Barney Frank, TARP, Freddie and Fanny

[freakscene]

Political Interference Seen in Bank Bailout Decisions

Barney Frank Goes to Bat for Lender, and It Gets an Infusion

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258284337504295.html

unbelievable he has the nerve to say something like this.

"I did feel that it was important to frankly try and save them since it was federal action that put them into the dumper," Mr. Frank says

how about...........it was specifically your inaction, Mr Frank.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5z9lD4C2Io&annotation_id=annotation_406054&feature=iv

[Stas1976]

"I think this is a case where Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are fundamentally sound. They're not in danger of going under I think they are in good shape going forward." — Barney Frank (D-Mass.), House Financial Services Committee chairman, July 14, 2008 (http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/worst-market-predictions/1634)

Two months later, the government forced the mortgage giants into conservatorships and pledged to invest up to $100 billion in each.

[freakscene]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a._s5F17cvP4&refer=home

`There should be a moratorium on bonuses,'' Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, told reporters yesterday in Washington. ``They have a negative incentive effect because they are the ones that say if you take a risk and it pays off you get a big bonus,'' and if it causes losses ``you don't lose anything.''


i wonder why he was so silent at Franklin Raines bonuses based on cooked books?

Jamie Gorelick ?

Jim Johnson ?

remember, he defended Freddie and Fanny, and still does today

he has zero credibility

[Survivor]

Eat Bush...

We all remember when Republicans were praising outsourcing saying our jobs would "evolve". That's right they evolved all the way to China and India. Thanks a lot Conservatives!!!

Bush Economic Report Praises 'Outsourcing' Jobs

Slightly old news but even more relevant today.

Job loss figures deliver a blow to Bush
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,,1323503,00.html
October 9, 2004
"George Bush became the first US president since Herbert Hoover in the Depression to preside over a loss of jobs..."

Bush Aides Back Off Jobs Numbers
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/18/national/main600945.shtml
The nation has lost about 2.2 million jobs since Bush became president.

Bush economic report praises 'outsourcing' jobs
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04041/271362.stm
"The embrace of foreign "outsourcing," an accelerating trend that has contributed to U.S. job losses in recent years and become an issue in the 2004 elections, is contained in the president's annual report to Congress on the health of the U.S. economy."

Republicans as usual.

Jobs Act Gives Corporations Who Outsource $149 Billion
Here's the voting record. http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001239.html
"In June 2004, the Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a bill that will give away 149 Billion dollars of your tax money to corporations in the name of "creating jobs"... But nowhere in the bill is the stipulation that in return for these tax breaks will the corporations receiving them must create jobs here in America. Here's the voting record. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll259.xml

White House Struggles with Jobs Outsourcing Criticism
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1675540
The President's top economic adviser, Greg Mankiw, said the outsourcing of jobs overseas was "probably a plus for the economy in the long run." His comments provoked criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, concerned about the number of jobs lost since the President took office."


Bush adviser backs off pro-outsourcing comment
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/12/bush.outsourcing/
Now, to get back to the question about outsourcing, I think outsourcing is a growing phenomenon, but it's something that we should realize is probably a plus for the economy in the long run," Mankiw said.

Bush Econ Advisor: Outsourcing OK
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/13/opinion/main600351.shtml
Mankiw wrote that the movement of U.S. jobs overseas due to cheaper labor costs – "outsourcing" he dubbed it in a remarkable display of political tone deafness – would prove "a plus for the economy in the long run," and was simply "a new way of doing international trade."

Students saying no to computer science
Cause: Bush doesn't care about IT Jobs -- Supports Outsourcing
http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-3513-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=4755&messageID=98885&start=-1
So much for American jobs "evolving" eh folks?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111287,00.html
WASHINGTON — Under new legislation introduced by a group of Senate Democrats on Thursday, American employers would be required to warn their employees and affected communities before moving any jobs overseas.

The Jobs for America Act (search) was introduced in response to President Bush's annual economic report, in which he highlighted the benefits of sending jobs to other countries.

Bush's Double Whammy on Jobs
First Bush killed jobs with bad economic management. Now he's making matters worse by slashing assistance for unemployed and dislocated workers.
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=175&contentID=251915
Consider the facts: Between 1992 and 2000, with the Clinton administration in charge, the nation's economy generated more than 20 million new private sector jobs. Since George W. Bush took office in 2001, the nation has lost 3.1 million private sector jobs. At this rate, Bush will become the first president since Herbert Hoover to produce a net job loss during his first term of office, and the first since Eisenhower to produce a net job loss over any term of office.

No jobs, no home, no money.

[Mastajab]

Survivor, Get off of Pelosi's dick.

[Survivor]

Survivor, Get off of Pelosi's dick.

I love a fight.
Take my cock and put it in your mouth- Bitch.

It was a story in another forum that some may have found interesting.

I hate the Government and Politicians.

You're barking up the wrong tree, DICK. :thefinger:

[Mastajab]

"It was a story in another forum that some may have found interesting."-survivor

Why would anyone find the garbage u posted interesting?? It's not even about Barney Frank, TARP, Freddy and Fanny. You're in the wrong thread.

Since you only copy and pasted, you prolly didn't even read what you posted. But if you were to read it you would find out it is about Outsourcing.......

Here's an article about Barney Frank, people might find interesting.
http://newsbusters.org/node/8119

"Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, an acknowledged homosexual, today confirmed that his Washington apartment had been used as a callboy headquarters by a male prostitute for a year and a half until late 1987. Responding to a story in today's Washington Times, Frank said he had hired the prostitute out of his own funds as a personal aide and fired him when he found out what was going on."

See Survivor? Barney Frank is like you.

[Survivor]

"It was a story in another forum that some may have found interesting."-survivor

Why would anyone find the garbage u posted interesting?? It's not even about Barney Frank, TARP, Freddy and Fanny. You're in the wrong thread.

No jobs, no money, no home. Asswipe

Since you only copy and pasted, you prolly didn't even read what you posted. But if you were to read it you would find out it is about Outsourcing.......

Living in Detroit outsourcing has become job one

Here's an article about Barney Frank, people might find interesting.
http://newsbusters.org/node/8119

"Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, an acknowledged homosexual, today confirmed that his Washington apartment had been used as a callboy headquarters by a male prostitute for a year and a half until late 1987. Responding to a story in today's Washington Times, Frank said he had hired the prostitute out of his own funds as a personal aide and fired him when he found out what was going on."

See Survivor? Barney Frank is like you.

I seriously doubt it ass wipe.
This forum has seen plenty of shit starters.
Now here you come with your little bag of courage.
You big and bad, but your little and sad.

Do your parents know your a cum loving she male?
Is this Michael Jackson? I bet your Jesse Jackson.
Don King? A Kool-Aid drinking Obama supporter?

What part of I hate "Politicians and Government" did you not
understand?

See Masterbater,
You have diarrhea on the mouth and constipation of the brain.

Hell, you maybe WALL STREETS EDGE or one of his
LOSER buddies. Are you a con man, liar and a thief too?
You just came around recently and now you want to start
shit with the wrong people.

I'll bet you're a Tranny ,If you get the right stock picks,
you can earn extra money and have your operation completed.

Buy J&J, they make bandages, you trannys use alot of them after an operation.
Try some pharma, lots of pain killers.
Psycho therapy, him/her all mixed up.
Your ass hole and mouth are the same.
Your dentist says you have cum cavities.

Now move along Queenie, see if you can start shit with
someone else around here.

[win/win]

:flybye: Trouble maker

[freakscene]

Survivor, Get off of Pelosi's dick.

lol !

:top:

[Survivor]

Watch it Freakscene---This battle does not concern you.
I do not like any politicians- democrat or republican, PERIOD

The tranny that started this shit is from wallstreetsedges forum.:thefinger:
Not that you would give a shit anyway.

[freakscene]

well, move it to one of your own threads. :)

this is about Barney Frank, TARP, Freddie and Fanny

[Survivor]

well, move it to one of your own threads. :)

this is about Barney Frank, TARP, Freddie and Fanny

Outsourcing has allot to do with tarp, the loss of jobs.
Too many companies have moved overseas killing our manufacturing.
No job, no money, no home. The root of the economic downturn.

[freakscene]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021609/content/01125107.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg


hehehehe

[win/win]

Create and destroy

The Flat Earthers Try to Pin Financial Meltdown on Fannie and Freddie
By Dean Baker, TruthOut.org. Posted October 15, 2008.

In the Flat Earth version, the real villains in the story were the public/private mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Tools


For the last month, most of the world has been watching the Wall Street gang drowning in their own greed as they threaten to pull the rest of us down with them. However, while we have been distracted, the Flat Earth Society has developed its narrative to explain the crisis.

In the Flat Earth version, the real villains in the story were the public/private mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Prominent Congressional Democrats like Senators Charles Schumer and Chris Dodd, and Representative Barney Frank, are cited as accomplices. According to the Flat-Earthers, the problem wasn't sleaze bag bankers pulling down tens of millions a year pushing predatory loans to people who didn't understand them; the real problem was Congressional Democrats, who wanted the government to help the poor and minorities buy homes.

Before addressing the Flat Earth argument, I should be very clear that I have long been a harsh critic of Fannie and Freddie. They committed a colossal mistake by failing to recognize the housing bubble. It is understandable that you could miss an $8 trillion housing bubble if you drive a bus or sell shoes for a living. It's a little harder to accept this sort of mistake from companies that own or guarantee trillions of dollars of mortgage debt.

I first warned that the collapse of the housing bubble would lead to serious problems for Fannie and Freddie in the fall of 2002 , before they began to move into the risky mortgages that were the immediate cause of their collapse. When almost all you own is mortgage debt, and the mortgage default rate rises to several times its normal level, it is virtually guaranteed that you're going to face serious problems. Obviously, Fannie and Freddie's venture into more risky mortgages in the years 2005 to 2007 worsened the problem.

While no one should shed any tears over the collapse of these two giants - the top management and shareholders got what they deserved - it is equally ridiculous to lay the blame for the financial crisis on the shoulders of Fannie and Freddie.

The underlying problem was the housing bubble, which Alan Greenspan allowed to grow unchecked and, arguably, actively promoted. The bubble was accentuated by the willingness of banks to ignore normal prudential standards in issuing mortgages and to make loans that they knew could not be paid off by the borrowers. And, of course, leveraging themselves to the sky guaranteed full-fledged disaster

Banks would issue these loans because they knew they could dump them into the secondary market where securitizers would peddle them off to suckers all round the world. This is where Fannie and Freddie came in. They purchased many of the junk mortgages issued by banks in the years 2005 to 2007. According to the Flat-Earthers, this makes Fannie and Freddie the cause of the current crisis.

There is one basic problem with the Flat Earth story: Fannie and Freddie jumped into the junk mortgage market because they were trying to keep pace with the private issuers of mortgage-backed securities. Fannie and Freddie made a conscious decision to dive into the junk in order to protect their market share, which was being seriously eroded by the aggressive tactics of private giants like Citigroup and Merrill Lynch.

The market share of Fannie and Freddie. in the years 2004 to 2007, never came close to its level before the junk market took off. According to data from the Federal Reserve Board, Fannie and Freddie securitized $315.2 billion worth of mortgages in 2002, accounting for 50.1 percent of the new mortgage debt that year. In 2006, they securitized $276.0 billion in mortgages, giving them a market share of just 34.8 percent.

Fannie and Freddie's conduct was despicable. Their decision to dive into the junk certainly contributed to the further expansion of the bubble and worsened the pain from its eventual collapse. However, they were followers, not leaders. They didn't cause the bubble and the subprime craziness. This train had already left the station. Fannie and Freddie's crime was going along for the ride.

Fannie and Freddie could have instead played a positive role in this crisis. Suppose in 2004 or 2005 one of these mortgage giants issued a statement warning of the dangerous over-valuation in many housing markets across the country. Instead of easing mortgage standards, imagine that Fannie or Freddie announced that it was tightening its rules for mortgages in the most over-valued markets, requiring nonborrowed down payments of 20 percent, or even 30 percent, in order to protect against anticipated price declines.

This action would have produced howls of outrage from builders, realtors, and other big beneficiaries of the housing bubble. It also would have led to headlines and possibly some serious analysis of the evidence for a housing bubble. It may have saved the country from much of the pain it is now suffering.

But this sort of step would have required real courage and leadership, traits rarely found in high positions in Washington, or on Wall Street. Fannie and Freddie should be blamed for following the herd off the cliff. They stand out as especially big sheep. But only the Flat-Earthers

[win/win]

Fed up.

The financial crisis has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess

[Renegade]

outsourcing didn't kill american manufacturing, union labor did,,,,,,,,,,,,,