Truth Is Starting To Leak Out: Barney Frank, Chris Dodd…Clinton Cronies

quite the opposite,

it was the lenders, many not even banks, that BEGGED Fannie mae to cover more subprime loans or lower standard requirement loans ....
Wow you're out of touch on this one babe. The Democrats forced the banks to loan to poor quality credit, and required Fannie and Freddie to buy them.

The actual history of this thing, via an article in your beloved New York Times written in 1999:
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...illy-loses-it-on-barney-frank.html#post824762
 
On Sept. 11, 2003, the Bush administration proposed to Congress a new agency under the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie and Freddie, with authority to set capital-reserve requirements, veto new lines of business and determine whether the two quasi-government lenders were adequately managing the risk of their ballooning portfolios.

Then Treasury Secretary John Snow almost begged Barney Frank to support Fannie and Freddie reform.

Frank’s quote "These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Many are familiar with the definition of a liberal “One who will give the shirt off of someone else’s back.”

Democrats obviously believe in affordable housing for their imagined “victims.” The vast majority of Americans, persist, watch their credit, work hard and pay their mortgages on time.

The deadbeats, the largest constituency of the nanny-state Democrat Party, were given housing they couldn't afford, now Dems want the rest of us to pay off their defaulted mortgages.

Joe Biden said in last Thursday’s debate, these people should not only have renegotiated loans and lower rates but reduced principals.

Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayars, all the sixties hippies and flower children now in control of the Democrat Party are in REDISTRIBUTION heaven.

See Barney Franks and other Dems’ own words—You Tube--Search “Fannie Mae hearings”

Over 2 million recent views and rising rapidly.

Keep spreading the word.

Don’t be discouraged by the angry attacks of nanny-state believers. Their insecurity makes them love government solutions and redistribution, and attempts to cover-up this Democrat scandal.


Key words: a new agency under the Treasury Department

Would it run as smoothly as the Department of Homeland Security, FISA, FEMA, GAO, and the DOJ? :cuckoo:
 
Bailout Blame Game - Christopher Westley - Mises Institute

Bailout Blame Game
Daily Article by Christopher Westley | Posted on 10/7/2008

When the bailout passed last week, no one was surprised. In fact, what looked like a principled opposition to massive legal theft on Monday was transformed into a done backroom deal by Friday once the bill ballooned from three to 400-plus pages, filled with crumbs that congressmen could throw to their districts. It may be that, 25 years from now, economic historians will note socialized credit markets came to America in exchange for production credits for "marine renewables" and new regulations for "residential top-load clothes washers," which were among many of the riders added to the bailout legislation as the infamous week wore on.

Personally, I am still a long-term optimist, but as a student of the Depression I know that Congress and the executive can do much damage before the long term gets here, and indeed, they can delay its arrival indefinitely. Will the conservatives who supported this legislation lay into a President Obama two or three years hence, in the event that the economy devolves into a repeat of the 1970s, thanks in large part to government's attempt to forestall market forces over the last two weeks? This seems likely. Our current problems resulted from the infusion of credit in the past. To think that infusion today will not have the same effect in the future is to challenge pesky things like natural and economic laws.

Since societies that challenge them risk peril, I thought it may be helpful to at least identify some of the people whose actions and ideas helped turn the tide last week. Their numbers are many, and any list will by necessity be abridged. Still, if the health of a society and culture is related to the quality of the theories that are accepted, then knowing some of the sources of bad theories is key for turning the tide back again.

Besides, blame games can be fun. My own version involves taking a swig of Victory Gin whenever the following names pop up in bailout analyses.

Karl Marx
He predicted this, sort of, in the fifth plank of the Communist Manifesto, which discusses the inevitability of socialized capital markets in the capitalist countries. The problem is that he believed this would happen because of inherent characteristics in the market system, whereas in truth there is nothing within capitalism per se that motivated Messrs. Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke. In terms of understanding capital, Marx fails in comparison to the Austrian Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, while those who want to understand the underlying forces explaining government growth would best avoid Marx and read Böhm-Bawerk's student, Ludwig von Mises, on economic interventionism. Nonetheless, there is great irony in the fact that, 17 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States decided that market forces fail when it comes to capital. Somewhere, this slovenly German malcontent must be smiling.

Lawrence Halprin
You may not know this name or how it relates to our current mess, but rest assured, it is closely tied to it. This is because Halprin designed the pretentious and misleading memorial to Franklin Roosevelt that is on the National Mall in Washington, DC. Passersby learn how fear is a great justification for government expansion, which helps inform how the promulgation of unfounded fear was key to the bailout's success last week. They also learn how Roosevelt's "bold" actions, in the midst of the Depression helped combat it. This is also a myth. As my Mises Institute colleague Bob Murphy noted in an email last week, the facts are that Roosevelt's bold interventions prolonged the Depression, turning it into the only market correction that is associated with an entire decade. (The Depression actually lasted 16 years.) Yet somehow, today, questioning the Roosevelt Myth is like pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. Halprin's contribution in promoting this myth was poignant last week. Are there similar shrines dedicated to Stalin (to whom FDR referred warmly as his Uncle Joe) somewhere on the outskirts of Moscow, replete with the man in grandfatherly pose and pet dog nearby?

Joseph Bristow
One cannot discuss the centralization of power in the 20th century without noting the contribution of this senator from Kansas who spearheaded the 17th Amendment into the Constitution. Before Bristow, senators were selected by state legislators, but after him, senators were selected through popular election. The result has been the nationalization of senate elections, irrelevance of state legislatures, weakening of states' constitutional check on the executive branch, and diminution of states' rights. Given the bailout's overwhelming political opposition, it is hard to believe that a senate that had to answer to state legislatures would have supported this bill. Murray Rothbard once wrote about repealing the 20th century. If this isn't possible, then we should settle for repealing the Progressive Era instead.

George W. Bush
He ran as a compassionate conservative and promised a humble foreign policy, but governed as the reincarnation of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson all tied into one. (One could argue, along with Bill Kauffman in his highly recommended book, Ain't My America, that the Johnson and Bush presidencies illustrate what a bad deal Texas's annexation has turned out to be for republican government.) Although Bush inherited a recession, this more severe one can be explained by his expansions of bureaucracy and debt, which have occurred at such record levels that his likely successors, though men of the Left, are welcomed because they could be viewed as being to Bush's right. Furthermore, the doubling of the national debt in seven years (and increasing it by a half trillion dollars in the last two weeks alone) is one of the primary unstated reasons for credit problems today, which explains the political desire to blame Wall Street.

Wall Street
This does not refer to a single person, of course, but rather to people like Hank Paulson, John Mack, Chuck Prince, Stan O'Neal, and others who fed the housing bubble in the 2000s and have been successful in forcing taxpayers — the poor and working classes especially — to assume risks investment banks could have assumed with their own resources (according to financial analyst Peter Boockvar). Will anyone view Arturo di Modica's Charging Bull bronze statue on Wall Street, which once symbolized "the strength and power of the American people," to mean anything else than, well, bull? It should be melted down, and used as a competing commodity money to the dollar.

My Congressman
My guy may be much like your guy, in that he is of his district's dominant political party and faces weak opposition in next month's election. He emphasizes the social issues that are important to his constituency, and this allows him the freedom to vote against its wishes when he can thereby accrue political and economic rents in Washington. My guy claimed that his calls against the bailout ran at 300 to 1, but since he is strongly pro-life, he knows he can deviate from his district's wishes. Hence, he is an arch-redistributionist and logroller extraordinaire. Congress never was an institution that protected human freedom, but this was less relevant in a constitutional republic. But it isn't today, and for that we can thank (in part) …

Herb Stein
By demeanor, Herb Stein was a lovable and funny man, and very smart. (I worked a few steps from his office once, as a college intern.) But in terms of his professional contribution as Richard Nixon's chief economic advisor, Stein played the role of buffer between Nixon's desire to socialize and the market's desire to correct, and in the process he set the standard for many DC-based economists who advocated the bailout last week. The early 1970s were similar to today in that they followed years of political manipulation of the economy, leading to a major correction, which led to a crisis for the political class and the need to socialize in order to avoid it. In Stein's case, it was his reputation as an economist working behind the scenes that enabled Nixon to close the gold window and establish the dollar as a fiat currency and therefore enable the largest wealth redistributions in history. Stein's example reminds one of the full cost of public financing of intellectual activity. Let's add the bailout to this cost.

Milton Friedman
Since we are discussing intellectuals, why not this important contributor to the free society who nonetheless argued that noncommodity money could exist? However faulty the institutions were that contributed to the crisis and the ensuing bailout, their damage was surely exacerbated by the endless supply of liquidity that is justified when money is misdefined.

Franklin Raines
He came from a working-class family in Seattle and through political connections he became chairman of Fannie Mae in the 1990s. His expansion of the political misuse of his GSE greatly contributed to the housing bubble and the consequent downward pressure on housing prices today. Though he left Fannie in disgrace, he was given a compensation package worth tens of millions of dollars. Should we take solace in the fact that this money will be worth much less in upcoming years, in inflation-adjusted terms, thanks to the bailout?

"Our current problems resulted from the infusion of credit in the past. "Barney Frank
Frank is the Massachusetts congressman who muscled this bailout through the House, first when it failed and later when it passed. In his public statements last week, his message, over and over again, was that the economy is sick and dying, and needs the life support that only looting the taxpayers can provide. As Sheldon Richman noted in his excellent economics blog, Frank (and his confederates) "were choking the American people and while doing so, they picked the people's pockets and handed their money to Wall Street."

So that's my list, incomplete as it is. There are others who deserve mention. I'd be interested in hearing readers' additions to it, either through email or the link to this article at the Mises Institute's blog.


Is that list diverse enough for you? I know you Libbies will take issue with it after all there are Dimocrats on the list.



$scans 001.jpg
 
Wow you're out of touch on this one babe. The Democrats forced the banks to loan to poor quality credit, and required Fannie and Freddie to buy them.

The actual history of this thing, via an article in your beloved New York Times written in 1999: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...illy-loses-it-on-barney-frank.html#post824762

glock, my husband family of 5 children was dirt poor, and they got a conventional loan, 25 or 30 year fixed. they were a risk because they were near indigents, so the bank charged them a higher interest rate on their fixed rate mortgage, to COVER that risk....

my inlaws stayed in good standing and paid their $8k loan for their tiny little ranch off, on time...., (now worth about 200k....)

my in laws felt it was a damn miracle when they FINALLY found a bank to take this risk, and give them this loan....they got out of poverty because of this home....the American dream.

the CRA did NOT mandate to fannie/freddie to cover unsound loans, they did not mandate that they make loans TO PEOPLE WHO COULD NOT PAY THEM....

to imply such, is simply untruthful...they did have the goal of getting more of the poor in to homes...and note, just because you are poor does not mean you are not going to be a good customer, AS MY INLAWS WERE!

Fannie did not create the high risk NINA loans or other loans that were extremely risky.

fannie functioned for decades within the CRA and DID NOT HAVE THIS CRISIS....something OTHER than the CRA caused this....simple logic, tells us this imo...just plain ole logic glock....

and this crisis began and was abused primarily 2005-2007....

look who CHALLENGED LENDERS to be creative with their mortgages to put 5.5 million more people in to future homes?

president bush.....i have mentioned this several times but no one seems to acknowledge it...

and i am not blaming him because it only helps ALL of america if more people own homes and are invested in their communities statistics have shown, just that he is just another SPOKE in the wheel of things that caused this or indirectly had a hand in it....along with fannie/freddie, CRA and a hundred other spokes, making it the Perfect Storm.

from 2004
Fact Sheet: America's Ownership Society: Expanding Opportunities

Expanding Homeownership. The President believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America's vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security. In June 2002, President Bush issued America's Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. Under his leadership, the overall U.S. homeownership rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51 percent in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. President Bush's initiative to dismantle the barriers to homeownership includes:
American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides down payment assistance to approximately 40,000 low-income families;

Affordable Housing.

The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which would increase the supply of affordable homes;
Helping Families Help Themselves.

The President has proposed increasing support for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunities Program; and
Simplifying Homebuying and Increasing Education.

The President and HUD want to empower homebuyers by simplifying the home buying process so consumers can better understand and benefit from cost savings.

The President also wants to expand financial education efforts so that families can understand what they need to do to become homeowners.

from 2002
Fact Sheet: President Bush Calls for Expanding Opportunities to Homeownership
June 17, 2002

Fact Sheet: President Bush Calls for Expanding Opportunities to Homeownership


Today, President Bush announced a new goal to help increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million before the end of the decade. The President's aggressive housing agenda will help dismantle the barriers to homeownership by providing down payment assistance, increasing the supply of affordable homes, increasing support for self-help homeownership programs, and simplifying the home buying process & increasing education. The President also issued "America's Homeownership Challenge" to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to join in his effort to increase the number of minority homeowners by taking concrete steps to tear down the barriers to homeownership that face minority families.
Background on the President's Homeownership Agenda

Buying a home is the biggest single investment most people will make in their lives. Homeownership is a cornerstone of America's healthy, vibrant communities, and benefits individual families by helping them build stability and long term financial security. But sadly, homeownership is out of reach for many Americans -- especially for minority families. For millions of these families, homeownership is a distant, unreachable dream.

President Bush has a comprehensive agenda to help increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million before the end of the decade.

While the overall homeownership rate has reached an all time high of nearly 68 percent, the statistics show a clear and persistent homeownership gap:


Despite increases in minority homeownership during the decade of the 1990s, large persistent gaps between non-Hispanic whites and minorities remain and have narrowed only slightly;

According to HUD, in 1994 the minority homeownership rate was 26.8 percent below the rate for white households;

The African-American homeownership rate was 27.5 percentage points below the white rate, and the Hispanic rate was 28.8 percentage points below the white rate;

The second quarter Census data for 2002 shows that non-Hispanic whites have a 74.3% homeownership rate, while African-Americans have a 48% rate and Hispanics a 47.6% rate; and

Asian-Americans and other races have a 53.7% homeownership rate.
A new report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) -- which analyzed the most recent homeownership data from the U.S. Census Bureau -- highlights the many barriers that prevent minority families from owning their own home. The barriers include:


A lack of inventory of affordable single-family housing available for sale in many areas where a majority of residents are minority families;

A need for down payment assistance, which affects minority families to a greater extent than non-Hispanic whites because they have less accumulated wealth that can be used to help children with down payments;

A lack of access to affordable mortgage credit;

A lack of understanding of the homebuying process;

Weak credit histories, often arising from a poor understanding of financial matters and where financial counseling is required;

A lack of information about available homeownership programs in the community; and

Language difficulties or cultural differences.
It doesn't have to be this way. The President's agenda will help tear down the barriers to homeownership that stand in the way of our nation's African-American, Hispanic and other minority families by:


Providing Downpayment Assistance. The single biggest barrier to homeownership is accumulating funds for a down payment. The President has proposed $200 million annually for the American Dream Downpayment Fund to help roughly 40,000 families a year with their down payment and closing costs.

Increasing the Supply of Affordable Homes. The President wants to dramatically increase the supply of homes available to low and moderate income families. The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which will provide approximately $2.4 billion to encourage the production of 200,000 affordable homes for sale to low and moderate income families.

Increasing Support for Self-Help Homeownership Programs. The President's budget triples funding for organizations, such as Habitat for Humanity, that help families help themselves become homeowners through sweat equity and volunteerism in their communities.

Simplifying the Home Buying Process & Increasing Education. When buying a home today a buyer faces a confusing and complicated process. The President and HUD want to empower homebuyers by simplifying the home buying process so consumers can better understand and benefit from cost savings. The President also wants to expand financial education efforts so that families can understand what they need to do to become homeowners.
The President also believes that government alone can't close America's homeownership gap. It is critical that our government challenge the private sector to take concrete steps to tear down the barriers to homeownership that face minority families. The President is issuing "America's Homeownership Challenge" to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to join in his effort to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million families by the end of the decade. Many organizations have already responded to the President's challenge by committing to:


Substantially increase by at least $440 billion, the financial commitment made by the government sponsored enterprises involved in the secondary mortgage market, specifically targeted toward the minority market;

Launching twenty-five different local initiatives across the nation, geared toward eliminating the specific homeownership barriers faced by minority families in those communities;

Raising $750 million in below-market-rate investments by 2007, which will work in collaboration with local homeownership initiatives and be targeted to heavily minority program areas;

Pursuing strategic partnerships in 20 top housing markets between homebuilders, lenders, local officials, and community leaders to develop approaches that address the local challenges to building homes for minority families living in urban centers;

Establishing faith-based housing partnerships between the participants and at least 100 churches, mosques, synagogues, and other faith-based institutions;

Aggressively developing new mortgage products so that conventional market alternatives are available to combat the predatory loan products that are disproportionately targeted to minorities;

Creating new mortgage products to meet the unique needs of recent immigrants;

Dramatically expanding financial education efforts for minorities, providing financial counseling to at least 380,000 minority families, and taking measures at the local level to reduce predatory lending; and

Establishing multilingual, consumer-oriented internet Web sites designed to help minorities overcome barriers to homeownership, including creation of a central data bank of affordable housing programs made available to real estate agents when working with clients.
For more information on the President's initiatives please visit Welcome to the White House.

to blame fannie mae and freddie for this mess is only touching the tiny tip of the iceburg....

care
 
glock, my husband family of 5 children was dirt poor, and they got a conventional loan, 25 or 30 year fixed. they were a risk because they were near indigents, so the bank charged them a higher interest rate on their fixed rate mortgage, to COVER that risk....

my inlaws stayed in good standing and paid their $8k loan for their tiny little ranch off, on time...., (now worth about 200k....)

my in laws felt it was a damn miracle when they FINALLY found a bank to take this risk, and give them this loan....they got out of poverty because of this home....the American dream.

the CRA did NOT mandate to fannie/freddie to cover unsound loans, they did not mandate that they make loans TO PEOPLE WHO COULD NOT PAY THEM....

to imply such, is simply untruthful...they did have the goal of getting more of the poor in to homes...and note, just because you are poor does not mean you are not going to be a good customer, AS MY INLAWS WERE!

Fannie did not create the high risk NINA loans or other loans that were extremely risky.

fannie functioned for decades within the CRA and DID NOT HAVE THIS CRISIS....something OTHER than the CRA caused this....simple logic, tells us this imo...just plain ole logic glock....

and this crisis began and was abused primarily 2005-2007....

look who CHALLENGED LENDERS to be creative with their mortgages to put 5.5 million more people in to future homes?

president bush.....i have mentioned this several times but no one seems to acknowledge it...

and i am not blaming him because it only helps ALL of america if more people own homes and are invested in their communities statistics have shown, just that he is just another SPOKE in the wheel of things that caused this or indirectly had a hand in it....along with fannie/freddie, CRA and a hundred other spokes, making it the Perfect Storm.

from 2004
Fact Sheet: America's Ownership Society: Expanding Opportunities



from 2002
Fact Sheet: President Bush Calls for Expanding Opportunities to Homeownership


to blame fannie mae and freddie for this mess is only touching the tiny tip of the iceburg....

care

Then kindly explain the purpose of the CRA.
 
Wow you're out of touch on this one babe. The Democrats forced the banks to loan to poor quality credit, and required Fannie and Freddie to buy them.

The actual history of this thing, via an article in your beloved New York Times written in 1999: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...illy-loses-it-on-barney-frank.html#post824762


btw, fancy cut and paste on your quote :D, where's the rest of the article or link?....it PROVES my point, these were not NINA loans or high risk subprimes...they losened requirement standards JUST SLIGHTLY....

link on your previous quote please!
 
Then kindly explain the purpose of the CRA.

the CRA was to stop discrimination of banks....

my inlaws got the loan, as ''white'' POOR AS DIRT people, minorities were not given them and complete minority communities were black balled....even if they were IN EQUAL financial straights, as my white as snow, in laws...

poor people CAN afford homes dillo, they just buy CHEAPER homes in poorer neighborhoods, as my inlaws....

this WAS their purpose...

and more people invested in homes, improves communities, reduces poverty and crime...STATISTICS had proven this time and time again...this is still an admirable initiative of president bush's and all other presidents before him imo!
 
Right. It's all the left's fault, Ali.

For seven years Bush with control of the Senate and House just couldn't fix anything. Deregulation had nothing to do with it. The greed of the banks had nothing to do with it.

What happened to our suplus? Did Barney take that too?

Anyone who tries to find one cause for this current mess is a partisan hack or a fool.

1. According to Clinton, it's the left's fault.
2. Bush didn't and doesn't control Congress. It's a dem congress. He's made an ass of himself trying to appease them.
3. And Bush fought for regulation as far back as 2003, dumbass.


Next set of lies?
 
.... because you are poor does not mean you are not going to be a good customer, AS MY INLAWS WERE!....

My grandparents bought a house during the depression and made every payment early. The difference between them and your inlaws, and the customers that Democrats were requiring banks to loan to is not financial status, but creditworthiness.
 
btw, fancy cut and paste on your quote :D, where's the rest of the article or link?....it PROVES my point, these were not NINA loans or high risk subprimes...they losened requirement standards JUST SLIGHTLY....

link on your previous quote please!
The pdf that I got this from was circulated to me in an email. Are you denying that it is real? If so state your accusation and as usual, the Glockster will hit the fastball right back at the pitcher, head high. :razz:

The article also states that Fannie and Freddie were expanding the pilot program to go national with it in order to please their shareholders with tremendous growth. Later on the standards were relaxed further, not to serve hard working families but speculators in the real estate market, fueling more growth, creating a bubble in the housing market, and the Democrat execs profited greatly- one taking over $90 million in salary plus bonuses over 6 years. They are now on board the Obama campaign.
 

Forum List

Back
Top