Obama -- The Job Killer

[CMike]

You have a very offensive character.

I do make an assumption, you are correct. Though not in my intention. A hypothetical example, you see, with a bit of opinion attached.

You continue to think that I stated he has vast business experience... even though I stated it is only unfair to say he has none. It's almost as bad as the death committees lie.

There is a definition given to people who continue to think and spread a lie, such as Obama having no business experience, and care very little for knowing the truth. Ignorance

I regret to say I cannot stay around and enlighten you all evening. Please make sure your future statements are less ignorant.

I said he has no business experience. You said I am making an assumption.

The reason that it's not an assumption is because I am aware of his biography.

I even posted it.

He either has it or he hasn't. He hasn't.

If he does, you can quickly point it out from his bio.

The problem (at least one of them) with you and your fellow socialists is that in your envy and jealously of business owners, that you wish to loot, you are hurting real people, and damaging the core of the economy that creates jobs.

You are not confus, you are confused amd very .

You honestly think a biography would be that specific about his business experience? Your credibility continues to dwindle.

You continue to make assumptions, and monger fear. That is the republican way!

Yes.

You are right the republican way is to go by the facts.

 

[sboyle24]

I said he has no business experience. You said I am making an assumption.

The reason that it's not an assumption is because I am aware of his biography.

I even posted it.

He either has it or he hasn't. He hasn't.

If he does, you can quickly point it out from his bio.

The problem (at least one of them) with you and your fellow socialists is that in your envy and jealously of business owners, that you wish to loot, you are hurting real people, and damaging the core of the economy that creates jobs.

You are not confus, you are confused amd very .

You honestly think a biography would be that specific about his business experience? Your credibility continues to dwindle.

You continue to make assumptions, and monger fear. That is the republican way!

Yes.

You are right the republican way is to use fear and lies.

Finally you come to realize the truth.

 

[CMike]

You honestly think a biography would be that specific about his business experience? Your credibility continues to dwindle.

You continue to make assumptions, and monger fear. That is the republican way!

Yes.

You are right the republican way is to use fear and lies.

Finally you come to realize the truth.

This is what I actually said.

"Yes.

You are right the republican way is to go by the facts."



What a douche bag.

 

[keee keee]

Obama is doing a great job at creating new jobs. He created 4 million new jobs since taking office. That is 4 million jobs for the unemployed which consists of going to the unemployment office, waiting in line, filling out paperwork to get an unemployment check, then going out to the mailbox to recieve and cash the check and repeating this every two weeks. Keep up the good work by the time Obama is done with the 4 year term there might be a few million more unemployed.

 

[CMike]

Obama is doing a great job at creating new jobs. He created 4 million new jobs since taking office. That is 4 million jobs for the unemployed which consists of going to the unemployment office, waiting in line, filling out paperwork to get an unemployment check, then going out to the mailbox to recieve and cash the check and repeating this every two weeks. Keep up the good work by the time Obama is done with the 4 year term there might be a few million more unemployed.

 

[keee keee]

Hope and Change=you will be hoping you have some small change left after this guy is done!!!

 

[HUGGY]

Obama to focus hard on economy after Democratic loss - CNN.com

"The president works each and every day on making our economy stronger and putting us in a position to where we're creating jobs, businesses are hiring again," Gibbs said. "I can certainly assure the American people that that is the chief focus of the president of the United States."


Obama is such a moron. He doesn't get it.

Every single proposal he has involves massive taxes.

Businesses are already struggeling and going bankrupt.

What does he think is going to happen when he imposes new taxes, when businesses already can't pay their current bills?

The way Obama proposes the private sector create jobs is by creating "green" jobs. However, I have yet to see any proof that there is a real demand for them, other than what Obama and his minions want.

If he truely wants to create jobs, he should immediately enact across the board tax reductions. This is how you create jobs. You give people more of their own money to help create jobs.

You are an idiot. You know little or nothing about what causes businesses to go bankrupt and fail. Listen up twit. Businesses fail because thier markets and customers dry up. They fail when they cannot finance expansion or bridge financial gaps between orders and payment for delivered goods or services. Morons like you think ...because you heard it somewhere that it is because of taxes. Well genius...you pay taxes AFTER you have made a profit...not before. AFTER you have paid your expenses such as payroll. It is the shortage of money for business loans that is crippling our economy..not taxes. That is a direct result of the wall street and banking nosedive which almost totally ruined our economy. I bet you think that is Obamas fault. You opinion is willfully ignorant therefore useless except for the subversion it supplies to the traitorous such as yourself..

Oh ya..Go Fuck Yourself.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrllCZw8jiM]YouTube - Stripes - Don't Call Me Francis[/ame]

Businesses fail when they don't have enough money to pay their expenses.

Here is a little test.

Does more taxes give businesss more money or less money?

Do more regulations give businesses more money to pay expenses or less money to pay expensees?

Do you think Obama's promises of more taxes and more regulations will be good or bad for businesses? When more businesses fail do you think it will create more or less jobs?

Do you think Obama's threats of more taxes and regulations will cause businesses to expand or to slim down?

What a bunch of idiots

How did you extrapolate Obama saying he was going to push for regulations on the financial sector that got us into this mess and taxes on thier transactions to repay our treasury for the costs these vermin rack up to pull thier greedy goulish asses out of the fire?

Where did you get that he was going to add taxes to all businesses?

I repeat ...you are the idiot here as well as a fool and a fear mongering sickophant for the apologists desperately trying to obscure how we got into this crisis, who caused it, how we are trying to insure it is not repeated and what remedies are being put in place to have those guilty repay us the cost.

You are either to stupid or dishonest to responsibly add to this discussion.

 

[CMike]

You are an idiot. You know little or nothing about what causes businesses to go bankrupt and fail. Listen up twit. Businesses fail because thier markets and customers dry up. They fail when they cannot finance expansion or bridge financial gaps between orders and payment for delivered goods or services. Morons like you think ...because you heard it somewhere that it is because of taxes. Well genius...you pay taxes AFTER you have made a profit...not before. AFTER you have paid your expenses such as payroll. It is the shortage of money for business loans that is crippling our economy..not taxes. That is a direct result of the wall street and banking nosedive which almost totally ruined our economy. I bet you think that is Obamas fault. You opinion is willfully ignorant therefore useless except for the subversion it supplies to the traitorous such as yourself..

Oh ya..Go Fuck Yourself.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrllCZw8jiM]YouTube - Stripes - Don't Call Me Francis[/ame]

Businesses fail when they don't have enough money to pay their expenses.

Here is a little test.

Does more taxes give businesss more money or less money?

Do more regulations give businesses more money to pay expenses or less money to pay expensees?

Do you think Obama's promises of more taxes and more regulations will be good or bad for businesses? When more businesses fail do you think it will create more or less jobs?

Do you think Obama's threats of more taxes and regulations will cause businesses to expand or to slim down?

What a bunch of idiots

How did you extrapolate Obama saying he was going to push for regulations on the financial sector that got us into this mess and taxes on thier transactions to repay our treasury for the costs these vermin rack up to pull thier greedy goulish asses out of the fire?

Where did you get that he was going to add taxes to all businesses?

I repeat ...you are the idiot here as well as a fool and a fear mongering sickophant for the apologists desperately trying to obscure how we got into this crisis, who caused it, how we are trying to insure it is not repeated and what remedies are being put in place to have those guilty repay us the cost.

You are either to stupid or dishonest to responsibly add to this discussion.

1) What got us in this mess was Clinton and rest of the democrats, who forced banks to give mortgages to people who didn't qualify for them

2) The government gave loans. Loans are supposed to be paid back. That's how the government gets their money back. Adding new taxes to banks will only cause the banks to pass it down to the consumers, WHICH IS ALL OF US, and hurt this economy even more.

3) The bank tax is one tax. Other taxes:

a) Not making the Bush tax cut permanent, which means a tax increase
b) The health care taxes which fortunately went down in flames
c) The cap & trade taxes and regulations

All this stuff which make knee jerk looters feel good, has a disastarous affect on the economy. And even though much of this hasn't occurred yet, just Obama's threats of it is enough to send chills down the private sector, and cause them to cut and slim down, because they know Tornado Obama is still going to pass through and be a disaster.

 

[HUGGY]

YouTube - Stripes - Don't Call Me Francis

Businesses fail when they don't have enough money to pay their expenses.

Here is a little test.

Does more taxes give businesss more money or less money?

Do more regulations give businesses more money to pay expenses or less money to pay expensees?

Do you think Obama's promises of more taxes and more regulations will be good or bad for businesses? When more businesses fail do you think it will create more or less jobs?

Do you think Obama's threats of more taxes and regulations will cause businesses to expand or to slim down?

What a bunch of idiots

How did you extrapolate Obama saying he was going to push for regulations on the financial sector that got us into this mess and taxes on thier transactions to repay our treasury for the costs these vermin rack up to pull thier greedy goulish asses out of the fire?

Where did you get that he was going to add taxes to all businesses?

I repeat ...you are the idiot here as well as a fool and a fear mongering sickophant for the apologists desperately trying to obscure how we got into this crisis, who caused it, how we are trying to insure it is not repeated and what remedies are being put in place to have those guilty repay us the cost.

You are either to stupid or dishonest to responsibly add to this discussion.

1) What got us in this mess was Clinton and rest of the democrats, who forced banks to give mortgages to people who didn't qualify for them
2) The government gave loans. Loans are supposed to be paid back. That's how the government gets their money back. Adding new taxes to banks will only cause the banks to pass it down to the consumers, WHICH IS ALL OF US, and hurt this economy even more.

3) The bank tax is one tax. Other taxes:

a) Not making the Bush tax cut permanent, which means a tax increase
b) The health care taxes which fortunately went down in flames
c) The cap & trade taxes and regulations

All this stuff which make knee jerk looters feel good, has a disastarous affect on the economy. And even though much of this hasn't occurred yet, just Obama's threats of it is enough to send chills down the private sector, and cause them to cut and slim down, because they know Tornado Obama is still going to pass through and be a disaster.

Just how does an American president "force" a bank to make a bad loan?

Are you really this stupid or do you think we are?

 

[CMike]

By passing a law telling the banks to do so.

 

[HUGGY]

By passing a law telling the banks to do so.

The president doesn't pass laws or "order the passage of laws". That would be Congresses job controlled by the republicans during Clintons administration. I know of no law that mandates banks to approve bad loans. I don't suppose you do either but let er rip. Post the law title and point to the words that back up your claim and I will play along and read the passages in your bill. I never want to be the willfully ignorant one so enlighten me.

 

[CMike]

By passing a law telling the banks to do so.

The president doesn't pass laws or "order the passage of laws". That would be Congresses job controlled by the republicans during Clintons administration. I know of no law that mandates banks to approve bad loans. I don't suppose you do either but let er rip. Post the law title and point to the words that back up your claim and I will play along and read the passages in your bill. I never want to be the willfully ignorant one so enlighten me.

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994. The group eventually produced a plan, of which Mason sent me a PDF of Chapter 4, the one that argues for creative measures to promote homeownership.
The very worst idea in the plan, which fortunately never gained approval, was to let first-time homebuyers freely tap their IRA and 401(k) retirement-savings plans with no penalty to scrounge up a downpayment. That, HUD estimated, would have "benefited" 600,000 families in the first five years.

Plenty of other ideas in the plan did become reality, though. Knowing what we know now about the housing bust, the earnest language in the document seems faintly ridiculous. Here's an excerpt. Read it closely and you can see the seeds of disaster being planted:

For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership.

Note the praise for "creativity." That kind of creativity in stretching boundaries we could use less of. Mason puts it well: "It strikes me as reckless to promote home sales to individuals in such constrained financial predicaments."[/QUOTE]

 

[HUGGY]

By passing a law telling the banks to do so.

The president doesn't pass laws or "order the passage of laws". That would be Congresses job controlled by the republicans during Clintons administration. I know of no law that mandates banks to approve bad loans. I don't suppose you do either but let er rip. Post the law title and point to the words that back up your claim and I will play along and read the passages in your bill. I never want to be the willfully ignorant one so enlighten me.

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994. The group eventually produced a plan, of which Mason sent me a PDF of Chapter 4, the one that argues for creative measures to promote homeownership.
The very worst idea in the plan, which fortunately never gained approval, was to let first-time homebuyers freely tap their IRA and 401(k) retirement-savings plans with no penalty to scrounge up a downpayment. That, HUD estimated, would have "benefited" 600,000 families in the first five years.

Plenty of other ideas in the plan did become reality, though. Knowing what we know now about the housing bust, the earnest language in the document seems faintly ridiculous. Here's an excerpt. Read it closely and you can see the seeds of disaster being planted:

For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership.

Note the praise for "creativity." That kind of creativity in stretching boundaries we could use less of. Mason puts it well: "It strikes me as reckless to promote home sales to individuals in such constrained financial predicaments."

[/QUOTE]

Ya OK. That reference is more a report of a statement of a desire than any kind of edict. Obviously the pressure to grant more loans would come from the banks. What would the president stand to gain by promoting more home ownership just the time when savings was on a decline. There was some merit to include people with less means to get in on the boom in inflation of house value as a way to get more people to spend the new equity they would accumulate therby add to the GNP and the money available for purchases. Not a bad plan but subject to an unerring rise in home value and that was impossible to predict or gaurantee.

 

[CMike]

The president doesn't pass laws or "order the passage of laws". That would be Congresses job controlled by the republicans during Clintons administration. I know of no law that mandates banks to approve bad loans. I don't suppose you do either but let er rip. Post the law title and point to the words that back up your claim and I will play along and read the passages in your bill. I never want to be the willfully ignorant one so enlighten me.

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994. The group eventually produced a plan, of which Mason sent me a PDF of Chapter 4, the one that argues for creative measures to promote homeownership.
The very worst idea in the plan, which fortunately never gained approval, was to let first-time homebuyers freely tap their IRA and 401(k) retirement-savings plans with no penalty to scrounge up a downpayment. That, HUD estimated, would have "benefited" 600,000 families in the first five years.

Plenty of other ideas in the plan did become reality, though. Knowing what we know now about the housing bust, the earnest language in the document seems faintly ridiculous. Here's an excerpt. Read it closely and you can see the seeds of disaster being planted:

For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership.

Note the praise for "creativity." That kind of creativity in stretching boundaries we could use less of. Mason puts it well: "It strikes me as reckless to promote home sales to individuals in such constrained financial predicaments."

Ya OK. That reference is more a report of a statement of a desire than any kind of edict. Obviously the pressure to grant more loans would come from the banks. What would the president stand to gain by promoting more home ownership just the time when savings was on a decline. There was some merit to include people with less means to get in on the boom in inflation of house value as a way to get more people to spend the new equity they would accumulate therby add to the GNP and the money available for purchases. Not a bad plan but subject to an unerring rise in home value and that was impossible to predict or gaurantee.[/QUOTE]

The government told the banks to find creative methods to get people into homes AND they did.

What is unclear?

 

[HUGGY]

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994. The group eventually produced a plan, of which Mason sent me a PDF of Chapter 4, the one that argues for creative measures to promote homeownership.
The very worst idea in the plan, which fortunately never gained approval, was to let first-time homebuyers freely tap their IRA and 401(k) retirement-savings plans with no penalty to scrounge up a downpayment. That, HUD estimated, would have "benefited" 600,000 families in the first five years.

Plenty of other ideas in the plan did become reality, though. Knowing what we know now about the housing bust, the earnest language in the document seems faintly ridiculous. Here's an excerpt. Read it closely and you can see the seeds of disaster being planted:

For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership.

Note the praise for "creativity." That kind of creativity in stretching boundaries we could use less of. Mason puts it well: "It strikes me as reckless to promote home sales to individuals in such constrained financial predicaments."

Ya OK. That reference is more a report of a statement of a desire than any kind of edict. Obviously the pressure to grant more loans would come from the banks. What would the president stand to gain by promoting more home ownership just the time when savings was on a decline. There was some merit to include people with less means to get in on the boom in inflation of house value as a way to get more people to spend the new equity they would accumulate therby add to the GNP and the money available for purchases. Not a bad plan but subject to an unerring rise in home value and that was impossible to predict or gaurantee.

The government told the banks to find creative methods to get people into homes AND they did.

What is unclear?[/QUOTE]

Well for starters you have changed or better put switched the OP from "law" or mandate to suggestion. That reduces your proof to next to nothing. Regaurdless of what anyone says the banks were responsible for the integruty of the loans no matter what anyone suggested. PIC baby. I am a pilot and no matter who is sitting in the rear seats they can make all the suggestions they want but if someone asks me to fly the plane into the ground or until it runs out of fuel I have to ignore them.

 

[CMike]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa655.pdf


A key weapon in the Cisneros arsenal wasthe Clinton administration’s changes to theCommunity Reinvestment Act.

The CRA was passed in 1977 and updated in 1995 to pres-sure lenders into making more loans to mod-erate-income borrowers by allowing regula-tors to deny merger approvals for banks with low CRA ratings. Even complaints brough tby activists, such as the leftist group ACORN,were counted in a bank’s CRA rating.Under political pressure, banks began issu-ing more loans to otherwise uncreditworthyborrowers while purchasing more CRA mort-gage-backed securities.29

As housing financee xpert Peter Wallison noted, “The most important fact associated with the CRA is the effort to reduce underwriting standards. . . .Once those standards were relaxed . . . they spread rapidly to the prime market and to subprime markets where loans were made bylenders other than insured banks.”30

Business Week columnist Peter Coy noted that the Clinton “administration went to ri-diculous lengths to increase the nationa lhomeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin down payments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-timebuyers with shaky financing and incomes.”31

The Clinton administration’s approach was encapsulated by the 1994 National Home-ownership Strategy, prepared under Cisner-os’s direction. Here is an excerpt from theplan:For many potential homebuyers, thelack of cash available to accumulate therequired downpayment and closingcosts is the major impediment to pur-chasing a home. Other households donot have sufficient available income tomake the monthly payments on mort-gages financed at market interest ratesfor standard loan terms. Financingstrategies, fueled by the creativity andresources of the private and public sec-tors, should address both of these finan-cial barriers to homeownership.32

The thrust is clear: if people don’t have “cash”or “income,” the government will help them get a house anyway. In the political drive to increase the home ownership rate, old-fash-ioned ideas such as individual responsibilityand the riskiness of real estate investmentwhere thrown by the wayside. Apparently embarrassed by this 1994 strategy document,HUD removed it from its website after thehousing bubble burst in recent years.Coy notes that the George W. Bush admin-istration “continued the practices becausethey dovetailed with his Ownership Societygoals, and of course Congress was stronglybehind the push.”33

But it was the Clinton administration that launched the all-out driveto put people into homes that they could not afford. That helped plant the seeds for thehousing boom and bust in the followingdecade, as financial expert Joseph R. Masonnoted:The Strategy certainly helped somerenters achieve the dream of home-ownership. But the Strategy was alsofundamentally misused to extendmore credit to prime borrowers, fuel-ing home price inflation. That homeprice inflation led builders to buildever more developments, using creativefinancing to leverage their bets onhome price appreciation in the bubbleenvironment, ultimately resulting inrecord foreclosures in the present mar-ketplace.34

Cisneros planted another seed for the housing bubble and its subsequent burst byputting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underconstant pressure to facilitate more lending to“underserved” markets.35 While Cisneros’sown HUD administration acknowledged that mortgages financed by Fannie and Freddie in“underserved” areas have a higher risk of default, it did not see that “there need be anys afety and soundness impediment” to the pol-6The thrust is clear: if people don’t have “cash”or “income,” thegovernment will help them get ahouse anyway. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
icy.36

It was under the direction of Cisneros that HUD agreed to allow Fannie and Freddiecredit toward its “affordable housing” targets by buying subprime mortgages.37

After four years of introducing economic distortions into housing markets, Henry Cisneros spent most of his post-HUD careermaking money in those markets, as many ex-HUD officials do.

In 2000, Cisneros formed a housing development company in partner-ship with KB Homes and became a KB direc-tor. The KB board also included the formerCEO of Fannie Mae, James Johnson. The NewYork Times noted that “it made for a cozy net-work.”38 Indeed, Fannie Mae bought orbacked many of the mortgages that were inKB development projects.

In 2001, Cisneros joined the board ofFannie Mae’s biggest client, the now notori-ous Countrywide Financial, the companythat was center stage in the subprime lendingscandals of recent years. When the housingbubble was inflating, Countrywide and KBtook full advantage of the liberalized lendingstandards fueled by HUD under Cisneros. Inaddition to the money he received as a KBdirector, Cisneros’ company, in which heheld a 65 percent stake, received $1.24 mil-lion in consulting fees from KB in 2002.39When Cisneros stepped down from Coun-trywide’s board in 2007, he called it a “well-managed company” and said that he had“enormous confidence” in its leadership.40

Yetone wonders whether Cinsneros was just try-ing to escape before the crash. Just days beforehis resignation, Countrywide announced a$1.2 billion loss, and reported that a third of itsborrowers were late on mortgage payments.41According to SEC records, Cisneros earned a$360,000 salary at Countrywide in 2006, andhe has gained $5 million from stock sales since2001.42

The Cuomo Years,1997–2001Andrew Cuomo joined the Clinton admin-istration as an assistant secretary of HUD in1993. He replaced Cisneros as secretary in1997, where he remained until the end ofClinton’s second term. Cuomo’s housing poli-cies followed the same approach as his prede-cessor—seeking personal publicity, panderingto special interest groups, and encouragingthose who were not financially suited for homeownership to nonetheless move into homes.Cuomo began cultivating his image atHUD as assistant secretary. In 1993, he orga-nized a lavish conference costing taxpayers$235,360 to announce a new anti-povertyprogram, and he flooded attendees with slo-ganeered shopping bags, HUD buttons, andglossy brochures. One observer called it a“rah-rah rally for Andrew Cuomo.”43 Cuomodoubled the number of top-level staff mem-bers under him, and in one of his years asassistant secretary, he spent almost $1 mil-lion on travel. According to the Wall StreetJournal, the lavish spending on “image-mak-ing . . . strained HUD budgets so much thatofficials have devised plans to pay some billsby diverting money from projects intendedto help people.”44Being assistant secretary was a good job,but Cuomo wanted the top spot. He got hischance when Cisneros announced his inten-tion to resign after

Clinton was reelected in 1996. Seattle Mayor Norm Rice was thoughtto be Clinton’s first choice to replace Cisneros,but he was knocked out when HUD launchedan investigation into his possible misuse of afederal loan. The investigation, which waslaunched a week after the 1996 election, hadbeen approved by Cuomo’s office. The resultwas that Clinton went with Cuomo as secre-tary. Rice was later cleared, but the timing ofthe investigation and a leak to the press sug-gested involvement by Cuomo.