AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Heres another video, pretty damning evidence on film in their own words, people like Barnie Frank claiming there was no problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

Aren't those the people you are blamming instead of Fannie and Freddie people and the Congress people that created and were supposed to regulate their organization?

Here's a simplified description of how Fannie and Freddie became the catalysts for the collapse of the mortgage market.

Fannie and Freddie made a very large number of loans to people who could not afford them. To make up for their losses due to defaulted loans, Fannie and Freddie had to borrow money from private lenders. The private lenders in addition to helping Fannie and Freddie, also started making faulty loans to borrowers. The private lenders assumed these loans would be secured by the Feds. Innitially, they were not. Eventually the Feds stepped in to help secure some of those faulty loans. When the amount of debt involved became too large to manage, the problem escalated into a major debt management problem for both the feds and private lenders.

For example, a great many people bought and mortgaged very expensive houses they never intended to live in. Instead they considered them good investments in a rising market. As the housing market began to collapse, these people also defaulted on their loans. Fannie and Freddie were compelled to get others to buy those mortgages. They succeeded up to a point by transferring those mortgages or the debt they represented to private lenders.

What was missing were accountability and oversight. When you let children into a candy store without any rules and regulations, we get chaos and greed.

This mess should have won the election for McCain, since he was one calling for more oversight, but the mainstream media ignored the evidence. It was swept under a rug, and still is to a large extent. Why we aren't hauling Franklin Raines and Barney Frank, and Dodd to testify, instead of Frank and Dodd going on their merry way, and people like Raines going scot free, I don't know. Another culprit in this was Jamie Gorlick, who gained notoriety as the person that created the wall, and although she had a conflict of interest, was on the 911 commission. She should have been made to testify instead. And she was also involved in Fannie Mae.

What a moron. The analogy is stupid. The CEO's are not children. But CIcerone Imposter Is, of course, senile. Proof resides in the posts he writes--Two liners written on the fifth grade level with nary any evidence to show that his flatulent output is anywhere close to the truth.
.

Instead of congressmen grilling executives about their airplanes, they should be investigating the corruption and mismanagment of trillions at Fannie and Freddie, and some people should go to jail, that is my opinion.

Elections are not about one issue, nor is there enough known information by the general public about economic issues that people are privy or receptive to. When people see job losses and losing their homes all around them, they begin to realize there is something drastically wrong, but most are unable to understand the problems that are causing it.

You are good at shifting blame to everybody but the Bush administration who was at the helm for eight years, but are very critical about what Obama is trying to do with the stimulus plan after he's been in office for less than one month.

You have no ability at rational thinking.

Barney Fr ank? He is one of the major causes of the financial problems we have today.

A Gutsy David Takes On a Goliath
By Cindy Skrzycki
Tuesday, December 28, 2004; Page E01

There are no awards for moxie in regulating, but if such a program is ever established, supporters of Armando Falcon Jr., director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, would probably nominate him. The tiny agency was created in 1992 to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-backed housing financiers with assets and mortgage guarantees adding up to more than $3 trillion…

It has David and Goliath features: a tiny agency taking on a gigantic company; Falcon, an unknown regulator paid $158,100 annually, going up against Fannie Mae chief executive Franklin D. Raines, who received $16.8 million in cash compensation in 2003…

Three months ago, Falcon and his agency dropped a bombshell: a report that concluded Fannie Mae committed numerous accounting and earnings mistakes. The investigation began after members of Congress blamed OFHEO for missing similar problems at Freddie Mac.

Then the Securities and Exchange Commission’s chief accountant agreed with OFHEO, directing Fannie Mae to correct its financial statements, a move that could erase $9 billion in reported profit. The SEC and the Justice Department are investigating further, the company’s board has ordered an independent outside review, and shareholders have filed numerous lawsuits. Last week Raines and Fannie Mae’s chief financial officer were forced out by the company’s board, under pressure from OFHEO…

Next, a three year old report in the Washington Post:

False Signatures Aided Fannie Mae Bonuses, Falcon Says
By Kathleen Day and Terence O’Hara
Thursday, April 7, 2005; Page E01

Fannie Mae employees falsified signatures on accounting transactions that helped the company meet earnings targets for 1998, a “manipulation” that triggered multimillion-dollar bonuses for top executives, a federal regulator said yesterday.

Armando Falcon Jr., director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, said the entries were related to the movement of $200 million in expenses from 1998 to later periods. The result of the changes was an increase in Fannie Mae’s 1998 earnings per share and the release of a $27.1 million bonus pool for senior executives.

Fannie Mae reported paying the following executive bonuses in 1998: chairman and chief executive James A. Johnson received $1.932 million; Franklin D. Raines, chairman-designate, received $1.11 million; Chief Operating Officer Lawrence M. Small received $1.108 million; Vice Chairman Jamie S. Gorelick received $779,625; Chief Financial Officer J. Timothy Howard received $493,750; and Robert J. Levin, an executive vice president, received $493,750…

Falcon, during congressional testimony and in comments afterward, publicly drew a link for the first time between the falsified signatures, which his agency disclosed last month, and the accounting manipulations that led to bonuses, which OFHEO disclosed in the fall. A Fannie Mae employee has told investigators that financial records from 1999 to 2002 bore his name and signature but were not prepared by him, Falcon testified.

“We have identified several problems involving procedures for preparing, reviewing, authorizing and recording” Fannie Mae’s accounting, Falcon said. His office has said it is sharing all information from its probe with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice…

A spokesman for Fannie Mae, Charles V. Greener, said the company had no comment. Lawyers for Raines and Howard did not return telephone calls seeking comment on whether they knew about the falsified signatures or other problems Falcon cited. Small declined to comment. Gorelick did not return a phone message. The company would not make Levin, who still works there, available…

The accounting scandals are being used by Rep. Richard H. Baker (R-La.), chairman of the subcommittee that held the hearing, and the Bush administration to move forward on legislation that would increase oversight and curb the growth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Baker and others have tried for years to pass such legislation, only to find it defeated by the lobbying efforts of the two companies.

The companies’ accounting scandals have bolstered the position of critics, such as Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan. He told the Senate Banking Committee yesterday that the companies’ federal subsidies may not benefit homeowners and that the firms’ large size and dominance of housing markets could pose a threat to the nation’s financial system if they ever fell into trouble.

While there is a general consensus in Congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac need a new, stronger regulator, Greenspan’s testimony focused largely on the most controversial aspect of the debate: the size of the companies’ portfolios of mortgage assets. Together, the mortgages and mortgage-backed securities that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own total $1.5 trillion, a more than tenfold increase in the past 15 years.

The Fed chairman called on Congress to sharply reduce the two companies’ massive mortgage portfolios “while we can,” saying that without a reduction, they will “inevitably” have major financial problems, causing a crisis in the economy…

And then this report from last April, on how Mr. Raines was “punished” from Associated Press:

ican and Olie- Barney Frank was probably the major cause of the financial problems in real estate. I understand that one of his close "friends" was an offier at Fannie.

Note:

Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.
*******************************************************************

Note, Ican,

"Time and time again Frank insisted that Freddie Mae and Freedie Mac were in good shape".

Okie- C icerone I us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mi

Rational thinking says major corruption and mismanagement at Fannie and Freddie, an agency that was involved in almost half of all home loans in this entire country. We are not talking about a few billion, remember Enron, that dominated the headlines for weeks and so forth, this is trillions , ci.

Yet, nobody cares. This is criminal, and these people need to be prosecuted that cooked the books.

And even if it is not the total cause of the financial meltdown, it served as a very important flashpoint. Another reason why I believe the Democrats are the culprits, the mainstream media has absolutely no interest in this issue, which is a pretty good hint that they know a curiosity about this would not yield the result they desire.

Please don't tax cicerone's brain too much Okie--He has no concept of the meaning of Trillions. This analysis from JAcoby in Boston backs up your point very well:
quote
The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

"What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis.'

end of quote













.

I always find it funny when the minority party in the house is blamed for the lack of legislation.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,440681,00.html




http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/press-2051.html

What irony; from Fox News yet. LOL

I wonder if okie will continue to lambast Freddie and Fannie for all the current financial crisis? ROFL

I agree. It was Frank, after all, who, with the the tolerance of the Democrat majority in Congress, kept resisting attempts by Bush and others to get Congress to audit Fanny&Freddy, stop it from continuing what it was doing, and hold its leadership accountable for what they did and did not do. There is now a preponderance of evidence that Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd are in fact the major--but not the only--perpetrators of our current debt fiasco, and the recession it caused and is causing.

Just in case these have not been watched by all:

Videos of the minority party doesn't change the facts about which party controls legislation and which party failed to present and pass any legislation.

Only democrat, Denny Hastert, democrat leader of the Senate after 2006, could permit that vote without a majority of the Senate asking for it. Why didn't Hastert, leader of that majority, permit that vote early in 2007, say the 1st week of January?

But Parados--it is rare I know--does raise a valid point re the GOP's failure to correct the problem in 2005. By 2005 we had elected so many RINOs and CINOs who sided with the liberal Democrats in Congress that the real Republicans couldn't get any controversial MAC bill passed. The liberal Democrats and their RINO advocates were able to defeat the proposed regulation that could have headed off the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac catastrophe or at least would have greatly reduced its severity.

As I suggested in my opening post in this thread, it was things like THAT which caused the loss of majority in both the House and Senate in 2006. I was so digusted with my own representative (Wilson--GOP) who was voting with Nancy Pelosi more than 30% of the time that I voted against her senate bid in the primary. Unfortunately, in the general election, her successful opponent was unable to beat the Democrat who had great name recognition and superior political connections. But I am certain that she would have lost against him too. Voting against them is the only way we have of disciplining them when they lose their way.

Parados is wrong. He evidently does not understand the central role play ed by Barney--
The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

"What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis.'