I thought others might find this NYT article from 1999 interesting. A few highlights:
NYT said: 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.
NYT said: In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
I've been reading editorials that allude to this easing of credit restrictions under the Clinton administration, but it's always interesting to open up the time capsule and find out for sure.
I'd blame American Dream of a home with a picket fence Two decades of presidents pushing for more home ownership every which way didn't help any either.
walletfart said: Excellent find, almost sounds like it was written today and backdated to 1999. Talk about great ammo for the Republicans to dig up.
It'll go back to throwing stones from a glass house There is a nice GWB quote in one of the earlier threads urging/demanding more Americans to own homes.
walletfart said: Excellent find, almost sounds like it was written today and backdated to 1999. Talk about great ammo for the Republicans to dig up.
"I believe owning a home is an essential part of economic security.
We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems. So I've set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010.
And so what are the barriers that we can deal with here in Washington? Well, probably the single barrier to first-time homeownership is high down payments. People take a look at the down payment, they say that's too high, I'm not buying. They may have the desire to buy, but they don't have the wherewithal to handle the down payment. We can deal with that. And so I've asked Congress to fully fund an American Dream down payment fund which will help a low-income family to qualify to buy, to buy. (Applause.)
We believe when this fund is fully funded and properly administered, which it will be under the Bush administration, that over 40,000 families a year -- 40,000 families a year -- will be able to realize the dream we want them to be able to realize, and that's owning their own home. (Applause.)"
gosocks
Senior Member
posted: Sep. 29, 2008 @ 1:45p
McCain sponsored a bill in 2005 that would have averted this crisis by tightening standards at Freddie and Fannie. The Democrats voted as a block against it:
Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
walletfart said: Excellent find, almost sounds like it was written today and backdated to 1999. Talk about great ammo for the Republicans to dig up.Great ammo for the Republicans, if you want to show that in the eight years following, their president/party did nothing to change the policy -- only expand it even further.
RushnRockt said: I'd blame American Dream of a home with a picket fence Two decades of presidents pushing for more home ownership every which way didn't help any either. Amen to that. back in 2005 in my first year in job, my collegues loughed at me as I told them that I do nto have enough money to buy a house. Their point was, "we are buying house to make money". Hope they have enough now to live in a decent apartment.
buyus
Senior Member - 1K
posted: Sep. 29, 2008 @ 3:05p
From the same article "The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets".
so whom to blame? I think neither Dems nor Reps are not the one to blame. It is the under writers themselves. Since it was a pilot program they could have scrapped it well before they got in to the mud.
jaimelobo said: walletfart said: Excellent find, almost sounds like it was written today and backdated to 1999. Talk about great ammo for the Republicans to dig up.Great ammo for the Republicans, if you want to show that in the eight years following, their president/party did nothing to change the policy -- only expand it even further.
I agree, both parties are to blame. However, this is the oldest/hardest evidence of a "root cause" that I've seen posted. My comment is that if they wanted to, the Reps could post this on their side.
... until one of you digs up something older with HW
Good find. The writing's been on the wall for almost a decade.
There are a lot of people who've been in position to do something about it during all those years who've been asleep at the wheel. Or worse than asleep at the wheel, accomplice of the whole debacle when they promoted more excesses (bargain low interest rates fro years, ARMania, 0 down payment, etc.) rather than acknowledging that it was a train wreck waiting to happen. It's hard to believe that some lenders, Feds, or government officials still have the nerve of claiming having been blindsided by the phenomena when the risks were clear back almost 10 years ago.
I give the post green for bringing the point to our attention.
However, I'd be willing to bet that there are at least 50+ NYT articles where a doomsday prohetic message was conveyed and nothing near doomsday happened.
jaimelobo said: walletfart said: Excellent find, almost sounds like it was written today and backdated to 1999. Talk about great ammo for the Republicans to dig up.Great ammo for the Republicans, if you want to show that in the eight years following, their president/party did nothing to change the policy -- only expand it even further.I hate that people on either side would try to use it as ammo. Can't we all just agree that pretty much everybody screwed up?
sensia said: Amen to that. back in 2005 in my first year in job, my collegues loughed at me as I told them that I do nto have enough money to buy a house. Their point was, "we are buying house to make money". Hope they have enough now to live in a decent apartment.
Don't worry. The next iteration of the bailout bill will include more "homeowner protections" to help them pay for their homes with your money, while you still live in a rented apartment. Isn't Communism wonderful?
Edit: Technologist correctly pointed out that taxing me to buy some irresponsible dolt a house is called Socialism. If the government were to tax me to buy and operate a business, like AIG insurance, then that would be called Communism.
taxmantoo said: sensia said: Amen to that. back in 2005 in my first year in job, my collegues loughed at me as I told them that I do nto have enough money to buy a house. Their point was, "we are buying house to make money". Hope they have enough now to live in a decent apartment.
Don't worry. The next iteration of the bailout bill will include more "homeowner protections" to help them pay for their homes with your money, while you still live in a rented apartment. Isn't Communism wonderful?
It isn't Communism, it is Socialism....
Not that I like that either!
Dogmatix
Happy Member
posted: Sep. 29, 2008 @ 5:10p
Great find . Thought this maybe of interest too (A bit long but gives some insights into the genesis of the issue)
One reason I'm not convinced that Clinton-era policies caused the subprime problems we have today, is that that subprime lending didn't really take off until 2004. The WSJ has a graph (Subprime Graph) that really captures this point. So the way I see it, some major change had to happen closer to 2004. I know that in 2004 the SEC allowed the big 5 brokerage firms (Lehman, Bear, etc) to double their allowable leverage, and we know they took full advantage and played a lot with mortgage backed securities.
Furthermore, the article you reference only talks about them lowering the interest rate on a 30 year conforming loan for people with low credit scores that pay on time after 2 years. I don't think this kind of relaxed lending standards are what caused all of the problems we have today.
A big oil, big tobacco, war mongering shill posted the below :?)
White House warned 17 times about problems with Fannie and Freddie
September 22, 2008 - 11:07 ET
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."
2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)
September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.
September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)
September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.
September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)
2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.
January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.
February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
* "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08) * "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08) * Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
(White House Press Release)
shahen
Happy Member
posted: Sep. 29, 2008 @ 6:32p
cebow said: One reason I'm not convinced that Clinton-era policies caused the subprime problems we have today,
Of course they didn't. Blaming minorities, the poor and of course Bill Clinton for the current economic mess are the new Republican talking points being trotted around the net in various versions. The problem with the argument is that first of all, as you pointed out, the frenzy of subprime loans did not hit the market until the past 4 or 5 years-long after Mr. Clinton had left office. And.....AND Bush bragged about programs and initiatives that his administration either started or expanded to increase home ownership, many of those which featured risky practices like no down payment.
Anyone who believes that banks and lenders made subprime loans under pressure from Clinton policies and not because they wanted to make a buck really doesn't understand the world of business and finance at all. $$ rules the day and they would not have made those loans if they didn't think they were going to make a profit. Period.
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers
By Eliot Spitzer Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A25
Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.
Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices. ad_icon
What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.
When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
jackcrawfish said: I give the post green for bringing the point to our attention.
However, I'd be willing to bet that thee are at least 50+ NYT articles where a doomsday prohetic message was conveyed and nothing near doomsday happened.Double amen to that. Good post by OP to bring to our attention that the Dems also share responsibility, but it's kind of interesting - we always remember the articles that "predict" what may happen and who is precipitating it, but seem to conveniently forget the many other articles written at the time that predicted something quite different. For example, many people of a certain age recall the "common knowledge" that prognosticator Jean Dixon predicted that President Kennedy would be assassinated. She actually never said that. She certainly predicted that "the president" would be assassinated (in, as it turned out, approximately the correct timeframe), but she predicted that "the President" would be Nixon!
Finding a truly accurate prognosticator is almost as hard as finding a mutual find manager who had beaten his index in 14 of the last 15 years....
Ustas
Member
posted: Sep. 29, 2008 @ 8:05p
gosocks said: McCain sponsored a bill in 2005 that would have averted this crisis by tightening standards at Freddie and Fannie. The Democrats voted as a block against it:
"The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190 Guess what? Franklin Raines now one of Barak Obama' top advisers.
gosocks said: McCain sponsored a bill in 2005 that would have averted this crisis by tightening standards at Freddie and Fannie. That bill would have only saved F&F from going under, or most likely they would still have gone under but their size would have been smaller. It would have not averted the housing bubble and the current credit crisis. F&F purchased mostly conventional 30-year fixed mortgages with their underwriting standard. They also purchased some subprime adjustable loans but the worst subprime loans such as the liars loans were not purchased by F&F--those were sold in securitizations by wall street. The companies to blame in originating the worst liars loan are the new centuries and ameriquests. In fact, I remember in early 2007 either Freddie or Fannie even came out and declared that they successfully avoided the subprime problem--I am not kidding! Those mortgage originators who blew up since 2006 may have been forgotten.
Ustas said: Guess what? Franklin Raines now one of Barak Obama' top advisers. Only according to a McCain Ad based on disputable facts:
According to Washington Post fact checkers,
Analysis: This John McCain ad is based on a disputed premise. There's no dispute that Obama has no background in economics -- but then, neither does McCain, which makes this an odd charge for the Arizona senator to hurl.
Fannie Mae did collapse, requiring a government takeover, and Raines, its former chairman, paid $25 million in April to settle a case brought by federal authorities investigating his role in the agency's accounting problems. But he has never been a close adviser to Obama.
That means he was and / or is an adviser to Obama.
OK ericgo07, OK, im real ... do you not dispute what i put forth ... sounds good ... at least your not doing what obama said to do ... "Argue With them, Get In Their Face" ... I expect a real loud arrogant response that has nothing to do with what i put forth ...
How about no rubber stamp (they still need dem help for alot of stuff) here in these last two years .... arguably the worst years of the crisis ...
2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)
September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.
September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)
2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.
January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.
February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
* "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08) * "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08) * Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190 Guess what? Franklin Raines now one of Barak Obama' top advisers.
Republican tactics: Lie, cheat and steal.
I see you're employing the first one.
jahnke771
Broke Member
posted: Sep. 30, 2008 @ 2:29a
nycll said: Ustas said: Guess what? Franklin Raines now one of Barak Obama' top advisers. Only according to a McCain Ad based on disputable facts:
According to Washington Post fact checkers,
Analysis: This John McCain ad is based on a disputed premise. There's no dispute that Obama has no background in economics -- but then, neither does McCain, which makes this an odd charge for the Arizona senator to hurl.
Fannie Mae did collapse, requiring a government takeover, and Raines, its former chairman, paid $25 million in April to settle a case brought by federal authorities investigating his role in the agency's accounting problems. But he has never been a close adviser to Obama.
WTF? Who the hell has $25 million dollars floating around? How much was this guy really paid to ruin Fannie Mae? I sure want that job. Washington Post?! LMAO!
Reposting this from the main bailout thread as it's relevant to old predictions:
In discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, Andrew Jackson said:
"Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves."
Wouldn't it be simpler to ban all lobbying activity by Fannie/Freddie? I assume they have been able to "convince" congresspeople for years to avoid tightening any regulations?
Of course, such a restriction would have to be voted on by those same Congressmen. Who no doubt will feel no fallout from any of this.
walletfart said: Reposting this from the main bailout thread as it's relevant to old predictions:
In discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, Andrew Jackson said:
"Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves."
jahnke771 said: A group called the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 is Sen. Barack Obama.
Now remember, he's only been in the Senate four years, but he still managed to grab the No. 2 spot ahead of John Kerry — decades in the Senate — and Chris Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people and, as it turns out, some people who couldn't afford them.Not sure what numbers you (or Fox News) are looking at, but here are the top 10 Fannie Mae PAC recipients report for 2006 (compiled every 2 years) Linked
Talent, James M (R-MO) $10,000 Menendez, Robert (D-NJ) $10,000 Harris, Katherine (R-FL) $9,000 Conrad, Kent (D-ND) $9,000 Carper, Tom (D-DE) $9,000 Santorum, Rick (R-PA) $8,000 Nelson, Ben (D-NE) $7,500 Chafee, Lincoln D (R-RI) $7,500 Bennett, Robert F (R-UT) $7,500 Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $7,000 Burns, Conrad (R-MT) $7,000
Obama that cycle had a $2,000 contribution (#28 on the list), in 2004 (year he was elected), he recieved a similar $2k contribution), he is not even listed on the 2008 list (neither is McCain).
Neither McCain or Obama are on the Freddie Mac PAC list.
Now there may be some other ways that contributions are calculated, but those are only reference I found for Freddie or Fannie on their site. I also didn't see any way to find a cumulative total (only reporting years), but maybe if you have an account and log in, there are other reports available. It appears that what Fox News, sorry you, are doing is playing fast and loose with the statistics, the total contributions to the campaign includes individual donations from employees of Freddie and Fannie, that is hardly the same as lobbying money.
BTW, here's the link to Fox article from which you stole your post word for word. You really should change a word or two when you plagerize, don't they teach that at your school?
While I'm at it, here's the article with the facts about Obama and the "supposed" links of advisors to Fannie/Freddie
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.