PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Oops - Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are screwed...FBI


Bootlegged
09-23-2008, 07:40 PM
FBI investigating companies at heart of meltdown

Sep 23, 9:08 PM (ET)

By LARA JAKES JORDAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The FBI is investigating four major U.S. financial institutions whose collapse helped trigger a $700 billion bailout plan by the Bush administration, The Associated Press has learned.

Two law enforcement officials said Tuesday the FBI is looking at potential fraud by mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE), and insurer American International Group Inc. (AIG) Additionally, a senior law enforcement official said Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEH) also is under investigation.

The inquiries will focus on the financial institutions and the individuals that ran them, the senior law enforcement official said.

The law enforcement officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigations are ongoing and are in the very early stages.

Officials said the new inquiries bring to 26 the number of corporate lenders under investigation over the past year.

Spokesmen for AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not immediately return calls for comment Tuesday evening. A Lehman spokesman did not have an immediate comment.

Just last week, FBI Director Robert Mueller put the number of large financial firms under investigation at 24. He did not name any of the companies under investigation but said the FBI also was looking at whether any of them have misrepresented their assets.

Over the past year as the housing market cratered, the FBI has opened a wide-ranging probe of companies across the financial services industry, from mortgage lenders to investment banks that bundle home loans into securities sold to investors. Mueller has previously said the FBI's hunt for culprits in the nation's subprime mortgage crisis focused on accounting fraud, insider trading, and failure to disclose the value of mortgage-related securities and other investments.

The investigations revealed Tuesday come as lawmakers began considering whether to approve emergency legislation that would give the government broad power to buy up devalued assets from troubled financial firms.

The bailout proposed by the Bush administration is aimed at helping unlock credit and stabilize badly shaken markets in the United States and around the globe.

In the past two weeks, the government has taken over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the country's two biggest mortgage companies, with a bailout plan that could require the Treasury Department to put up as much as $100 billion for each of them over time if needed to keep them afloat as mortgage losses mount.

Last week, the Federal Reserve provided an emergency $85 billion loan to AIG, which teetered on the brink of bankruptcy. Lehman Brothers was forced to file for bankruptcy after attempts to engineer a private rescue fell apart. All the companies were laid low from bad bets on complex mortgage-related securities.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke made the joint decision last week that the only way to stop the carnage was to deal with the root cause of all the troubles, billions of dollars of bad mortgage debt sitting on the books of major financial companies. This debt has triggered the worst credit crisis in decades, causing credit markets to essentially freeze up despite the fact that the Fed joined with major central banks around the world to pump billions of dollars of reserves into the financial system.

Additionally, the FBI is investigating failed bank IndyMac Bancorp Inc. for possible fraud. Countrywide Financial Corp., formerly the nation's largest mortgage lender and now owned by Bank of America Corp. (BAC), is also under scrutiny.

beer bacon
09-23-2008, 08:03 PM
In other news, McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, through last month was getting paid 15 thousand dollars a month by Freddie Mac.

Bootlegged
09-23-2008, 08:05 PM
In other news, McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, through last month was getting paid 15 thousand dollars a month by Freddie Mac.

Someone LOVES Keith Olbermann - someday you will see the world as it really works.

beer bacon
09-23-2008, 08:19 PM
Someone LOVES Keith Olbermann - someday you will see the world as it really works.

Someday, you will stop being a caricature.

So, why was Rick getting paid so much by Freddie Mac. McCain's campaign says that despite getting paid so much money, Davis wasn't doing anything to help Freddie Mac. Was Freddie just insuring they would have a voice at McCain's ear if McCain got elected?

DaneMcCloud
09-23-2008, 09:16 PM
Someone LOVES Keith Olbermann - someday you will see the world as it really works.

ROFL

Oh please, tell us how the world really works!

splatbass
09-23-2008, 09:27 PM
I don't see anything in that article about Dodd or Frank.

Bootlegged
09-24-2008, 04:31 AM
ROFL

Oh please, tell us how the world really works!


Which part would you like me to explain to you?

And if you don't think Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are up to their asses in this - you aren't thinking.

Bootlegged
09-24-2008, 04:46 AM
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?&articleid=1120930&format=&page=1&listingType=opi#articleFull

Better not bank on Barney Frank
He brought the (fiscal) house down
By Michael Graham
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - Added 1d 3h ago


“I want [Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae] to help with affordable housing, to help low-income families get loans and to help clean up this subprime mess. Otherwise, why should they exist?”

- Rep. Barney Frank, earlier this month.

The Subprime Panic of ’08 and its $1 trillion (and rising!) price tag is too big to blame on any one man. But if we had to, it would be Newton’s own Rep. Barney Frank.

As Winston Churchill might have put it, never before has one man done so much that was so wrong, or shafted so many on behalf of so few.

Entire business sections of newspapers, including this one, have been dedicated to explaining how we got into this mess, and still the typical taxpayer is asking “So what happened?”

The answer is actually quite simple: Freddie and Fannie happened. And they couldn’t have without the ferocious support of Barney Frank.

Freddie and Fannie were supposed to be safe suppliers of mortgage money for relatively low-risk loans. If you could qualify for a loan, F&F would make sure the banks had access to the money to make that loan, cheap money because it was backed by the American taxpayers.

But liberals like Barney Frank wanted more. They wanted the low cost of low-risk loans to be extended to higher-risk borrowers with lower incomes, fewer assets or less-solid credit. Barney and friends used the regulations of the Community Reinvestment Act to threaten lenders into making these loans. And banks, trying to meet Frank’s demands, expanded riskier lending schemes like subprime mortgages.

That’s when Freddie and Fannie stepped in. As Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute put it: “They fueled Wall Street’s efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools.”

Lenders asked themselves, why should I care how shaky these borrowers are or risky the loans if a government-backed body is going to buy them up anyway?

The loans were made, the housing market bubbled, contributions from F&F flowed to Democrats like Chris Dodd and Barack Obama, and everyone was happy. Until they weren’t.

Without Freddie and Fannie’s reckless expansion, the housing bubble doesn’t happen. Without the implied promise behind F&F’s money, investment banks don’t dive into the derivatives market.

Instead, we did it Barney’s way.

Not only has Frank spent his career stopping any real reform of Fannie and Freddie, he repeatedly insisted they weren’t backed by the taxpayers. “There is no federal liability whatsoever,” Frank said in 2000.

But two weeks ago, we had to bail them out with $200 billion in our tax dollars.

Alan Greenspan, John McCain and others warned that F&F were taking on too much risk, but Frank dismissed these “overblown” fears as ideological attacks against his favorite cash cow. Even after Franklin Raines and Joe Johnson were caught red-handed mismanaging these institutions, Frank still insisted “we are not facing any kind of crisis.”

Just how deep in the Fannie/Freddie tank was he? As The Wall Street Journal reports: “Mr. Frank was publicly arguing for an increase in the size of their combined $1.4 trillion portfolios right up to the day they were bailed out. Even now . . . he opposes Treasury’s planned reduction in the size of the portfolios starting in 2010.”

Our markets have collapsed, we’re paying through the nose, and Barney Frank is still fighting to keep Fannie and Freddie on the dole.

Why? Because in his mind, the point of Fannie/Freddie is taxpayer-subsidized housing for low-income borrowers - no matter how bad their credit or how high the cost.

“Otherwise,” he asks, “why should they exist?”

And what about us, the responsible borrowers and hard-working taxpayers stuck with the trillion-dollar tab? In Barney’s world, that’s the only reason we exist. He spends. We pay.

This truly is Barney Frank’s bailout.

Amnorix
09-24-2008, 06:17 AM
Following the bouncing ball here:

The FBI is investigating four major U.S. financial institutions whose collapse helped trigger a $700 billion bailout plan by the Bush administration, The Associated Press has learned.

Two law enforcement officials said Tuesday the FBI is looking at potential fraud by mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE), and insurer American International Group Inc. (AIG) Additionally, a senior law enforcement official said Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEH) also is under investigation.

1. The FBI is investigating the companies, not the members of Congress.

2. The political statements of members of Congress are entitled to extremely high levels of Constitutional protection.

3. Whatever Dodd and Frank said isn't fraud or otherwise illegal. So what is the FBI going to investigate, anyway. Politically stupid, maybe -- we can debate that -- but the FBI doesn't investigate politically stupid statements.

So your threat title is WAAAAY off. "Absolutely wrong" would be another way of putting it.

tiptap
09-24-2008, 06:28 AM
Will they be investigating the Representative of MO Roy Blunt. He is third on that list of receiving money from PAC that Dodd and Obama are on.

Bootlegged
09-24-2008, 06:32 AM
As the covers are pulled back on this - Frank and Dodd will be screwed. Whether that is just politically or legally remains to be seen. There is a money trail.

HonestChieffan
09-24-2008, 06:50 AM
we can only hope. And Obama has to be a bit nervous as well with his money tie to FreddieMac.

Amnorix
09-24-2008, 06:56 AM
As the covers are pulled back on this - Frank and Dodd will be screwed. Whether that is just politically or legally remains to be seen. There is a money trail.

Yeah, because chairmen of committees of Congress taking political contributions from the companies that fall within their oversight/jurisdiction is (1) illegal, and (2) never happens.

Please. I agree that in general our political contribution system sucks and is rife with potential conflicts of interest. However, that doesn't make anythign they did illegal.

Also, Barney Frank is as safe in Massachusetts as you can reasonably get.

So stop dreaming about the exceedingly unlikely/impossible and focus on reality.

Bootlegged
09-24-2008, 07:20 AM
Yeah, because chairmen of committees of Congress taking political contributions from the companies that fall within their oversight/jurisdiction is (1) illegal, and (2) never happens.

Please. I agree that in general our political contribution system sucks and is rife with potential conflicts of interest. However, that doesn't make anythign they did illegal.

Also, Barney Frank is as safe in Massachusetts as you can reasonably get.

So stop dreaming about the exceedingly unlikely/impossible and focus on reality.

Do you date Barney? Awfully testy..

Frank will go down for this as the record is clear that he drove these organizations to lend to those who have no business owning a home. And he wasn't doing it because he cares..

BucEyedPea
09-24-2008, 07:20 AM
Also, Barney Frank is as safe in Massachusetts as you can reasonably get.
ROFL What does this say about Massachusetts voters?

Honest to gawd, the rest of America thinks Mass voters are nuts.

They've been electing Kennedy for how long now?

Bootlegged
09-24-2008, 07:35 AM
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.


In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

Amnorix
09-24-2008, 07:45 AM
ROFL What does this say about Massachusetts voters?

Honest to gawd, the rest of America thinks Mass voters are nuts.

They've been electing Kennedy for how long now?


As if we care what the rest of America thinks? And why should we? We led this country kicking and screaming into the American Revolution as well. Our Senator was beaten by some dumbass yokel with a cane for daring to suggest that slavery was a bad idea. We take political risks for the progress of the country, and we're not ashamed to do it.

Amnorix
09-24-2008, 07:48 AM
For those who have never heard the story (and the South was proud that a man with a weapon snuck up behind an unarmed man and beat him senseless. Brilliant):


On May 22, 1856, the "world's greatest deliberative body" became a combat zone. In one of the most dramatic and deeply ominous moments in the Senate's entire history, a member of the House of Representatives entered the Senate chamber and savagely beat a senator into unconsciousness.

The inspiration for this clash came three days earlier when Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican, addressed the Senate on the explosive issue of whether Kansas should be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state. In his "Crime Against Kansas" speech, Sumner identified two Democratic senators as the principal culprits in this crime—Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. He characterized Douglas to his face as a "noise-some, squat, and nameless animal . . . not a proper model for an American senator." Andrew Butler, who was not present, received more elaborate treatment. Mocking the South Carolina senator's stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking "a mistress . . . who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean," added Sumner, "the harlot, Slavery."

Representative Preston Brooks was Butler's South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs. Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his "Crime Against Kansas" speech.

Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner's head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended.

Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away. Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers. Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions.

Surviving a House censure resolution, Brooks resigned, was immediately reelected, and soon thereafter died at age 37. Sumner recovered slowly and returned to the Senate, where he remained for another 18 years. The nation, suffering from the breakdown of reasoned discourse that this event symbolized, tumbled onward toward the catastrophe of civil war.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm

BucEyedPea
09-24-2008, 08:25 AM
As if we care what the rest of America thinks? And why should we?
Who said you had to. Just informing you of the facts.

We led this country kicking and screaming into the American Revolution as well. Our Senator was beaten by some dumbass yokel with a cane for daring to suggest that slavery was a bad idea. We take political risks for the progress of the country, and we're not ashamed to do it.
Oh go on and pat yourself on the back, while Massachusetts has long since run away from the Revolution they started ( which btw had men from the other colonies deeply involved too). Massachusetts today bears no semblence to the ideals of the America's War for Independence . That spirit is more prevalent out in the western states. You've sold out to collectivist thinking from the Old World. (EuroSocialism)

splatbass
09-24-2008, 08:47 AM
we can only hope. And Obama has to be a bit nervous as well with his money tie to FreddieMac.

What about McCain? His chief adviser was taking money from Freddie Mac until last month. Or does that not count because he is on your side?

Amnorix
09-24-2008, 08:54 AM
Who said you had to. Just informing you of the facts.

:shrug: It's equally a fact that most on here, right and left, think you a loon. I suspect it affects you as much as it does us (i.e. not at all). And, of course, we on the East and West Coasts tend to have a rather specific opinion of those in the big red states that is no more flattering.

Oh go on and pat yourself on the back, while Massachusetts has long since run away from the Revolution they started ( which btw had men from the other colonies deeply involved too). Massachusetts today bears no semblence to the ideals of the America's War for Independence . That spirit is more prevalent out in the western states. You've sold out to collectivist thinking from the Old World. (EuroSocialism)

So you say and think. Your opinions are your own, but I note that you version of the way the world should work has never actually existed anywhere in the history of the world.

trndobrd
09-24-2008, 09:15 AM
What about McCain? His chief adviser was taking money from Freddie Mac until last month. Or does that not count because he is on your side?


That might be important, if true. But if you are refering to Rick Davis, it is not. Davis severed all ties with the consulting firm of Davis Manafort in 2006, including discontinuation of compensation and profit sharing.

Senator Obama has received over $100k from Fannie/Freddy.

However, short of some sort of unreported contributions or cash-for-votes scheme, there is nothing illegal about elected officials receiving contributions from Fanny/Freddy.

RINGLEADER
09-24-2008, 09:19 AM
Will they be investigating the Representative of MO Roy Blunt. He is third on that list of receiving money from PAC that Dodd and Obama are on.

They should investigate and pursue everyone who gamed the system for personal gain.

I do find it funny that an institution that normally can't wait to have investigations (namely the Congress) has been strangely silent on getting at the issue of who was to blame for the current situation.

RINGLEADER
09-24-2008, 09:21 AM
What about McCain? His chief adviser was taking money from Freddie Mac until last month. Or does that not count because he is on your side?

That's actually not true. You need to quit relying on the New York Times for real reporting.

splatbass
09-24-2008, 09:22 AM
That might be important, if true. But if you are refering to Rick Davis, it is not. Davis severed all ties with the consulting firm of Davis Manafort in 2006, including discontinuation of compensation and profit sharing.



That is what the McCain campaign has been telling you, but they have been lying (again).

http://www.newsweek.com/id/160561/output/print




Freddie Mac continued checks to McCain campaign chief's firm.
Michael Isikoff
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Sep 23, 2008 | Updated: 7:39 p.m. ET Sep 23, 2008

Since 2006, the federally sponsored mortgage giant Freddie Mac has paid at least $345,000 to the lobbying and consulting firm of John McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement.

Freddie Mac had previously paid an advocacy group run by Davis, called the Homeownership Alliance, $30,000 a month until the end of 2005, when that group was dissolved. That relationship was the subject of a New York Times story Monday, which drew angry denunciations from the McCain campaign. McCain and his aides have vehemently objected to suggestions that Davis has ties to Freddie Mac—an especially sensitive issue given that the Republican presidential candidate has blamed "the lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats" for the mortgage crisis that recently prompted the Bush administration to take over both Freddie Mac and its companion, Fannie Mae, and put them under federal conservatorship.

But neither the Times story—nor the McCain campaign—revealed that Davis's lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, based in Washington, D.C., continued to receive $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac until last month—long after the Homeownership Alliance had been terminated.

splatbass
09-24-2008, 09:24 AM
That's actually not true. You need to quit relying on the New York Times for real reporting.

How about Newsweek? See above story.

trndobrd
09-24-2008, 09:27 AM
As if we care what the rest of America thinks? And why should we? We led this country kicking and screaming into the American Revolution as well. Our Senator was beaten by some dumbass yokel with a cane for daring to suggest that slavery was a bad idea. We take political risks for the progress of the country, and we're not ashamed to do it.

You should have some pride. Your state also brought us the Big Dig, the Victory Garden and Boston Cream Pie.

trndobrd
09-24-2008, 09:32 AM
That is what the McCain campaign has been telling you, but they have been lying (again).

http://www.newsweek.com/id/160561/output/print




Freddie Mac continued checks to McCain campaign chief's firm.
Michael Isikoff
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Sep 23, 2008 | Updated: 7:39 p.m. ET Sep 23, 2008

Since 2006, the federally sponsored mortgage giant Freddie Mac has paid at least $345,000 to the lobbying and consulting firm of John McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement.

Freddie Mac had previously paid an advocacy group run by Davis, called the Homeownership Alliance, $30,000 a month until the end of 2005, when that group was dissolved. That relationship was the subject of a New York Times story Monday, which drew angry denunciations from the McCain campaign. McCain and his aides have vehemently objected to suggestions that Davis has ties to Freddie Mac—an especially sensitive issue given that the Republican presidential candidate has blamed "the lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats" for the mortgage crisis that recently prompted the Bush administration to take over both Freddie Mac and its companion, Fannie Mae, and put them under federal conservatorship.

But neither the Times story—nor the McCain campaign—revealed that Davis's lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, based in Washington, D.C., continued to receive $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac until last month—long after the Homeownership Alliance had been terminated.


If Davis was continuing to receive compensation or profits or had ties to Davis Manafort, you could reasonably claim that "His chief adviser was taking money from Freddie Mac until last month." He has not.

Amnorix
09-24-2008, 09:34 AM
You should have some pride. Your state also brought us the Big Dig, the Victory Garden and Boston Cream Pie.

The Big Dig was well worth every penny. It was the most massive pain in the ass in the world while it was going on, and the cost overruns and fraud involved were outrageous, but it has greatly improved transportation logistics here.

Boston Cream Pie. mmmm....

RJ
09-24-2008, 09:42 AM
Oh go on and pat yourself on the back, while Massachusetts has long since run away from the Revolution they started ( which btw had men from the other colonies deeply involved too). Massachusetts today bears no semblence to the ideals of the America's War for Independence . That spirit is more prevalent out in the western states. You've sold out to collectivist thinking from the Old World. (EuroSocialism)


That's true. Here in New Mexico you can't hardly swing a dead cat without hitting a guy wearing a tricorner hat wanting some liberty or death.


Note - No dead cats were harmed in the making of this post.

RJ
09-24-2008, 09:46 AM
You should have some pride. Your state also brought us the Big Dig, the Victory Garden and Boston Cream Pie.



And Whitey Bulger. You can't forget Whitey Bulger.

J Diddy
09-24-2008, 09:52 AM
That's true. Here in New Mexico you can't hardly swing a dead cat without hitting a guy wearing a tricorner hat wanting some liberty or death.


Note - No dead cats were harmed in the making of this post.

This is funny.

RINGLEADER
09-24-2008, 09:58 AM
If Davis was continuing to receive compensation or profits or had ties to Davis Manafort, you could reasonably claim that "His chief adviser was taking money from Freddie Mac until last month." He has not.

So was he or wasn't he? Who was Davis receiving compensation from? Or are you saying that because the company that Davis wasn't operating was receiving money that the claim is accurate?

trndobrd
09-24-2008, 10:03 AM
So was he or wasn't he? Who was Davis receiving compensation from? Or are you saying that because the company that Davis wasn't operating was receiving money that the claim is accurate?

I'm suggesting that if Davis was still receiving compensation or profits from the company, it would be reasonable to claim that Davis is receiving money from Freddy Mac.

However, Davis cut ties with the company in 2006 and has not received compensation or profit shares since, thus has not been taking money from Freddy Mac up until last month.

RINGLEADER
09-24-2008, 10:25 AM
I'm suggesting that if Davis was still receiving compensation or profits from the company, it would be reasonable to claim that Davis is receiving money from Freddy Mac.

However, Davis cut ties with the company in 2006 and has not received compensation or profit shares since, thus has not been taking money from Freddy Mac up until last month.

The only benefit he would receive is if he gets a big check funded by those payments once the campaign is over (which wouldn't be a fact in evidence until after the election, if ever) or if he sold his company, received compensation from that sale, and those earnings were included as part of the assets of the company (highly unlikely).

RJ
09-24-2008, 10:46 AM
I'm suggesting that if Davis was still receiving compensation or profits from the company, it would be reasonable to claim that Davis is receiving money from Freddy Mac.

However, Davis cut ties with the company in 2006 and has not received compensation or profit shares since, thus has not been taking money from Freddy Mac up until last month.



You lost me. Are you saying he "cut ties" with the company but still owns it? I don't see how that's possible.

Calcountry
09-24-2008, 10:55 AM
In other news, McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, through last month was getting paid 15 thousand dollars a month by Freddie Mac.
In other news, Franklin Raines, former CEO of the macdaddy's, is on the Obama campaign.

Both sides have dirty hands.

Which is why, we have no choice. The choice is between a leftist Marxist, and a Populist Liberal.

Calcountry
09-24-2008, 10:58 AM
Do you date Barney? Awfully testy..

Frank will go down for this as the record is clear that he drove these organizations to lend to those who have no business owning a home. And he wasn't doing it because he cares..I find that to be a double entendre

splatbass
09-24-2008, 06:54 PM
In other news, Franklin Raines, former CEO of the macdaddy's, is on the Obama campaign.



No, he isn't. And never has been.

Bootlegged
09-24-2008, 07:52 PM
The financial crisis: The Other David
by David Reinhard, The Oregonian Wednesday September 24, 2008, 4:44 PM

AP
- Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO Franklin Raines is sworn in prior to testifying before the House Financial Services Committee on Oct. 6, 2004, following a auditor's report critical of accounting practices and management policies.A friend of mine who's a businessman and Renaissance Man sent me this meditation on what's on the financial crisis.. Because he has business partners and the company does business in Portland, he'll use the pseudonym "David Erimita" when "The Other David" musings appear, which I hope is often. He's writing, by the way, about something that's very directly affecting his own business, since his business requires big-time financing.
David Erimita writes:

The current Democrat narrative regarding the financial crisis is that it
was caused by "deregulation" under Reagan and the two Bushes. If there
is a god of Democrat financial acumen and brilliance, it is Robert
Rubin, a Citigroup bigwig and Clinton's exalted Secretary of the
Treasury. He disagrees. I do too, and here is why:



(1) The "deregulation" in the financial sector that occurred during
the Reagan administration was in the savings and loan industry. Yes,
that deregulation was partly responsible for the S&L collapse, but it
had nothing at all to do with the present situation.


(2) The next bit of "deregulation" in the financial sector was the
repeal of the Depression-era Glass Steagall Act that had barred banks
from becoming involved in other financial business. Glass Steagall was
repealed, but under Clinton, not Reagan or the Bushes, and it has
helped, not hindered, in the current situation. Banks were not the
principle problem makers of the current crisis, but even if they had
been, it would not have been because of the repeal of Glass-Steagall,
because home lending is part of their core business, not prohibited by
the old law. And, who bought Bear Stearns? J.P Morgan, a bank. Who is
buying Lehman Brothers? Barclay's, a bank. Who is buying Merrill Lynch?
Bank of America. These transactions would have been prohibited under
Glass Steagall, and out current mess would be far worse than it already
is. Phil Gramm is the current mythic target of the Left for this bit of
"deregulation" that is said to have been a cause of the problem. It
wasn't. See here.

(3) It is true that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are at the
very core of the current crisis, had key restraints on their activities
removed. And it is true that this "deregulation" allowed these former
bastions of financial solidity to become the basket cases they now are.
It is also true that some Republicans in Congress favored these
deregulations. But it is not true that the Bush administration was
behind this.

In fact, the Bush administration tried 17 separate times to
introduce greater controls, greater transparency and greater
accountability at Fannie and Freddie but were blocked every time. The
undoing of Fannie and Freddie began in earnest under the Clinton
administration. James Johnson, Mondale's 1988 campaign manager, a
congressional staffer and lobbyist with no training or experience on
business, went to work after the failed Mondale campaign at...Lehman
Brothers. In 1991, he became CEO of Fannie Mae. Fannie has always had a lot of political ties in Washington and used those ties to create vast private profits with federal government guarantees of losses (the result of which the nation is now seeing all too clearly.)

But was it Republicans who created this situation? Some did, yes, a small core in both House and Senate. But mainly, it was Democrats. Johnson was appointed to Barack Obama's VP selection committee (coincidentally, Obama is second on the list of all-time high recipients of Fannie Mae political contributions, despite being in the Senate for only three years. Johnson resigned about a week later when publicity over his role in wrecking Fannie Mae and maintaining sleazy relations with Countrywide, a major culprit in making the giant mounds of "liar loans" the nation is now saddled with. Not the Johnson Obama once knew, no doubt.

Johnson was replaced by Franklin Raines, another Obama economic
advisor according to the Washington Post, who is now under indictment
for accounting fraud. Raines is a Democrat. Jamie Gorelick, the
notorious Deputy Attorney General under Clinton who was responsible for
the "firewall" that prevented CIA from informing law enforcement
agencies of the 9/11 terrorists, went to Fannie for awhile and walked
away with $75 million! Not bad for someone with no business background.
Number one on Fannie's all-time contributions list? Chris Dodd, Democrat
head of the Senate Banking Committee, recipient of yet another
sweetheart loan from Countrywide, and, along with Barney Frank, Democrat
Chair of House Ways and Means, and Chuck Shumer, Democrat Senator from New York, resolute blockers of every single attempt to rein Fannie and Freddie in, make them more transparent to their taxpayer patrons, reduce their ability to make extremely high-risk investments, and so on.

These are the identical people now in full-throated roar claiming GOP
deregulation, sweetheart deals for Wall Street buddies (who are in fact
overwhelming Democrat themselves) and demanding "accountability."
Picture Claude Raines in "Casablanca" being shocked, shocked that
gambling was going on at Rick's. These guys are the very definition of
brazen hypocrisy. There were plenty of Republicans involved too, but the
Dems drove the boat on this one, and at the very least are in it up to
their eyeballs. So the "GOP deregulation" narrative is nonsense. For more on this go here.

(4) Under Jimmy Carter and a Democrat Congress, the Community
Reinvestment Act ("CRA") was born. This act was a response to years of
claims that banks were 'redlining" neighborhoods and groups of people to
whom they would not lend...unfairly. CRA forced banks to lend to people
with substandard credit or face serious federal penalties. CRA was
substantially beefed up under Clinton, as were the requirements to lend
to what are now called "subprime" borrowers, as were the penalties to
banks for not doing so. The very same people and groups who are now
screaming that the banks made "predatory loans" (defined as loans made
to people who could not be reasonably expected to pay them back) were
clamoring for the banks to do precisely that.

One of the most active groups in pushing these loans was ACORN, the hard-left "activist" group that has been convicted of voter fraud in numerous states,3 indicted in even more statesnotoriously defrauded its own employees is backed by labor unions, and which Barack Obama, along with his longtime cohort Bill Ayers, proudly worked in Chicago and claims as a critical part of the experience that qualifies him to be our president, and the same Dodd, Frank, Shumer characters in Congress. The immediate cause of all the "subprime" mortgages that have caused this trouble was the CRA, passed at the aggressive behest of the very people now accusing banks of doing wrong. Now some right-wing commentators claim CRA is the only important cause of the crisis, and that is not true, CRA did not, for example, requite hedge funds and investment banks to create highly-leveraged packages of securitized portfolios of subprime mortgages, vastly increasing the risk they posed to out financial system. But CRA WAS a regulation, not a "deregulation," it WAS a Democrat-driven law, and it did create the proximate cause of the subprime lending boom. It isn't the whole problem, but without it, this problem would not have happened.

beer bacon
09-24-2008, 10:39 PM
In other news, Franklin Raines, former CEO of the macdaddy's, is on the Obama campaign.

Except not.

DaneMcCloud
09-25-2008, 12:54 AM
Which part would you like me to explain to you?

Everything. First off, where do you live?

And if you don't think Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are up to their asses in this - you aren't thinking.

I made no such proclamations.

I just asked you to explain the "World" to me.

Chief Henry
09-25-2008, 10:34 AM
The financial crisis: The Other David
by David Reinhard, The Oregonian Wednesday September 24, 2008, 4:44 PM

AP
- Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO Franklin Raines is sworn in prior to testifying before the House Financial Services Committee on Oct. 6, 2004, following a auditor's report critical of accounting practices and management policies.A friend of mine who's a businessman and Renaissance Man sent me this meditation on what's on the financial crisis.. Because he has business partners and the company does business in Portland, he'll use the pseudonym "David Erimita" when "The Other David" musings appear, which I hope is often. He's writing, by the way, about something that's very directly affecting his own business, since his business requires big-time financing.
David Erimita writes:

The current Democrat narrative regarding the financial crisis is that it
was caused by "deregulation" under Reagan and the two Bushes. If there
is a god of Democrat financial acumen and brilliance, it is RobertRubin, a Citigroup bigwig and Clinton's exalted Secretary of the
Treasury. He disagrees. I do too, and here is why:



(1) The "deregulation" in the financial sector that occurred during
the Reagan administration was in the savings and loan industry. Yes,
that deregulation was partly responsible for the S&L collapse, but it
had nothing at all to do with the present situation.


(2) The next bit of "deregulation" in the financial sector was the
repeal of the Depression-era Glass Steagall Act that had barred banks
from becoming involved in other financial business. Glass Steagall was
repealed, but under Clinton, not Reagan or the Bushes, and it has
helped, not hindered, in the current situation. Banks were not the
principle problem makers of the current crisis, but even if they had
been, it would not have been because of the repeal of Glass-Steagall,
because home lending is part of their core business, not prohibited by
the old law. And, who bought Bear Stearns? J.P Morgan, a bank. Who is
buying Lehman Brothers? Barclay's, a bank. Who is buying Merrill Lynch?
Bank of America. These transactions would have been prohibited under
Glass Steagall, and out current mess would be far worse than it already
is. Phil Gramm is the current mythic target of the Left for this bit of
"deregulation" that is said to have been a cause of the problem. It
wasn't. See here.

(3) It is true that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are at the
very core of the current crisis, had key restraints on their activities
removed. And it is true that this "deregulation" allowed these former
bastions of financial solidity to become the basket cases they now are.
It is also true that some Republicans in Congress favored these
deregulations. But it is not true that the Bush administration was
behind this.

In fact, the Bush administration tried 17 separate times to
introduce greater controls, greater transparency and greater
accountability at Fannie and Freddie but were blocked every time. The
undoing of Fannie and Freddie began in earnest under the Clinton
administration. James Johnson, Mondale's 1988 campaign manager, a
congressional staffer and lobbyist with no training or experience on
business, went to work after the failed Mondale campaign at...Lehman
Brothers. In 1991, he became CEO of Fannie Mae. Fannie has always had a lot of political ties in Washington and used those ties to create vast private profits with federal government guarantees of losses (the result of which the nation is now seeing all too clearly.)

But was it Republicans who created this situation? Some did, yes, a small core in both House and Senate. But mainly, it was Democrats. Johnson was appointed to Barack Obama's VP selection committee (coincidentally, Obama is second on the list of all-time high recipients of Fannie Mae political contributions, despite being in the Senate for only three years. Johnson resigned about a week later when publicity over his role in wrecking Fannie Mae and maintaining sleazy relations with Countrywide, a major culprit in making the giant mounds of "liar loans" the nation is now saddled with. Not the Johnson Obama once knew, no doubt.

Johnson was replaced by Franklin Raines, another Obama economic
advisor according to the Washington Post, who is now under indictment
for accounting fraud. Raines is a Democrat. Jamie Gorelick, the
notorious Deputy Attorney General under Clinton who was responsible for
the "firewall" that prevented CIA from informing law enforcement
agencies of the 9/11 terrorists, went to Fannie for awhile and walked
away with $75 million! Not bad for someone with no business background.
Number one on Fannie's all-time contributions list? Chris Dodd, Democrat
head of the Senate Banking Committee, recipient of yet another
sweetheart loan from Countrywide, and, along with Barney Frank, Democrat
Chair of House Ways and Means, and Chuck Shumer, Democrat Senator from New York, resolute blockers of every single attempt to rein Fannie and Freddie in, make them more transparent to their taxpayer patrons, reduce their ability to make extremely high-risk investments, and so on.

These are the identical people now in full-throated roar claiming GOP
deregulation, sweetheart deals for Wall Street buddies (who are in fact
overwhelming Democrat themselves) and demanding "accountability."
Picture Claude Raines in "Casablanca" being shocked, shocked that
gambling was going on at Rick's. These guys are the very definition of
brazen hypocrisy. There were plenty of Republicans involved too, but the
Dems drove the boat on this one, and at the very least are in it up to
their eyeballs. So the "GOP deregulation" narrative is nonsense. For more on this go here.

(4) Under Jimmy Carter and a Democrat Congress, the Community
Reinvestment Act ("CRA") was born. This act was a response to years of
claims that banks were 'redlining" neighborhoods and groups of people to
whom they would not lend...unfairly. CRA forced banks to lend to people
with substandard credit or face serious federal penalties. CRA was
substantially beefed up under Clinton, as were the requirements to lend
to what are now called "subprime" borrowers, as were the penalties to
banks for not doing so. The very same people and groups who are now
screaming that the banks made "predatory loans" (defined as loans made
to people who could not be reasonably expected to pay them back) were
clamoring for the banks to do precisely that.

One of the most active groups in pushing these loans was ACORN, the hard-left "activist" group that has been convicted of voter fraud in numerous states,3 indicted in even more statesnotoriously defrauded its own employees is backed by labor unions, and which Barack Obama, along with his longtime cohort Bill Ayers, proudly worked in Chicago and claims as a critical part of the experience that qualifies him to be our president, and the same Dodd, Frank, Shumer characters in Congress. The immediate cause of all the "subprime" mortgages that have caused this trouble was the CRA, passed at the aggressive behest of the very people now accusing banks of doing wrong. Now some right-wing commentators claim CRA is the only important cause of the crisis, and that is not true, CRA did not, for example, requite hedge funds and investment banks to create highly-leveraged packages of securitized portfolios of subprime mortgages, vastly increasing the risk they posed to out financial system. But CRA WAS a regulation, not a "deregulation," it WAS a Democrat-driven law, and it did create the proximate cause of the subprime lending boom. It isn't the whole problem, but without it, this problem would not have happened.



Here is the truth. Lets see how long it takes this to reach the MSM. Very good find Bootleg.
Rep heading your way.

Bootlegged
09-25-2008, 10:52 AM
Everything. First off, where do you live?



I made no such proclamations.

I just asked you to explain the "World" to me.

I don't think you are smart enough to keep up.

DaneMcCloud
09-25-2008, 01:14 PM
I don't think you are smart enough to keep up.


Yeah, a hillbilly such as yourself is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay smarter in the "ways of the world" than I am.

JFC.


ROFL

Bootlegged
09-25-2008, 01:18 PM
Yeah, a hillbilly such as yourself is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay smarter in the "ways of the world" than I am.

JFC.


ROFL

As predicted...

Hillbilly...I could buy and sell you.

Chief Henry
09-25-2008, 01:29 PM
Yeah, a hillbilly such as yourself is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay smarter in the "ways of the world" than I am.

JFC.


ROFL




You know, I'm guessing Franklyn Raines $90,000 to $100,000 per month pention from Fannie could buy alot of hillbillies and I bet Jamie Gorelick's $75 Million could buy alot left wingers...