14
   

The Real Culprits In This Meltdown, no McCain aides listed...

 
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2008 03:19 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo wrote-

Quote:
Eventually, we were going to reach a point where the market would have a significant amount of defaults on mortgages regardless of whether or not we had sub-prime lending. This is a fact.


That is not a fact. All lending is sub-prime lending to a certain extent. You have no cut-off point from sub-prime to not sub-prime.

If blokes said- hey- I'm not putting my balls on the line for that much, we'll have a cheaper house, the problem is much reduced. If more blokes are on the line for too much there is a cause for that. Part of their brain ceased to function.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2008 04:48 pm
You have to laugh. All these Darwinians with the Oliver Twist syndrome.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2008 08:26 pm
Meltdown: Voters blaming GOP for financial crisisAgence France-Presse
Published: Monday September 22, 2008

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The financial turmoil that has rocked global markets appears to be benefiting US presidential hopeful Barack Obama, according to a new poll released Monday that finds the Democratic candidate pulling ahead of his Republican opponent John McCain with a 51 percent to 46 percent lead.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll also finds that by a two-to-one margin Americans blame Republicans for the current financial crisis.

Forty-seven percent of registered voters say Republicans are more responsible for the state of the economy, compared to 24 percent of registered voters who say Democrats are more responsible.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Meltdown_Voters_blaming_GOP_for_financial_0922.html
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2008 08:41 pm
@blueflame1,
I'll believe this when the sun don't shine. Even current statistics who they will vote for belies these polls on blame.

Something is not jiving here.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2008 08:00 am
@cicerone imposter,
I will endevour to explain for c.i.

First you have to copy this--{ Life gets tough-ish in Notting Hill. Rachel Johnson. Sunday Times. } Then paste it in the Google Searchbox. Or highlight, right click and select "Search Google".

Then read the article. Explantions do require some effort from the receiver. It's a great article.

Then you ask yourselves whether you, as ordinary Americans like the ones depicted, would not behave in exactly the same way if you had the chance. It is reasonable to assume you would as you have all been brought up to more or less the same standards of morality as they have.

In fact it would be unreasonable to think you might not. Ridiculous in an atheist except one gifted with extreme laziness.

So what is not jiving is that your jealousy is battling with an unconscious sanity which hardly dare show itself in view of your own behaviour albeit at a much lower economic felicity. That is what Veblen so comprehensively took the piss out of and explains why you have managed to shelter, or been sheltered, from the acidic spray which spurts from every paragraph of that most influential masterpiece.

I once loaned a paperback of it to a lady who could easily have had the basement swimming pool dug 20 feet deeper because a proper swimming pool needs a high-diving board to be aesthetically acceptable had she found herself in a position to do so. Her husband told me that she read 7 pages before tearing my book into small pieces in a pop-eyed rage. Personalised book burning. She didn't burn it because she wanted me to see the tatters. An "Ignore" function requiring adrenalin to activate.

It is the built-in mores of a business milieux and, having voted for it, and on the point of voting for it again, it is difficult to imagine what you are all squawking about when it is your own face in the mirror only distorted with envy at being an also-ran.

I think you should change "approval" ratings to "least disapproval" ones. One can only approve of a candidate with reference to his opponent. Not absolutely.

I would write in Bob Dylan. We are brought up to pull sticking plasters off fast. Ask Mrs Thatcher.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  4  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2008 01:25 pm
Well, how about this bit of news I have been looking for...

Quote:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATON

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.


The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

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

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



But, it's all Gramm's fault and Bush has tried to do nothing about it. Rolling Eyes
barackman28
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2008 01:48 pm
@McGentrix,
That article was nothing but self serving nonsense. It is clear to anyone who has watched the housing market for the past thirty years that redlining was utilized to keep blacks and hispanics out of lily white neighborhoods. President Clinton. God Bless him, did a great deal to put decent housing within the reach of black and hispanic peoples who, in this racist country, have been forced to work like mules and live in substandard housing.

It is the banks and the housing industry who have saddled the unsuspecting poor with the dreaded ARM's. Senator Obama, when he was a Community Organizer and later, in the House in Illinois, did a great deal to try to teach the unsuspecting poor to stay away from such real estate traps.
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2008 02:11 pm
@barackman28,
Quote:
It is the banks and the housing industry who have saddled the unsuspecting poor with the dreaded ARM's. Senator Obama, when he was a Community Organizer and later, in the House in Illinois, did a great deal to try to teach the unsuspecting poor to stay away from such real estate traps.


How do the ones he taught live now. Did he try to keep them where they were and in need of his attention.

I once noticed that the English constituency with the biggest Labour (left) majority had the highest infant mortality rate in the country. Left wing politicians need poor people. Bankers and housebuilders want well off people and there are bound to be hiccups if they go all out to get that.

Whatever you say about whose fault it all is the housing stock has been improved hasn't it and employment kept high. Hospitals are better. If you saved a bit in the good times you will be able to ride it out.

FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2008 02:16 pm
@McGentrix,
I'm not sure what your point is. Fannie and Freddie are not the root cause of this crisis. Regardless, I believe the legislation that your article speaks of was actually passed and the authority to oversee them was moved under the Treasury -- that would be how they were taken over so swiftly. So what is that, 5 years that the Treasury was supposed to be overseeing Fannie and Freddie? Did it help? Now we are to believe that giving even more power to the Treasury plus 700 billion dollars is going to fix everything.
blueflame1
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2008 03:27 pm
Extra Bonus Quote of the Day
"We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself."

-- The 2008 Republican Party Platform, adopted earlier this month.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/ ... e_day.html
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2008 03:32 pm
@blueflame1,
"We do not support" is in the present tense. It has no relevance to things after it was uttered. I'm surprised a seasoned politics watcher should think it might.
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2008 03:37 pm
@spendius,
Paulson's former firm to be among largest beneficiaries of bailout: bank http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Paulsons_former_firm_to_be_among_0923.html
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 06:18 am
Quote:
McCain Aide’s Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac

WASHINGTON " One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

The disclosure undercuts a remark by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.

Mr. Davis’s firm received the payments from the company, Freddie Mac, until it was taken over by the government this month along with Fannie Mae, the other big mortgage lender whose deteriorating finances helped precipitate the cascading problems on Wall Street, the two people said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/24davis.html?scp=1&sq=McCain%20Aide%92s%20Firm%20Was%20Paid%20by%20Freddie%20Mac%20&st=cse
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  3  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 06:55 am
@FreeDuck,
No, unfortunately it never made it through the Senate.

The point is that ythe problem was foreseen to some extent and the Republicans tried to do something about but was obstructed by the Dems for fear of losing their voters. Now we lose the economy, but they keep their voters...
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 07:19 am
@McGentrix,
If the details in the proposal is anything like the rest of the administrations proposals the reason it didn't pass was probably because of some detail which probably did affect low income housing unfairly or something along that line. Do you have a link with the full proposal written out? Furthermore, why in the world would congress cede authority to the treasury department when they are on the ones who should have kept us from getting into this mess in the first place? Talk about fox and hen houses.

In any event, your starting argument for this thread has shot all to blazes with not a word from you. There has been McCain's aides listed in this meltdown.



revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 07:33 am
@revel,
I have tried to go back and delete the above post as I 'spoke' without first understanding what the bill is about. The more I read it the more confused I got on the whole article about who was in charge of oversight in the first place and whose fault it was that things went wrong. I am just naturally suspicious of this administration in general, but perhaps I was wrong in this instance. I don't know really yet.

However, the second part still stands.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 07:49 am
@McGentrix,
McG, wasn't republicans in charge of congress in 2003 when the proposal was introduced?

Quote:
The President's call came after "a Freddie Mac accounting scandal" in July.

"It seems that Congress doesn't have the stomach to do anything substantial,'' said Marshall Front, president of Front Barnett Associates LLC, which manages $1.5 billion in Chicago, including shares of Fannie Mae. (quote from July 2003)

It seems Mr. Front was correct.

In 2003, Republicans controlled both branches of Congress (108th) and the White House. What happened to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulatory reform under Republican leadership? Nothing.

Here's what I found when I searched THOMAS for the phrase Fannie Mae for the 108th Congress (2003-2004): eight bills .... but only six appear to relate to this topic, per their title. Of those six, only one was introduced after the White House weighed in (at least rhetorically) in September ... and the prime sponsor of that bill was a Democrat. The other bills seem to have resulted from the July scandal. No bill moved out of committee.

1. H.R.2022 introduced on 7 May 2003 by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT,4).
Title: To extend the registration and reporting requirements of the Federal securities laws to certain housing-related Government-sponsored enterprises, and for other purposes.
Latest Major Action: 5/23/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
2. H.R.2117 introduced 23 May 2003 by Rep. Pete Fortney (D-CA,13).
Title: To amend the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act to remove certain competitive advantages granted to the housing-related government-sponsored enterprises relative to other secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.
Latest Major Action: 5/23/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
3. H.R.2575 introduced on 24 June 2003 by Rep. Richard H Baker (R-LA,6).
Title: To reform the regulation of certain housing-related Government-sponsored enterprises, and for other purposes.
Latest Major Action: 9/25/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee Hearings Held.
4. H.R.2803 introduced on 21 July 2003 by Rep. Edward R Royce (R-CA,40).
Title: To establish the Office of Housing Finance Oversight in the Department of the Treasury to ensure the financial safety and soundness of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal home loan banks.
Latest Major Action: 8/4/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
5. H.R.2897 introduced on 25 July 2003 by Rep. Julia Carson (D-IN,7)
Title: To end homelessness in the United States.
Latest Major Action: 8/25/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
6. S.1508, introduced 31 July 2003 by Sen Chuck Hagel (R-NE).
Title: A bill to address regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.
Latest Major Action: 4/1/2004 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
7. S.1656, introduced 23 September 2003 by Sen Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ).
Title: A bill to address regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.
Latest Major Action: 9/25/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
8. H.R.3507 introduced 18 November 2003 by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA,27).
Title: To expand homeownership opportunities in States having high housing costs.
Latest Major Action: 1/2/2004 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

Clearly, in 2003 and 2004 the issue of finance reform was not a priority of the White House or Congressional Republicans.

In the 109th Congress (2005-2006), the House overwhelmingly approved (331 to 90) HR 1461, The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, designed "to create a stronger regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." The Senate, still controlled by Republicans lagged the House in taking action. It is not clear if this was a lack of Republican leadership or blockage by Democratic leadership (filibuster threats). (Shout if you have links to illustrate this impasse.)

HR 1461 remained stalled in the Senate: last action, 31 October 2005, referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

On 31 July 2007, after the Democrats obtained control of the Congress in the November 2006 election, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced HR 3221, a "bill to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes." Among other things, the bill granted the newly formed Federal Housing Finance Agency "supervisory and regulatory authority over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks (enterprises)" (per CRS analysis).

Pelosi's bill became Public Law 110-140 on 19 December 2007 110-289 on 30 July 2008.


http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/09/18/republican-congress-talked-about-financial-reform-but-did-nothing.htm
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 07:57 am
@McGentrix,
McG,

You do realize that the GOP controlled BOTH houses of Congress and the Presidency in 1993, don't you? One can hardly blame the Dems when the GOP was in the majority.

It looks like revel beat me to it on finding out what actually happened to the bill. The GOP didn't even get it out of committee.


Maybe you can blame Clinton McG. You certainly wouldn't want to blame the people in charge.
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 09:49 am
Freddie Mac Paid McCain Campaign Manager's Firm Through last Month http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/23/freddie-mac-paid-mccain-c_n_128770.html
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2008 10:02 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

McG,

You do realize that the GOP controlled BOTH houses of Congress and the Presidency in 1993, don't you? One can hardly blame the Dems when the GOP was in the majority.

It looks like revel beat me to it on finding out what actually happened to the bill. The GOP didn't even get it out of committee.


Maybe you can blame Clinton McG. You certainly wouldn't want to blame the people in charge.


So, now that the Dem's are the majority one can hardly blame the GOP for anything that's happened in Congress the past 2 years right?

Stop with the nonsense Parados.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/25/2022 at 11:03:47