Conservative Political and Social Issues
Chris, what's interesting about the video, is that it is dated 2004. Republicans had been in charge since 1994, 10 years, yes apparently did nothing to actually regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.So, even though Mr. Raines did have some ethical problems, what did the Republicans, when they had all the power, do about it?
It shows the Republicans tryed but because the Democrats made it their pet project. Thanks for watching it.
Once again the Messenger is the Target! Who was saying theres a Problem and Whom was Saying everything is OK! The Regulator was the BAD guy(Messenger)! The Republicans should have DONE more NO Question but the Warning was SOUNDED then. Once again both Partys Screwed up but at least LIBS are Blaming entire Republican Party and not Just BUSH! I guess the NEXT TWO years with LIBS in Control before Fanny Mae/Freddy Max IMPLODED dunt Count!
Chris,you are correct. What you house liberal forgets is that this whole ENTIRE ECONOMIC MESS was brought upon the U.S. by them. Yes,it started with the HOUSING CRISIS.It was not Raines alone but congress itself. Hmmmm,when was Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac set-up? Hmmmm, Who controlled conress then?The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) (NYSE: FNM), commonly known as Fannie Mae, is a stockholder-owned corporation chartered by Congress in 1968 as a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), but founded in 1938 during the Great Depression. (DEMOCRATS)The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), known as Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE), is a government sponsored enterprise (GSE) of the United States federal government. (DEMOCRATS)Besides Raines there is Dodd,Rangel,Reid,Pelosi,Schummer,Murtha,,,etc.Give it a rest already.
Chris and Christopher are both right. The liberal world is coming to an end and they wont go out easy.
Holy smokes guy dont you remember early in the Bush administration when they were sounding the alarms about the coming catastrophe in the mortgage business because of the big push by liberls to make home ownership easy and available to everybody?I do. And it was the liberal media and the leftist loons in the democrat party that started the demonization and smear campaigns against those who were issueing the warnings.Remember? Republicans dont want the poor to own their own homes, Those meanspirited Republicans are assaulting the poor again.If the republicans are guilty of anything it was having a wet noodle for a spine! They should have launched a campaign against these rodents in the democrat party and the media and we wouldnt be in the mess we are in now!This was a liberal program fought for and protected by and run by liberals and it was a catastrophe for the nation. Of that there is no arguement.Hell even Bill Clinton Has aknowledged that!
Chris, what I don't understand is that the Republicans in 2004 had control of the House, the Senate and the White House. They could have done something if they wanted to. Are you saying the Democrats blocked them from regulating the banking industry and averting disaster?
Are you saying that the Republicans blocked the health care reform bill? See how stupid you are Bruce? Thanks for taking the bait little buddy.
No, Republicans aren't technically blocking health care reform, but they are certainly not helping, Chris. Republicans certainly could be more on board with reforming health care. Only one Republican voted for reform in the House and he is from a D +25 district in Louisiana. And Democrats, to their detriment sometimes, have a wider diversity of political thought than Republicans, so on some level they are their own worst enemy.
On board with reform of a socialist nature? I think not ! Democrats (real one's) should be on board with the Republican (Free-market) plan.
Hey Bruce is not Louisiana Where that Great Sen Reid offered the Senator from Louisiana a 300 Million Dollar INCENTIVE for her VOTE! Was that not TAX PAYERS money used in this PAY for VOTE SCHEME? Wonder how thats going to work NOW with all those other Senators with their HANDS out expecting PORK! Bruce your begining to sound like the Indian that shot at a deer with a Bow and Arrow ,MISSED, and then BLAMED the ARROWS!
Bruce all along you have been blamming the Republicans for the health care reform getting hung up. Nice to see you changed your mind. We will remind you of that when you play your liberal games.
Bruce what you are seeing is that the Republicans and the Democrats are being nudged into the conservative idealogy and away from the liberal less productive idealogy. Conservatives are starting to take bake both parties. It sucks to be a liberal.
This health care bill is another pork filled bill of payoffs and bribes. Great point AL.
Doug, yeah Bush admin wanted to reel things back in right?lol.....read these...BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW HUD "ZERO DOWN PAYMENT" MORTGAGE Initiative Aimed at Removing Major Barrier to Homeownership LAS VEGAS - As part of President Bush's ongoing effort to help American families achieve the dream of homeownership, Federal Housing Commissioner John C. Weicher today announced that HUD is proposing to offer a "zero down payment" mortgage, the most significant initiative by the Federal Housing Administration in over a decade. This action would help remove the greatest barrier facing first-time homebuyers - the lack of funds for a down payment on a mortgage. Speaking at the National Association of Home Builders' annual convention, Commissioner Weicher indicated that the proposal, part of HUD's Fiscal Year 2005 budget request, would eliminate the statutory requirement of a minimum three percent down payment for FHA-insured single-family mortgages for first-time homebuyers.No downpayment!!!! Thought it was the dems who made it so easy.....lol Then there's the 2002 speech by Bush...One of the barriers to homeownership is the inability to make a downpayment. And if one of the goals is to increase homeownership, it makes sense to help people pay that downpayment.... And let me talk about some of the progress which we have made to date, as an example for others to follow. First of all, government sponsored corporations that help create our mortgage system -- I introduced two of the leaders here today -- they call those people Fannie May and Freddie Mac, as well as the federal home loan banks, will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion. (Applause.) I want to thank Leland and Franklin for that commitment. It's a commitment that conforms to their charters, as well, and also conforms to their hearts.This means they will purchase more loans made by banks after Americans, Hispanics and other minorities, which will encourage homeownership. Freddie Mac will launch 25 initiatives to eliminate homeownership barriers. Under one of these, consumers with poor credit will be able to get a mortgage with an interest rate that automatically goes down after a period of consistent payments.Wait a minute buy more....what buy more...WTF???Down goes Douglas, down goes Douglas
Its already been said the Republicans did there share during last eight years and BOTH sides Screwed up Regarding Mortgages BUT some Write on and on about same old NEWS. Both Parties are the PROBLEM. So is always looking behind and FORGETING whats AHEAD! Facts Figures Percents Polls,Boils down, who gives a CRAP if the PAST is what you live by. Anybody says giving LOANS to UNQUALIFIED Borrowers to make them and PARTY feel GOOD are the Problem. For Heavenas sake MOVE ON!
Once again Joey is a blowing a bunch of HooeyFact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years— including the present year— denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis. It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis. Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago. Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter? We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't. Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter? Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis. Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs. Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing! The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead. The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.
Poor Little Joey, It all started under clinton and even he admitted it was a mistake and it is painfully obvious it was liberal democrats in charge of implementation and running and then defending this failed program when questions started to be raised.Blarney frank reminded me of that Iraqi guy on TV when we were invading and running through the streets of Baghdad, He was still procaliming every thing was fine, there is no crisis, the Americans have been beaten back.That was Blarney declaring the institutions were sound , there was no crisis even as a tidal wave of failures were drowning the nation.And true to form after everything ends in disaster here comes the sit and spinners procaiming it is all the republicans fault.It never fails.Is that you down there Joey?Nothing could more painfully demonstrate what is wrong with Congress than the current financial crisis. Among the Congressional "leaders" invited to the White House to devise a bailout "solution" are the very people who have for years created the risks that have now come home to roost. Five years ago, Barney Frank vouched for the "soundness" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and said "I do not see" any "possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury." Moreover, he said that the federal government has "probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing." Earlier this year, Senator Christopher Dodd praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for "riding to the rescue" when other financial institutions were cutting back on mortgage loans. He too said that they "need to do more" to help subprime borrowers get better loans. In other words, Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd wanted the government to push financial institutions to lend to people they would not lend to otherwise, because of the risk of default. The idea that politicians can assess risks better than people who have spent their whole careers assessing risks should have been so obviously absurd that no one would take it seriously. But the magic words "affordable housing" and the ugly word "redlining" led to politicians directing where loans and investments should go, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and various other coercions and threats. The roots of this problem go back many years, but since the crisis to which all this led happened on George W. Bush's watch, that is enough for those who think in terms of talking points, without wanting to be confused by the facts. In reality, President Bush tried unsuccessfully, years ago, to get Congress to create some regulatory agency to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. N. Gregory Mankiw, his Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, warned in February 2004 that expecting a government bailout if things go wrong "creates an incentive for a company to take on risk and enjoy the associated increase in return." Since risky investments usually pay more than safer investments, the incentive is for a government-supported enterprise to take bigger risks, since they get more profit if the risks pay off and the taxpayers get stuck with the losses if not. The government does not guarantee Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, but the widespread assumption has been that the government would step in with a bailout to prevent chaos in financial markets. Alan Greenspan, then head of the Federal Reserve System, made the same point in testifying before Congress in February 2004. He said: "The Federal Reserve is concerned" that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were using this implicit reliance on a government bailout in a crisis to take more risks, in order to "multiply the profitability of subsidized debt." Chairman Greenspan added his voice to those urging Congress to create a "regulator with authority on a par with that of banking regulators" to reduce the riskiness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a riskiness ultimately borne by the taxpayers.
awww, Douglas its hard to pick oneself off the floor and come back with anything but partisan crap isn't it. I pointed out that despite your conclusion that its all Clintons fault, the Bush admin (despite its supposed understanding of the risks) increased the risks by making FHA and HUD make 0 down loans to people with bad credit. That it asked Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy more risky loans. and then there's the pre-fannie/freddie bailout pruchasing of loans by in trouble banks. Temporary Stimulus Act Authority May Add $10-$15 Billion in Mortgage Sales This YearMcLean, VA – Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) has agreed to purchase billions of dollars of new conforming jumbo mortgages with original loan amounts up to $729,750 from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Chase, CitiMortgage and WaMu. Freddie Mac conforming jumbo mortgages can be used to finance properties in hundreds of high cost markets designated in the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 President Bush signed on February 13.Today's announcement marks the first large-scale effort to jump-start the stalled jumbo mortgage market under the Economic Stimulus Act, which temporarily raised Freddie Mac's conforming loan limit from $417,000 to as much as $729,750 through December 31, 2008. Freddie Mac's purchase of conforming jumbo mortgages is restricted to 224 high cost markets where median home prices exceed Freddie Mac's $417,000 loan limit.So if the right new the problems and new the risks why did they increase the amount of loans freddie and Fannie had to buy. Doesn't make sense to me.
Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.