Rein In Fannie, Freddie? Not Dodd by AURaptor

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Rein In Fannie, Freddie? Not Dodd

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Monday, September 22, 2008 17:02
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1261
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, September 21, 2008 1:12 PM

America loves a winner!

Rein In Fannie, Freddie? Not Dodd
By AL HUBBARD AND NOAM NEUSNER September 14, 2008
Taxpayers face a tab of as much as $200 billion for a government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the formerly semi-autonomous mortgage finance clearinghouses. And Sen. Christopher Dodd, the Democratic chairman of the Senate banking committee, has the gall to say in a Bloomberg Television interview: "I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years."

We will save the senator some trouble. Here is what we saw firsthand at the White House from late 2002 through 2007: Starting in 2002, White House and Treasury Department economic policy staffers, with support from then-Chief of Staff Andy Card, began to press for meaningful reforms of Fannie, Freddie and other government-sponsored enterprises, known GSEs.

The crux of their concern was this: Investors believed that the GSEs were government-backed, so shouldn't the GSEs also be subject to meaningful government supervision?

This was not the first time a White House had tried to confront this issue. During the Clinton years, Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Treasury official Gary Gensler both spoke out on the issue of Fannie and Freddie's investment portfolios, which had already begun to resemble hedge funds with risky holdings. Nor were others silent: As chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan regularly warned about the risks posed by Fannie and Freddie's holdings.

President Bush was receptive to reform. He withheld nominees for Fannie and Freddie's boards — a presidential privilege. While it would have been valuable politically to use such positions to reward supporters, the president put good policy above good politics.

The administration did not accept half-measures. In 2005, Republican Mike Oxley, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, brought up a reform bill, and Fannie and Freddie's lobbyists set out to weaken it. The bill was rendered so toothless that Card called Oxley the night before markup and promised to oppose it. Oxley pulled the bill instead.

During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, Dodd — who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 — actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.

The president's budget proposals reflected the nature of the challenge. Note the following passage from the 2005 budget: Fannie, Freddie and other GSEs "are highly leveraged, holding much less capital in relation to their assets than similarly sized financial institutions. ... A misjudgment or unexpected economic event could quickly deplete this capital, potentially making it difficult for a GSE to meet its debt obligations. Given the very large size of each enterprise, even a small mistake by a GSE could have consequences throughout the economy."

That passage was published in February 2004. Dodd can find it on Page 82 of the budget's Analytical Perspectives.

Bush got involved in the effort personally, speaking out for the cause of reform in December. He even mentioned GSE reform in this year's State of the Union address.

How did Fannie and Freddie counter such efforts? They flooded Washington with lobbying dollars, doled out tens of thousands in political contributions and put offices in key congressional districts. Not surprisingly, these efforts worked. Leaders in Congress did not just balk at proposals to rein in Fannie and Freddie. They mocked the proposals as unserious and unnecessary.

As recently as last summer, when housing prices had clearly peaked and the mortgage market had started to seize up, Dodd called on Bush to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" reform proposals. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said that the president's suggestion for a strong, independent regulator of Fannie and Freddie was "inane."

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 21, 2008 4:08 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

So you're saying that Dodd is at heart a de-regulator? Isn't that exactly the way McCain described himself just a few months ago?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 21, 2008 6:25 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Seems that there's at least some misinformation in Rap's post.....

I found this on the Washington Post's website......"Saturday, September 20, 2008; Page A18

Al Hubbard and Noam Neusner [op-ed, Sept. 12] quoted me as saying that the president's suggestion for a strong, independent regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was "inane." The truth is exactly the opposite of what they sought to convey.

In May 2007, four months after the Democrats organized in Congress, the House passed a bill giving the Bush administration everything it asked for in increased regulatory powers over Fannie and Freddie. My reference to the president's inanity came in August and referred to his calling on the House to do what we'd already done.

The question at the time was whether or not Fannie and Freddie could take increased action to try to deal with the mortgage crisis. The House voted to significantly increase regulatory oversight of the two entities so that they could increase their activity in a responsible way. That is why after saying the president's comments were "inane," I said "Tell the Republicans to stop blocking the [House-passed] bill" in the Senate.

Republican obstruction ended in July 2008. So after 12 years in which the Republican Congress had not passed a reform bill, the Democratic Congress gave the Bush administration all that it asked for in 19 months. Who blocked reform?

BARNEY FRANK

Can you imagine how much worse this mess would be if Social Security had been handed over to Wall Street?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 21, 2008 8:04 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

First of all, in no way at all was Soc. Security ever going to be handed over to Wall Street. That's the sort of brazen lie tha Dems always bring up when anyone wants to save this Ponzi scheme wreck of a ' savings ' plan.

Second, Barny Frank is a lying sack of shit.

” These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 22, 2008 7:16 AM

KWICKO

Quote:

Second, Barny Frank is a lying sack of shit.

Cites, please? Can you provide any factual evidence to back up your opinion? 'Cause that's really all that is, is your opinion.

Just like this:

George W. Bush is a lying sack of shit.

Only in this case, it's true.

:)

Ponder the hypocrisy and irony involved in a Republican referring to a Democrat's *lack* of regulation - isn't it the Republicans who traditionally want to deregulate EVERYTHING, and the Democrats who supposedly want to regulate us to death?

So now you're taking issue with a Democrat's supposed LACK OF SUPPORT for a Republican regulation scheme?

Irony indeed...

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 22, 2008 7:49 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

No, dumb ass..... I have his quote!

And I'm so god damn sick and tired of you Libs tring to paint everthing a Republican does as some sort of 'scheme', when , as usual, the ones who do the most scheming are the Dems themselves. It was a PLAN, not a god damn scheme. The moment you jack asses on the Left stop trying to sabotage everything we do on the right that's for the good of the country, the sooner we'll get to working for the beneifit of all, and not just your own special interest.

Try working for the COUNTRY ,instead of your own personal or party power, for once.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 22, 2008 9:27 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor: And I'm so god damn sick and tired of you Libs tring to paint everthing a Republican does as some sort of 'scheme', when , as usual, the ones who do the most scheming are the Dems themselves.

AURaptor...Everything Republicans do is a childish scheme...and everything a Republican says makes sense if you're in middle school.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor: The moment you jack asses on the Left stop trying to sabotage everything we do on the right that's for the good of the country, the sooner we'll get to working for the beneifit of all, and not just your own special interest.

I know Republicans would prefer a lack of political opposition, like they do in China and North Korea, but the haste with which Republicans try to pressure through bills lacking adequate levels of scrutiny, like "drill baby drill", and "throw a trillion at wall street because they will greet us as liberators", is all designed to make the Bush/McCain administration look like they know what proactive means. When in reality they only know how to react. I cite Iraq, the economy, and coming soon...energy shortages and environmental disasters.

When Obama wins he will be saddled with an economy that waits for four to eight years for people to buy houses again. And a goat fuck of a war...among many other goodies Obama will inherit.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Try working for the COUNTRY ,instead of your own personal or party power, for once.

phenothiazines, or thioxanthines will help you with those kind of delusions. Please see your psychaitrist for details

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 22, 2008 9:37 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Mal....Everything ?

Not like the Democrats, huh ? Who were so in tight w/ the folks at Fannie Mae that a blind eye was turned at the mismanagement while the GOP was attempting to get sensible control over the impending fiasco ? Such myopic, woefully partisan views as yours are exactly what is wrong w/ Gov't today.

There is no Bush/ McCain administration. McCain opposes Bush more than most. The surge worked, btw, much to the Dems chagrin. The GOP DOES know what pro-active means, and it's the Dems who are standing in the way of progress, all for the sake of political power. Their own.

There will be no envirmental disasters, any more than happens on a routine schedule.

We need not worry about Obama winning. So he won't have to be burdened w/ anything.

Mind's clear and free of drugs, my friend. Maybe you should look into that your own self.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 22, 2008 9:48 AM

ERIC

Bush Makes Deal with Lying Sack of Shit:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080922/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown

Quote:
WASHINGTON - A key Democrat negotiating a $700 billion financial bailout says the Bush administration has agreed to include mortgage aid and strong congressional oversight in the plan.

Rep. Barney Frank, the Financial Services Committee chairman, says a great deal of progress has been made in talks between lawmakers and President Bush's team on the rescue.

A government official with knowledge of the talks also said the administration has agreed to create a plan to help prevent foreclosures on mortgages it acquires as part of the bailout.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 22, 2008 9:56 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

It's who the Dems have placed in that position, so there's really no way around NOT working w/ Frank.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 22, 2008 11:07 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
McCain opposes Bush more than most.

Yep. A whoppin 10% of the time.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 22, 2008 12:32 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
McCain opposes Bush more than most.

Yep. A whoppin 10% of the time.

Guess you bought into the Left wing lie too, huh?

Here are the facts:

The truth is, of course, that McCain is the most unlike Bush of any of the Republican senators. (When Obama's people claim that Bush and McCain voted the same 94 percent of the time, they forget that most of the votes in the Senate are unanimous.) The fact that McCain backs commending a basketball team on its victory doesn't mean that he is in lockstep ideologically with the president.

The issues on which McCain and Bush differ are legion:

• McCain fought for campaign finance reform -- McCain-Feingold -- that Bush fought and ultimately signed because he had no choice.

• McCain led the battle to restrict interrogation techniques of terror suspects and to ban torture.

• McCain went with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on a tough measure to curb climate change, something Bush denies is going on.

• McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.

• McCain urged the Iraq surge, a posture Bush rejected for years before conceding its wisdom.

• McCain favors FDA regulation of tobacco and sponsored legislation to that effect, a position all but a handful of Republican Senators oppose.

• McCain's energy bill, also with Lieberman, is a virtual blueprint for energy independence and development of alternate sources.

• After the Enron scandal, McCain introduced sweeping reforms in corporate governance and legislation to guarantee pensions and prohibit golden parachutes for executives. Bush opposed McCain's changes and the watered-down Sarbanes-Oxley bill eventuated.

• McCain has been harshly critical of congressional overspending, particularly of budgetary earmarks, a position Bush only lately adopted (after the Democrats took over Congress).

Remember that McCain ran against Bush in 2000. McCain's Republican advisers need to realize that they won the primary and that they do not need to cotton to the delegates at their convention or to appease the Bush White House. The more they respond to Obama's and Biden's attacks on Bush by saying "It ain't me, babe," the more he will moot the entire purpose of the Democratic convention. It is a rare opportunity to nullify the entire Democratic line of attack and McCain should seize on it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 22, 2008 12:46 PM

KWICKO

Quote:

No, dumb ass..... I have his quote!

Yes, you have a quote from 2003. Hey, I have one of those, too:

In 2003, George W. Bush said:

Quote:
Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

So George Bush is a lying sack of shit.

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 22, 2008 12:56 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

No, dumb ass..... I have his quote!

Yes, you have a quote from 2003. Hey, I have one of those, too:

In 2003, George W. Bush said:

Quote:
Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

So George Bush is a lying sack of shit.

Mike

From FACTCHECK.ORG -

Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying
July 26, 2004
Updated: August 23, 2004
Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.
Summary
The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.
Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying. http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

That's not a lie. Try again.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 22, 2008 1:06 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
First of all, in no way at all was Soc. Security ever going to be handed over to Wall Street. That's the sort of brazen lie tha Dems always bring up when anyone wants to save this Ponzi scheme wreck of a ' savings ' plan.

Second, Barny Frank is a lying sack of shit.

” These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

I suppose the proposed $2 trillion plan to privatize Social Security is is not exactly acutally "handing it over to Wall Street." But that's where the money would have been invested, neh?

What is your timing on Barney Frank's statement regarding Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. I recall 3 or 4 weeks ago they interviewed the head of a firm who had recently audited both and he said they were stressed but basically healthy. Something I would point out that sounds similar to they way George Bush and John McCain describe the economy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 22, 2008 1:43 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:

I suppose the proposed $2 trillion plan to privatize Social Security is is not exactly acutally "handing it over to Wall Street." But that's where the money would have been invested, neh?

ONLY... ( and this is important, so follow along closely ) ONLY for those who wished to participate. If you didn't want to privitize any of your $$, guess what??? YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO !!

A simple concept, really.

Quote:

What is your timing on Barney Frank's statement regarding Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. I recall 3 or 4 weeks ago they interviewed the head of a firm who had recently audited both and he said they were stressed but basically healthy. Something I would point out that sounds similar to they way George Bush and John McCain describe the economy.

Many saw this coming for YEARS, and it was Franks comment from 2003, I believe. This was no sudden surprise, and I don't give a flip what others may or may not have said. Bush saw this coming , tried to reform Fannie / Freddie over 30 times before now. Frank's comment only shows how tied to the hip the Dems were ...nay ARE with Fannie and Freddie, and the fact that the Dems are hopelessly clueless on running the Gov't anywhere but into the ground.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 22, 2008 1:57 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:

I suppose the proposed $2 trillion plan to privatize Social Security is is not exactly acutally "handing it over to Wall Street." But that's where the money would have been invested, neh?

ONLY... ( and this is important, so follow along closely ) ONLY for those who wished to participate. If you didn't want to privitize any of your $$, guess what??? YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO !!

A simple concept, really.

Even those that chose to participate would have only been allowed to put a very small portion of their social security withholding in the stock market. They're just falling for the stupid Obama advertisement that's out now. If they would just go to factcheck.org they would see that it's all lies.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 22, 2008 5:02 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Hey Kirk,

I haven't see the Obama ad yet. But I checked out Factcheck.org, interesting site, thanks for link. I see your point but it is only true for peolple over the age of 58, the rest of us would have had some Social Security money in the market.

But, I'm not repeating propaganda here. Fact is the privatization of Social Security was estiamted to cost $2 trillion. Projections show that the fund as is will start to fall short sometime after 2040. With privatization that could happen as early as 2025. One get's the idea that privitization is just the method for eliminating a program long hated by conservatives.

Personally I've never thought of Social Security as my pension, but as a supplement incase I can't save enough on my own. Some of that supplement will be paid by people behind me, just as I'm paying for people infront of me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE