Worldwide ramifications of Economic mismanagement?

What corner is that Frank. Between you're continued excusing of politicians and Sherms continued need to blame this on the right, how are you agreeing with anything Stephanie, Jimmy or I've said over the past two weeks.

You were fine with investigations AFTER wrong doing was proven and Sherm completely ignored Clinton/Cumo's role in this mess so perhaps you can draw me a picture of that corner you're referring to.

Look, I know that Jimmy has a lot going on this week and may not respond to you right away. The dear man has a life. The nerve.

As for myself, I fail to see how more obvious the abuse of power can be than in the case of these members of Congress. They didn't just "turn a blind eye" to the fraud and pilfering going on in the GSE's, they flat out denied it, praised the very individuals violating accounting rules in order to inflate profits etc. They used a variety of tactics, including making accusations of racism, in order to silence the regulators and other members of Congress. They berated the regulators, actually bawled them out for doing their freaking jobs.

These were not passive acts. They participated in these crimes. Now what each individual's personal motivation was doesn't need to be determined in order for an investigation to be launched. Perhaps for some, motive is one of the issues that needs to be investigated.

If these were Republicans that had committed these acts Sherm would be hollering the loudest for criminal charges and Ziggy would be right there backing him up.

If these were Republicans that had committed these acts Sherm would be hollering the loudest for criminal charges and Ziggy would be right there backing him up.

I would be demanding criminal charges only if an investigation determined that crimes were committed.

But calls for political recriminations only four weels before a general election does not suffice for a determination that crimes were committed.

Investigations? Again, as the little man says, bring 'em on.

Look, Ziggy......Barney Frank could be under federal indictment on election day and the nimrods in his district will reelect him. This isn't about it being an election year.

What corner Frank?

Aaron wrote:What corner Frank?

The corner that causes you to misrepresent me, and to say things like
like:

Between you're continued excusing of politicians and Sherms continued need to blame this on the right, how are you agreeing with anything Stephanie, Jimmy or I've said over the past two weeks.

You were fine with investigations AFTER wrong doing was proven ..................

But nothing ilegal has been proven yet.

And I agree with you and Stephanie and Jimmy that there should be investigations, and that those who committed crimes should be prosecuted.

If you weren't in a corner, you wouldn't need to misrepresent what I say here.

Considering at least 4 of us has interpreted what you said pretty much the same way, I don't believe you're being misrepresented at all Frank.

In fact, I'd say we're all pretty much dead on in our understanding considering your modus operandi is to protect the government and blame business in any and all circumstances!!!

If that is what 4 of you have "interpreted", then four of you are dead wrong.

But I am not taking your word for it that "at least 4" have misinterpreted my words in the same way you have. They can speak for themselves.

"Sherm" never had a need to "blame it on the right".

Sherm just took exception to Stephanie's attempt to say it was all Clinton's fault.

And she challenged me to provide a source that it was in fact Bush who advocated zero interest loans and even pay the closing cost which I did.

(and she has yet to respond btw)

I agree with OC that there is probably enough blame to go around.

But she will not accept that.

It must all be Clinton and Cuomo's fault and a bunch of Dems should be "kicked to the curb", etc.

So no "Sherm" does not have a need to "blame it on the right", only that it is not all us.

And I stand by the fact that it is not all us.

Afterall your and Stephanie's guys were in total control until 2007.

Stephanie never once said it was "all Clinton's fault."

As a matter of fact, you actually balked at my claim that the roots went back farther.

I have distinct memories of a Democrat being in the White House throughout most of the 90's and Democrats controlling Congress for many years.

I also said there was plenty of blame to go around. That is something Jimmy, Aaron and I agree on. You only want to blame Boosh.

Well I know this is futile but here is where you said it was all Cuomo and Clinton's fault in response to Terry RC's most thoughtful and informative post i.e.


RE: Fannie, Freddie and Bill.
TerryRC wrote:

In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains. It has aimed extensive advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these markets. Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments–or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer’s income. That’s made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected.

No bank was forced to make sub-prime loans. The legislation only said the banks must review such applications on a more regular basis.

Much of the problem came from banks sub-contracting to mortgage brokers that sold the notes and assured the banks that everything was O.K. This was a direct result of deregulation.

You can blame Klinton but you had better also point some fingers at the deregulators.

Now who is the party of "free markets"?

This was your response....

It was a direct result of rules issued by Andrew Cuomo on behalf of Bill Clinton. YSP's, relaxed income verification, increased in borrowing limits....all done by Cuomo during Clinton's second term. If it were truly a "free market", the banks never would have issued many of these loans to begin with.by Stephanie
on Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:23 am
Search in: National Politics
Topic: RE: Fannie, Freddie and Bill.
Replies: 31
Views: 114

Re: Fannie, Freddie and Bill.
by Stephanie on Fri 26 Sep 2008 - 10:42

It isn't an "unsubstantiated theory". Cuomo did these things, it is all there in black and white.

This has been building for a long time. The loans weren't all granted 10 years ago and they didn't all go into foreclosure in the past 6 months. This administration and Congress have allowed it to go unchecked for over 7 years.

Bailing out Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac aren't going to help the families in foreclosure. Bailing out Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac is going to help the bankers and the banking executives. Why not go after the likes of Raines and Gorelick and so many others who used lied about their profits and used them as personal slush funds?

This American taxpayer can't take any more.

If this bailout is approved I think there will very likely be widespread protest and not all of it will be peaceful. Enough is enough already.

btw Sherm.........Nothing in my response to Terry was untrue. It was all true, and Jimmy posted an article to back it up.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated there is plenty of blame to go around and that the foundation for the crisis we are facing today stems back long before the Clinton administration.

In my view what Clinton and Cuomo did was speed up the train wreck. They put it into hyper-drive, or on steroids, or you pick your own analogy. The Democrats did not do this alone, they were surely the leaders though.

Even TODAY Barney Frank is still lying and distorting the truth and making charges of racism against the GOP for trying to do SOMETHING to regulate and reign in Fannie & Freddie. It's an outrage but nobody cares.

They get to take things out on poor people," Frank said at a mortgage foreclosure symposium in Boston. "Let's be honest: The fact that some of the poor people are black doesn't hurt them either, from their standpoint. This is an effort, I believe, to appeal to a kind of anger in people."

More lying and denying by Frank. It's all good, though. He has a (D) after his name so I'm sure he has a really good reason for his deceptions.

What you said above that I was refuting was that you never said it was all Clinton and Cuomo's fault.

And you clearly did in the above response to Terry.

And here is another one from 9-24 at 1 am i.e.

"Clinton and Cuomo originated this mess.

PROVE me wrong. I dare you."

And another on 9-25 at 6 am....

"I researched this for two weeks before I posted anything about it. I did my homework. This all happened under Clinton. Did Bush or Congress do anything to fix it? Absolutely not, but that doesn't alter the fact it is Clinton's baby."

And it is Clinton's baby, Sherm.

You have not been able to refute any of what I posted.

Are you saying the following statement is not true:

It was a direct result of rules issued by Andrew Cuomo on behalf of Bill Clinton. YSP's, relaxed income verification, increased in borrowing limits....all done by Cuomo during Clinton's second term.

Go on, check it out. See if Cuomo, on behalf of Bill Clinton, did these things. When you can prove he did not, then tell me I'm wrong.

sodbuster wrote:"
I agree with OC that there is probably enough blame to go around.

How it should have read Sherm as I've said one party didn't get us into this and one party won't get us out numerous times.

I agree with OC and Aaron that there is probably enough blame to go around.

No apology needed. Just correcting a slight mistake.

Stephanie wrote:
In addition, I have repeatedly stated there is plenty of blame to go around and that the foundation for the crisis we are facing today stems back long before the Clinton administration.

I think it goes back to 1977 with Jimmy Carter signing theCommunity Reinvestment Act myself.

The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation. (See full text of Act and current regulations.) To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions.

I stand corrected Aaron you have said that more than once.

And as to your post Steph I think you are just too proud to say you did in fact say it was all Clinton (and Cuomo's) fault. More than once...

"Stephanie never once said it was "all Clinton's fault."

Well Aaron I have to say it looks to me like the ccommunity reinvestment Act was a good thing.

Please note the following qualification i.e.

"consistent with safe and sound operation."

And the intention of the act was well and noble and good Sherm and had the government maintained the "consistent with safe and sound operation" mantra then we wouldn't be in this mess we're are in the first place.

But we all know the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the government can't leave ANYTHING alone if there's a vote to be had by making a change.

Long story short, it all lead to the "Economics crisis of 2008" (yes, it's already a wiki page) and it all started with the community reinvestment act of 1977.

and it all started with the community reinvestment act of 1977.

Well at least it wasn't FDR's fault this time.

Well to get back on topic, does everyone agree that if Obama is elected he should appoint a Commission of Inquiry to sort this mess out?

Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to provide liquidity to the mortgage market. For the next thirty years, Fannie Mae held a virtual monopoly on the secondary mortgage market in the United States.

In 1968, to remove the activity of Fannie Mae from the annual balance sheet of the federal budget, it was converted into a private corporation. Fannie Mae ceased to be the guarantor of government-issued mortgages, and that responsibility was transferred to the new Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae). In 1995, Fannie Mae began receiving affordable housing credit for buying subprime securities. In 1999, the Clinton administration and Fannie Mae shareholders encouraged the lender to increase the number of mortgage loans offered to those of low and moderate income, both to improve rates of home ownership among those groups and to increase profits.

In 2000, due to a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals.

Fannie Mae was put under a conservatorship of the U.S. Federal government on September 7, 2008.

Every time the government intervenes economically, not much good comes from it. What amazes me is there are those of you that are too blinded by your idiotic ideological views that you just can't see all the ill that comes from government intervention.

I challenged you on the old forum during a discussion about health care to show me ONE government program that had been implemented AND ran by that government that was a successful program, not mired in fraud and waste Frank and you never did meet that challenge.

It still stands.

sodbuster wrote:Well to get back on topic, does everyone agree that if Obama is elected he should appoint a Commission of Inquiry to sort this mess out?

There's nothing to sort out Sherm. The cause of the problem is know and we are on topic. Sub prime lending and the greed that ensued is the cause.

I challenged you on the old forum during a discussion about health care to show me ONE government program that had been implemented AND ran by that government that was a successful program, not mired in fraud and waste Frank and you never did meet that challenge.

Social Security. It is apparently far less mired in "fraud and waste" than either the private health insurance industry or the investment banking industry.