Re: Lipstick on a Bailout

by **ohio county** Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:30 pm

Whatever you think of these two guys, the bailout is fairly described as a "crap sandwich":

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/15838/

by **Stephanie** Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:52 pm

OMG Jimmy!

You know, in these troubling time, we have to find something to make us smile. Jonah Goldberg made a statement that made me smile.

It just my have to become part of my signature line.

You know, in the middle ages Harry Reid would have his stomach cut open and a half starved weasel thrown in for the kind of things he's doing.

by **ohio county** Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:01 pm

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…

…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.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

And that's during a telephone interview! Imagine what he could come up with if he had time to think about it.

This is a story out of the New York Times dated September 30, 1999 - nine full years ago. It pretty much bears out exactly what you told sherman.

by SamCogar Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:38 pm

GOLDBERG: The government made these obligations. I agree with you it's annoying to empower the same class that created these problems but the next class that's about to come in is even worse. I mean, the Pelosi, Reid, Obama guys are poised to take over and those guys are going to -- as we've talked about it a million times, they really do want a new New Deal. So when I agree with you, look, it's just -- you know, John Boehner said this bill was a crap sandwich but he was going to eat it. As far as I'm concerned, it's crap sandwiches for as far as the eye can see.

by SamCogar Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:39 pm

GLENN: It really, truly is crap sandwiches for as far as the eye can see. Let me ask you this: When was the last time you saw the President of the United States make this kind of effort, with a speech last Thursday, then a speech to Wall Street Friday morning, one yesterday morning, another one today with these dire, dire warnings and yet they're still saying, well, it would be a recession. How many recessions have we gone through, Jonah? We keep going through recessions. We don't have this.

by SamCogar Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:40 pm

GLENN: The President no longer can say -- he can't say how bad it really is because he's the President. You can't scare the market. You can't scare people in that. But nobody believes anybody in congress. Nobody believes anybody in the White House. Nobody believes anybody in Wall Street. Nobody believes anything because we have been lied to over and over again. So Jonah, how do you get the word out when -- and this is a problem I've been facing now for two years. How do you get the problem out and really vocalize when no one is trustworthy?

by SamCogar Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:41 pm

GOLDBERG: Look, I agree it's an enormous problem. Look at John McCain, right? He suspends his campaign and comes to Washington because the Democratic leadership said we need John McCain here to get a deal worked out. John McCain suspends his campaign, comes to Washington and they ride him out on a rail, they ridicule it as a stunt and the press openly and without reservation flies into the bald Democratic lie that there was a deal already nailed down just so they can make it look like John McCain blew up the deal. Now, you disagree with the deal, but there was no deal and you disagree with McCain's position on this.

by **Stephanie** Tue Sep 30, 2008 4:49 pm

ohio county wrote:
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…

…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.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

And that's during a telephone interview! Imagine what he could come up with if he had time to think about it.

This is a story out of the New York Times dated September 30, 1999 - nine full years ago. It pretty much bears out exactly what you told sherman.

Yeah, but I can't be trusted because I'm right of center. Thanks for the backup, Jimmy.

I can't wait till I have DSL so I can just go out and search for articles and quotes etc I KNOW I have read somewhere. It's coming...they installed the second locker looking thing at that hub yesterday. They were gone for WEEKS....ever since they filled in the well they collapsed here. I think they went down to the gulf or somewhere restoring services after the storms etc.

OK, but I'd like to get back to the FBI investigations. Do you think they will result in any prosecutions? I mean, they let Raines walk away with a cool million and Jamie Gorelick, I forget now just how many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Do you think the justice department will take these crimes more seriously than Maxine Waters and Barney Frank? Will they actually hold anybody accountable for their crimes?

by **Stephanie** Tue Sep 30, 2008 4:55 pm

Oh, and how about Congress? Do you suppose any of them will be made to pay for their lies and their deception and their covering up for their cronies? I'm not just talking about Waters & Frank & Meeks. I mean, a lot of these Pubbies were saying years ago there were problems and more oversight was needed. Why didn't they kick ass and take names when they had control? Why should we give them a pass for their failure to act? It's easy enough to say now, "We don't have control of the committees, we don't have control of the calender" etc. However, back in 2003 and 2004 when regulators were issuing reports about bad accounting practices and Raines stealing the money, the GOP was in power. They backed down. Why? Is it because they didn't have enough evidence? Was it because they got paid off? Are they that afraid of being called names they wouldn't dare stand up to idiots like Meeks?

by sodbuster Tue Sep 30, 2008 5:32 pm

Well OC no one doubted or took issue with the credibility of Stephanie's post.

But did you check the link I provide3d showing Bush lowered the down pmt. requirement from the 3% under Clinton to zero% plus allowed the borrower to include closing costs in the loan?

Very Happy

... I guess not.

Yep it's clinton's fault.

same ol same ol.

by **Stephanie** Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:01 pm

So if President Bush did this in, remind me what year? Why were there hearings about fraudulent accounting practices and the astronomical bonuses and theft over at Fannie and Freddie back in 2004?

If it's all Booosh's fault, why were Waters and Meeks and Frank defending Fannie & Freddie and praising Raines and berating the regulators for bringing the problems to light in the first place? I mean, if these things were all Booosh wouldn't Maxine and Barney be shouting "Off with his head" instead of denying and lying?

by sodbuster Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:46 pm

Well Steph no one said it was "all bush's fault".

But you have repeatedly and longwindedly said it was Clinton's fault.

(you have not challenged my source that bush lowered the interest to zero, btw. After you challenged me to do so...)

(even after I admitted you took me to the cleaners about that treaty to defend Israel).

by **Stephanie** Tue Sep 30, 2008 8:10 pm

sodbuster wrote:Well Steph no one said it was "all bush's fault".

But you have repeatedly and longwindedly said it was Clinton's fault.

(you have not challenged my source that bush lowered the interest to zero, btw. After you challenged me to do so...)

(even after I admitted you took me to the cleaners about that treaty to defend Israel).

No, Sherm. I have pointed out Clinton's share of the blame. I have appropriated more blame to Clinton and his appointee Cuomo, because of my knowledge and my understanding of how the crisis came about. I have not singled them out. As a matter of fact, you ridiculed me for giving a jab at Carter for his Community Reinvestment Act, but I did not stop there. I went back even further in time to the creation of Fannie Mae itself and before that, to President Woodrow Wilson and the congress that ceded their authority over our currency to the elite of the elite who created the very private and extremely secretive Federal Reserve and have been manipulating markets and printing money out of thin air ever since.

It is my sincere hope that in a matter of a couple of weeks, who knows, maybe even days, I will be on DSL. Whenever the movers and the shakers over there at Verizon decide to give my little corner of WV Wilderness whatever tidbit it is lacking to finally bring us out of the 80's. At that time, one of my first projects is going to be to research and find documentation proving that zero downpayment loans were already the MO for the GSE's.

Until that time, I concede nothing, other than that Bush did NOTHING to correct this dire situation. While the President may not have been able to fully comprehend the scope of what was to come, he was warned, he was informed, yet instead of doing something to bring stability to our financial institutions and our economy he was worried about building the Empire.

Well this Empire is about to crumble now. Every president since Wilson, and the vast majority of men and women who have held seats in the House of Representatives and the US Senate since that time have some measure of responsibility in all this. At the very least nearly all of them enabled this abomination. With very few exceptions, they ignored the experts. They routinely ridiculed elected and appointed officials who warned them of the lunacy of it all.

Now I know there are steps that can be taken to return us to economic prosperity. I know there are actions that will have us on the road to recovery in months, instead of years or decades. The question is, do our elected leaders have the courage and the wisdom to do what's necessary?
Do the citizens of this nation have enough courage and pent up anger and frustration to FORCE them to do what's required?

I don't know. People are frightened. It's scary, no doubt. I'm very afraid of what will become of us if the stock market crashes. I'm very worried about what is going to happen to my poor mother, who has worked so hard socking away whatever she can in a 401K that is worth only a fraction today what it was less than a year ago. I can't help but think of her, at the age of 63 being in this jackpot.

Then I think of my children, just starting out in life. I think of how I don't want them to pay for the mess my generation created. I don't want my grandchildren to still be suffering because my great-grandmother's generation screwed the pooch. So we have to suck it up. We can't slap a band-aid on it. We have to fix it and we have to demand justice. We have to prosecute the criminals who perpetrated fraud and deceit and embezzled and swindled. We have to get rid of the elected officials who chose to lie and cover up for the crooks.

Make them pay for what they have done.

We are all going to suffer either way. Let's make them suffer too.

by **ohio county** Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:36 am

I'd really like to see Barney Frank and Chris Dodd on the hook. And a whole array of privately employed bankers and a whole host of "public servants". I still think the whole crisis was caused exclusively by politicians.

by sodbuster Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:46 am

Well just remember the victor gets to write the history.

by **ohio county** Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:51 am

Okay. I hear you. It doesn't matter what the FBI finds in their investigation then. President Obama, Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank will set the terms of the bailout in the next administration? Maybe they can handle that after the Boosh hearings and execution.

by ziggy Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:53 am

I'd really like to see Barney Frank and Chris Dodd on the hook.

"On the hook", how? Charged with crime(s)? What crime(s)?

by SamCogar Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:08 am

Stephanie wrote:
We can't slap a band-aid on it. We have to fix it and we have to demand justice. We have to prosecute the criminals who perpetrated fraud and deceit and embezzled and swindled. We have to get rid of the elected officials who chose to lie and cover up for the crooks.

Make them pay for what they have done.

We are all going to suffer either way. Let's make them suffer too.

Uh Stephanie, ...... forget it, ......... it ain't gonna happen ...... no matter how bad it gets.

There is only one (1) way that your above "wishes" could ever "come true" ........ but that is also an impossibility.

And that "one (1) way" would be to get the Federal and State Legislators to reduce the retirement benefits and entitlements of all public employees ...... so that said are on par to what private sector employees are forced to live with.

Steph, if you can't get the public employees pissed off at the Legislators ...... then you will never be able to get rid of very many worthless elected officials.

Sherman is quite happy with his socio-economic status in WV, ......... even though he is always wanting more, ............. and as long as he is happy he will never badmouth nor vote against anyone that he thinks is responsible for providing and/or preserving the "entitlements" he receives that makes him happy.

Sherman is not the least bit interested in your telling him ...... "what the problems are and who is/was responsible for said" ............ because Sherman believes those "problems" do not affect him or his promised State entitlements.

.

by SamCogar Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:14 am

ziggy wrote:
I'd really like to see Barney Frank and Chris Dodd on the hook.

"On the hook", how? Charged with crime(s)? What crime(s)?

GEEZUS K RICEST

Definitions of Malfeasance on the Web:

means conduct of the General Partner or Managing Directors in performing their duties under this Agreement constituting (a) gross negligence ...
www.investing-farm.com/appendix-1-defined-terms.html

wrongful conduct by a public official
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

The expressions misfeasance and nonfeasance, and occasionally malfeasance, are used in English law with reference to the discharge of public obligations existing by common law, custom or statute.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malfeasance

wrongdoing
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/malfeasance

by **Stephanie** Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:15 am

ziggy wrote:
I'd really like to see Barney Frank and Chris Dodd on the hook.

"On the hook", how? Charged with crime(s)? What crime(s)?

How about fraud? When confronted with proof the officials at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were cooking the books, overstating profits, and giving themselves bonuses in excess of their annual salaries Barney Franks said, and this is on video mind you, there are no troubles at Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.

What would you call that, if not fraud? Lying, deceitful POS should be prosecuted for treason for that. He took an oath of office and not only failed to uphold it, he pissed on it.

by ziggy Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:26 am

Definitions of Malfeasance on the Web:

means conduct of the General Partner or Managing Directors in performing their duties under this Agreement constituting (a) gross negligence ...
www.investing-farm.com/appendix-1-defined-terms.html

wrongful conduct by a public official
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

The expressions misfeasance and nonfeasance, and occasionally malfeasance, are used in English law with reference to the discharge of public obligations existing by common law, custom or statute.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malfeasance

wrongdoing
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/malfeasance

OK. So what do we do about malfeasance? Is it illegal? If so, then charge and arrest 'em.

But of it merely represents ignorance and/or allegiance to one's political campaign funders, then about all we can do is try to beat them out in the next election.

by ziggy Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:35 am

How about fraud? When confronted with proof the officials at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were cooking the books, overstating profits, and giving themselves bonuses in excess of their annual salaries Barney Franks said, and this is on video mind you, there are no troubles at Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.

What would you call that, if not fraud? Lying, deceitful POS should be prosecuted for treason for that. He took an oath of office and not only failed to uphold it, he pissed on it.

Treason for what? Who are the enemies he is/was giving aid and comfort to?

I think it all comes down to campaign finance. If Frank and Dodd were giving aid and comfort to their political contributors, then that is not illegal. Indeed, it is the American way. The campaign finance laws allow the contributions- from the private sector to public cadidates and officeholdres. We cannot rationally both allow such legalized bribery and then cry "Fowl!" when it produces the result desired by the briber.

by **Stephanie** Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:40 am

ziggy wrote:
How about fraud? When confronted with proof the officials at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were cooking the books, overstating profits, and giving themselves bonuses in excess of their annual salaries Barney Franks said, and this is on video mind you, there are no troubles at Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.

What would you call that, if not fraud? Lying, deceitful POS should be prosecuted for treason for that. He took an oath of office and not only failed to uphold it, he pissed on it.

Treason for what? Who are the enemies he is/was giving aid and comfort to?

I think it all comes down to campaign finance. If Frank and Dodd were giving aid and comfort to their political contributors, then that is not illegal. Indeed, it is the American way. The campaign finance laws allow the contributions- from the private sector to public cadidates and officeholdres. We cannot rationally both allow such legalized bribery and then cry "Fowl!" when it produces the result desired by the briber.

What they did was illegal. These men sat on committes charged with oversight of GSE's. When the regulators provided proof of criminal actions being committed by the executives at Fannie & Freddie Dodd and Frank had a legal obligation to take action to end the crimes and prosecute the perpetrators. They swore to do so when they took their respective oaths of office.

by ziggy Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:48 am

Well, I'm not sure that I agree that what they did and / or didn't do is criminal. But I would agree that it should be.

Our campaign finance laws, such as they are, have the effect of exonerating a hell of a lot of what should otherwise be illegal and prisonable offenses.

by SamCogar Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:12 am

ziggy wrote:Well, I'm not sure that I agree that what they did and / or didn't do is criminal. But I would agree that it should be.

Our campaign finance laws, such as they are, have the effect of exonerating a hell of a lot of what should otherwise be illegal and prisonable offenses.

Just why are you stuck on the stupidity of referring to campaign finance laws?

What next, a different CYA such as claiming there is no laws pertaining to queers in congress?

.

by Sponsored content