation structure of Fannie and Freddie's top executives, and some members of Congress tried to block him, I explicitly spoke out in support of his right to do that and our right, as a Congress, to examine the GSE’s compensation practices.”



The red flags were raised long before the government bailed out the two GSEs in August 2008. The first egregious scandal involving Fannie Mae occurred in 2004. A 2004 Wall Street Journal editorial was first to point out claims in an OFHEO report that showed accounting malpractices by the GSE.

“For years, mortgage giant Fannie Mae has produced smoothly growing earnings. And for years, observers have wondered how Fannie could manage its inherently risky portfolio without a whiff of volatility, the Oct. 4, 2004, editorial, “Fannie Mae Enron?” said. “Now, thanks to Fannie’s regulator, we know the answer. The company was cooking the books. Big time.”
 
Here's another article(blog actually)that helps to outline everything.

Democratic Coverup for Fannie and Freddie Led to 2008 Meltdown

by Ross Kaminsky (more by this author)
Posted 09/30/2008 ET
Updated 10/01/2008 ET


If anyone wants to find the people responsible for the current financial meltdown, they need to look no farther than the Democrats -- Maxine Waters, Barney Frank and their Fannie Mae pal Franklin Raines -- to indentify the culprits.


Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop underwriting to 100 percent loans. -- Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) in a September, 2003, hearing of the House Committee on Financial Services.

The above quote from Waters was in a hearing convened by then-committee Chairman Michael Oxley (R-OH) to discuss “the oversight of the housing government-sponsored enterprises.”

The hearing came about because two Bush Administration cabinet secretaries had presented the committee with a “proposal to improve regulatory oversight for the GSEs” with an opening statement, including: “There is a broad agreement that the current regulatory structure for the GSEs is not operating as effectively as it should. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight is underfunded, understaffed and unable to fully oversee the operations of these sophisticated enterprises.

“This was reflected in the surprise management reorganization by Freddie Mac and by Wall Street reports stating that GSE oversight is viewed with skepticism because OFHEO is largely seen as a weak regulator. A strengthened regulator will send a signal to the markets that these entities have solid management and are engaging in safe and sound activities.”

Yet the response by the Democrats on the committee, who had turned what should have been an issue of protecting public trust and money into a partisan divide so that they could buy votes with their “affordable housing” social engineering scheme, was uniformly against improving oversight of GSEs.

Democrat Barney Frank (D-MA), who was the ranking Democratic committee member at the time (and is its chairman today), said, “I think it is clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently secure so they are in no great danger… Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country.”

Representative Waters continued her contribution to the discussion by making clear the Democrats’ true mission for Fannie and Freddie, namely to find a way to get minorities into houses even if they would not meet the qualifications for standard loans, such as in having the ability to bring a down payment to the transaction.

Waters seemed particularly proud to say “since the inception of goals from 1993 to 2002, loans to African-Americans increased 219 percent and loans to Hispanics increased 244 percent, while loans to non-minorities increased 62 percent. Additionally, in 2001, 43.1 percent of Fannie Mae's single-family business served low-and moderate-income borrowers…” She then said “the GSEs are working” and reiterated her opposition to more oversight.

The next panel at that hearing included George Gould, a long-time Freddie Mac board member and former Under Secretary for Finance at the Department of the Treasury, who discussed Freddie’s view of the situation. He testified that:

• “Freddie Mac's franchise is rock solid. Our exposure to both credit risk and interest rate risk remains extremely low.”
• “These are strong incentives for the GSEs to meet the goals year after year, to say nothing of the reputational penalties of failing to meet a goal.” (This is important when we turn to Franklin Raines in a moment.)
• “Considering that we have consistently met the permanent affordable housing goals, additional enforcement authority seems unnecessary. Therefore, we would respectfully suggest that no additional authority is needed.”

This last statement reinforces the position taken by Maxine Waters that the mission of the GSEs is primarily to increase “affordable housing” regardless of how that gets done.

Next up was Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae. Raines made millions in bonuses when Fannie Mae manipulated earnings to meet the highest profit and “affordable housing” targets. He settled with the SEC in a sweetheart deal that cost him little or nothing out of his own pocket, even though Fannie Mae was slapped with the biggest fine in SEC history for overstating Fannie Mae’s profits by $6.3 billion over several years.

Raines went through the standard litany such as “provid(ing) $2 trillion for 18 million underserved families” but did not oppose modernizing GSE oversight. Indeed, Raines admitted that “you can imagine our trying to get into some area that could cause a safety and soundness issue.”

During the hearing Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) said “I am just pissed off at OFHEO because if it wasn’t for you I don’t think we’d have to be here in the first place.”

The head of OFHEO, the under-funded regulator of Fannie and Freddie, did not take that lying down: “Congressman, OFHEO did not improperly apply accounting rules; Freddie Mac did. OFHEO did not try to manage earnings improperly; Freddie Mac did. So this isn't about the agency's engagement in improper conduct, it is about Freddie Mac.”

Though this 2003 hearing (which is widely being reported on the Internet has having happened in 2004, in part because of this otherwise-excellent video showing some of the highlights), it is only a small part of the consistent support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by Democrats regardless of the risk caused by or fraud perpetrated by those organizations.

Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT), the largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie in the past decade, also turned a blind eye to the risks posed by the GSE’s.

In an article earlier this month, the Washington Post (no friend to the Bush administration), offered this: “Sen. Christopher Dodd, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has the gall to ask in a Bloomberg Television interview: I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years’” before explaining that “Dodd -- who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 -- actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.”

The corruption of Fannie Mae was not simply partisan, but it was also racist in its own way. Just as Fannie and Freddie threatened to harm “racist” banks which didn’t loan money to (unqualified) minorities, the leadership of the GSEs was clearly just as afraid of being called racist by minority (by race, not political party) members of Congress. In this remarkable 2005 video of the swearing-in ceremony of the Congressional Black Caucus (with an applauding Michelle Obama prominently featured), Fannie Mae interim CEO Daniel Mudd, cozies up to the CBC: “I humbly ask you to help us and help me… If there areas where we could do better, we’d like to hear it from our friends, and I’d be so bold as to say our family, first.” Mudd was afraid of the CBC. And who wouldn’t be, in a society where an unfounded charge of racism can destroy fortunes and careers?

What lessons can we learn about confusing social programs with the proper functions of government, about the inherent conflict between believing that a cause is worth any price and protecting citizens’ money from waste and corruption? (Indeed can we not ask the same question about the conflict inherent in Paulson’s bailout proposal?)

Democrats have taken the wrong side in this conflict for years, right up until the bitter and expensive end of Fannie and Freddie as independent institutions, including their multi-billion dollar tax-payer bailout .

In fact, over the years, their actions to protect Fannie and Freddie from Congressional prying are nothing short of a coverup.

Sens. Dodd and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wanted to expand Fannie and Freddie as recently as a year ago, while John McCain was one of just 4 sponsors of a 2005 measure to rein in these financial Frankensteins. McCain offered support of the bill with this statement: “If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”

But when even Bill Clinton has to admit the truth, you know it’s not just a matter of parsing words: “The responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more with resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

Part of the reason the Democrats are so angry about the Paulson bailout proposal failing is that it allows the public that much longer to figure out who is primarily responsible for the current debt market turmoil.

The villains in this story are primarily Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, with conspirators throughout the Democratic Party, the Congressional Black Caucus, and corrupt leftist organizations like ACORN, which not only received Fannie Mae money despite repeated convictions for voter fraud, but which was slated by the Democrats to share in any future potential profits from the bailout.

To use the words of House Republican Leader John Boehner, the bailout bill was a “crap sandwich”. But what beside such a meal should we have expected given the disgusting history of fraud by GSEs and neglect and stonewalling by their Democratic defenders in Congress?



Ross Kaminsky blogs at Rossputin.com.
 
There's more than enough blame to go around. The Republicans were in control of congress during much of Greenspan's reign and this boom/bust cycle started under him. No matter who is 'running things' it's the corrupt leading the witless or the other way around. What no one wants to realize or understand is that there is nothing to do: we're ****ed. We can step back and let the economy work as it should, reprice and reallocate resources as necessary, and then start moving forward again, or we can continually tinker and further screw up the system.
 
How anyone can want bigger government to manage your health care after seeing the wonderful job we've done with mortgages is beyond me.

The bigger it gets...the more money flows through it, the more corrupt and ignorant it becomes.
 
How anyone can want bigger government to manage your health care after seeing the wonderful job we've done with mortgages is beyond me.

The bigger it gets...the more money flows through it, the more corrupt and ignorant it becomes.

he speaka da troot
 
Yes, and I know he used misinformation to get his agenda passed.

So the dems are blindfolded nincompoops who can't read a bill and interpret it for themselves? They must be REALLY stupid to be fooled by the 'stupidest president in history'
 
You're right the past is not irrelevant. But your logic is fundamentally flawed. It was Bush's competitors that were in bed with Fannie Mae and shielded them from regulation even after their chief officers were shown to have committed fraud, even after Greenspan, Bush, and McCain warned that the "sky could be falling" if Fannie wasn't regulated. The Dems and a few shady Reps who got voted out in '06 were making too much money off of Fannie to even consider basic regulations on their quasi-government sweetheart.

And they brought the market down with them. They tried to steer the invisible hand of the market....that hand just *****-slapped all of us.
the bolded always drives me nuts. Bush and McCain jumped onto what Hagel was saying for over a year, and are now trying to grab the "headlines" with it
 
There's more than enough blame to go around. The Republicans were in control of congress during much of Greenspan's reign and this boom/bust cycle started under him. No matter who is 'running things' it's the corrupt leading the witless or the other way around. What no one wants to realize or understand is that there is nothing to do: we're ****ed. We can step back and let the economy work as it should, reprice and reallocate resources as necessary, and then start moving forward again, or we can continually tinker and further screw up the system.
very well said, both sides are so deep in this it is sickening
 
now if Bush figures out how to use a pen, its all over.

<Sorry just had to do it>
 
You're right the past is not irrelevant. But your logic is fundamentally flawed. It was Bush's competitors that were in bed with Fannie Mae and shielded them from regulation even after their chief officers were shown to have committed fraud, even after Greenspan, Bush, and McCain warned that the "sky could be falling" if Fannie wasn't regulated. The Dems and a few shady Reps who got voted out in '06 were making too much money off of Fannie to even consider basic regulations on their quasi-government sweetheart.

And they brought the market down with them. They tried to steer the invisible hand of the market....that hand just *****-slapped all of us.

I agree, im not a supporter of any party or person (obviously)whos corrupt, it seems the democrats are just as filthy if not worse in some instances, calling out the speaker repeatedly when they attempted to rally for increased regulation. In 2004 it was certain democrats that were seemingly blind or in bed with fanny and freddie, this does in no way excuse the "commander in cheif" of being in power while it goes on and doing nothing but adding more straw to an already burdened camels back.
 
There's more than enough blame to go around. The Republicans were in control of congress during much of Greenspan's reign and this boom/bust cycle started under him. No matter who is 'running things' it's the corrupt leading the witless or the other way around. What no one wants to realize or understand is that there is nothing to do: we're ****ed. We can step back and let the economy work as it should, reprice and reallocate resources as necessary, and then start moving forward again, or we can continually tinker and further screw up the system.

CDB i agree, what people can do is attempt to stop being "whitless" questioning everything, then questioning the source, then looking at another source and questioning that. Look back at the years events periodically and ask your self who stood to gain from it.
I am not a savy in politics or economics as plenty good people in here but i can see a scam, smell a rat and voice my opinion. If i contribute its only because im trying and that is what this problem needs, effort by the people it goes back a long time where lazy, trusting people let it come to this.
It is for that reason i think michael moore is good (lost some of you now), hes in the streets in the news in movies telling people to stand up for themselves and its up to you to be another mans blind follower and do what his biased info tells you.
That is not the answer, rather inform yourselves (people in general myself included thats why im in here) speak up for yourselves, and demand that the people get back their government or atleast make this blatant corruption increasingly difficult.
It seems the typical response is one of futility and frustration. There are no easy solutions but it is not impossible yet.
As the people become increasingly easy to ignore and alienated from where the decisions are made, it truly, in time will be impossible to make a difference.
With this trend, other than at the voting ballot, you will have no voice and attempts a expressing frustration is likely to land you in jail.
There is coming a day when people frustrated with their government will be un patriotic and god hating before that platform makes them the terrorists.
 
Back
Top