Republican Bail out - Freddie/Fannie a repeat of the McCain S&L scandal

you really aren't embarrassed? i guess not, it is anonymous after all.

what is not true?

Also please note I only posted this in response to TA's partisan non real estate related post that he submitted before this.

But please give us an excuse why this is not the Republican administrations fault and why this is not a bail out by the tax payers and the profitting by the friends of the administration?

See my post about "Fannie & Freddie..." earlier. It was actually the Bush administration who pushed for more stringent oversight of F&F when the issues first surfaced a few years ago; it was key Democrats in Congress - those in charge of the subcommittees for banking, finance, etc. - who were resistant to this idea, instead wanted to keep these companies afloat.

petrfitz,

No ONE from either party stood up early so this not a democrat/repub issue. just screwed up Washington allowing BOTH parties to be bought by special interests (Banks, Realtors, Low-income)... Not one of these politicians putting country first..

Uptown girl

Were the Democrats in the White house and Congress in 2003?

Please stop spreading lies.:

But Mr. Greenspan wasn’t the only top official who put ideology above public protection. Consider the press conference held on June 3, 2003 — just about the time subprime lending was starting to go wild — to announce a new initiative aimed at reducing the regulatory burden on banks. Representatives of four of the five government agencies responsible for financial supervision used tree shears to attack a stack of paper representing bank regulations. The fifth representative, James Gilleran of the Office of Thrift Supervision, wielded a chainsaw.

Also in attendance were representatives of financial industry trade associations, which had been lobbying for deregulation. As far as I can tell from press reports, there were no representatives of consumer interests on the scene.

Two months after that event the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, one of the tree-shears-wielding agencies, moved to exempt national banks from state regulations that protect consumers against predatory lending. If, say, New York State wanted to protect its own residents — well, sorry, that wasn’t allowed.

Of course, now that it has all gone bad, people with ties to the financial industry are rethinking their belief in the perfection of free markets. Mr. Greenspan has come out in favor of, yes, a government bailout. “Cash is available,” he says — meaning taxpayer money — “and we should use that in larger amounts, as is necessary, to solve the problems of the stress of this.”

oh yeah - i forgot the Republican mantra - take responsibility for any fault during your time in power, and blame it on everyone else.

petr, you really don't want to compare ethics here. McCain was cleared of wrongdoing in the Keating situation, and if you read about what happened, you wouldn't be making an issue. Now about that property purchase with Tony Rezko, are you going to tell me that doesn't smell?

Also, the democrats have always pushed for a bigger role for FNMA and FHLMC, which is one of the problems here. You really don't know what you are talking about.

LIC - so you are saying that "its the Democrats fault" for what happened while the Republicans were in control?

Oh yeah who "cleared" McCain? A Republican review board. Who got soaked? the American tax payer.

Both parties were too lax with FRE and FNMA, but the Republicans have historically called for more oversight and a more limited role for them, while the democrats traditionally have opposed and sought to expand FRE and FNMA lending.
You like to ignore points that make you look like a buffoon. Haven't the democrats controlled Congress the last few years? Didn't the Republicans control Congress in the 90s? Under your theory, the Republican Congress' policies led to prosperity, while the Democrat Congress has caused the current mess.

What about that Obama-Rezko deal? Hmm, no response from petr on that one.

i dont know about Obama REzko. How many Americans lost their life savings in that deal?

Please inform me.

Oh and we are supposed to believe that Republicans called for more oversight into lending practices? I thought they were for less government and less regulation.

Please give us 1 link where the republican administration called for more oversight before this diasater happened?

The cause of this is that great American dream for broad home ownership ... the Dems, and the great capitalist rich guy goal of making money off of the masses for their selfish benefit ... the Republicans.

Blaming the Republicans is absurd. This is simply Congress and politics. Republicans and Democrats.

petrfitz
9 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse i dont know about Obama REzko. How many Americans lost their life savings in that deal?

You don't know about Obama Rezko? Seriously, you know enough to attempt a credible argument that Keating = Fannie / Freddie, but you don't know anything about Rezko? Nothing at all?

ranter -please tell me how Obama and Resko teamed up to bilk any American out of their life savings?

it seems that no one can? so maybe there is nothing there.

Were more Americans bilked out of their life savings from the Obama - Rezko thing or the Enron - Republican thing? I am uninformed please explain to me.

From 2006, seems like all hands are equally dirty and calling this a partisan issue is highly inaccurate.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/36705/

Larry Makinson at the Sunlight Foundation pulls more out of the Fannie Mae accounting fraud scandal -- it wasn't just a case of the execs fudging the books for massive pay benefits -- it's that Fannie Mae, a mortgage insurer that's backed by the federal government, has been conducting a massive bipartisan buyoff in Congress for years to keep pesky oversight investigators from taking a look at the books. A government-backed entity making political contributions? Yep.

Citing Open Secrets, Makinson says that Fannie Mae gave $3.5 million to Congress from '97-'02, and he points out, "The money was split almost equally between the Democratic (47%) and Republican (53%) parties." Here are the appalling numbers:

Here are the totals to each committee from 1997-2002:

National Republican Congressional Committee $843,650

National Republican Senatorial Committee $615,265

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee $666,500

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee $644,500

Democratic National Committee $302,000

Republican National Committee $226,470

Other Republican Party committees $170,000

But petrfitz, you know _nothing_ about Obama and Rezko? That is a totally different statement than "they didn't cheat Americans ..." and strains your credibility.

By the way, when did bankruptcy Enron happen? late 2001
When did Bush come into office? January 2001

When did September 11 happen? September 11, 2001
When did Bush come into office? January 20, 2001

Wow Bush really screwed things up fast.

When did the dot com crash begin? Peak of the market in March 2000?
I guess the market was anticipating?

I have no interest in supporting either party, let them fight it out for votes like they must every 2 and 4 years. But what is your issue?

ranter -please explain to me what Obama Rezko is and why it is worse than the Keating 5, or Enron scandals? And how many people were effected by Obama Rezko?

I am interested please just explain it to me?

Is Obama Rezko like the Jeff Gannon scandal?

so let me just understand for real petrfitz, you know nothing about Rezko, but you know all about the Keating 5, Enron and Gannon?

let me further understand, you are interested in knowing about Rezko, but your free subscription to the NY Times.com isn't working and your Google link isn't working either, so it was better to come here to this NY real estate board and ask the general anonymous audience?

ranter it seems like you know nothing more than the name of the Obama Rezko scandal. please give me 1 statement on it.

petrfitz, bank regulation and the Fed's involvement in mortgage lending is an entirely different matter.

Oversight of F&F is by OFHEO, under the US Dept of Housing & Urban Development. Banks are regulated by the Fed & OCC (the latter under US Dept of Treasury).

F&F have been entrenched in the DC world for decades. F&F's problems didn't happen overnight, and they began to surface around 2004. The Bush administration lobbied for an overhaul of F&F's oversight and governance, but these efforts have been stymied by the Democrats who eventually took over key posts in Congress.

The Fed is only now stepping in to assist in this matter because of the potential impact on our economy.

So please get your facts straight and compare apples to apples.

I thought you know nothing about Rezko, let me help you by providing a quotation of yours:

"i dont know about Obama REzko."

Oddly, you've now figured out it is a scandal, maybe you know something after all.

This is what Hillary Clinton said,
"your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago."

which brings up an interesting parallel to petrfitz' own real estate investments in New York City.

ps - Hillary is a Democrat.

ranter i see you cant tell me anything about makes me believe that there is nothing there.

Further, according to the Chicago Sun-Times,
Rezko's low-income housing empire began crumbling in 2001, when his company stopped making mortgage payments on the old nursing home that had been converted into apartments

Hmm, Rezko defaulted on a mortgage 7 years before the news that was the headline of this discussion topic?

what is illegal about a contributor being a landlord? please explain any illegality?

petrfitz
2 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse ranter i see you cant tell me anything about makes me believe that there is nothing there.

well I guess you can sleep well tonight.

Where did I use the word illegal in connection with the word landlord?

What are you projecting?

Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.

Tony Rezko is a crook and has been convicted of such. He sold land to Obama at a very low price. Obama has said he was wrong but there really isn't anything there. If there was the republicans would be all over it.

in October 2006 -- Rezko was indicted on charges he solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension business under his friend Gov. Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors maintain that $10,000 from the alleged kickback scheme was donated to Obama's run for the U.S. Senate. Obama has given the money to charity.

Is that enough info on Rezko for you as a starter?

how is Obama involved in Rezko's defaulting on mortgages? If association between Rezko brings his mortgage defaults on Obama, doesnt that mean McCain's close association and direct political help to Keating makes McCain responsibilty for the S&L's default?

Its the same logic.

He isn't. I didn't say he was. Did you see anything where I specifically said Obama was involved in his default on a mortgage? And since you didn't know anything about Rezko just 3 minutes ago, I wonder how you drew your conclusion.

Yes. Franklin Raines was a Democrat, was he not oh mighty petroputz? Oh and Raines was also a Friend of Angelo along with Dodd. WSJ and true conservatives have been assailing Fannie and Freddie for years. Kindly assort your facts correctly.

By the way, you want to blame McCain for the S&L crisis, fine.

But how do you get away with this incredible statement:
"Bush and McCain in charge during credit crisis."

In what capacity has McCain been "in charge during the credit crisis?"

So Obama admitted that any association with Rezko was not appropriate? Whats the scandal then?

According to his Senate page, John McCain serves on the following 3 committees:
Armed Services
Commerce, Science and Transportation: These issues range from communications, highways, aviation, rail, shipping, transportation security, merchant marine, the Coast Guard, oceans, fisheries, climate change, disasters, science, space, interstate commerce, tourism, consumer issues, economic development, technology, competitiveness, product safety and insurance.
Indian Affairs

You want to blame McCain for something in Iraq, ok, go ahead you can probably make a case.

But where is McCain's responsibility for Fannie and Freddie given he in no capacity has executive authority and doesn't even have committee oversight involvement on this topic?

petrfitz
1 minute ago
ignore this person
report abuse So Obama admitted that any association with Rezko was not appropriate? Whats the scandal then?

ok, so wait another minute. Association with Rezko is not appropriate __according to the person involved__, but no scandal. ok

But take another person who is associated with Keating, and was cleared by OTHERS. That is a scandal?

I won't call it odd logic, because it is quite clear that this is all an emotional issue, not a logical discussion, based on a reading of the posts here.

Where is the accountability in this equation by Franklin Raines? Former CEO if Fannie and Clinton Budget Director?

Don't introduce noise here Cletus. This is all about evil Bush and eviler McCain.

Kerry wanted Raines to be his Treasury Secretary. Oh boy we missed out on that one.

For as bad as George Bush is, the best the Dems could come up with last time was John Kerry. He didn't even have the self conviction of his argument that he was the right man to be president of the U.S. by running a second time.

TA - where is the accountability for Phil Gramm calling the USA a "nation of whiners" and that we are in a "perceived recession?" He still is a McCain campaign advisor, wrote the mccain economic policy and is to be named Secretary of the Treasury under a McCain adminsitration?

Also Ranter - lets revist the "scandal comparison" - Keating bilked tons of Americans out of their life savings, McCain was involved with him and helped him while he was bilking Americans out of everything they owned. Rezko was a sleezy landlord years before Obama had anything to do with him and in no way helped Rezko become a sleezy landlord.

Which is worse?

ranter says "He didn't even have the self conviction of his argument that he was the right man to be president of the U.S" who are you talking about Bob Dole?

speaking of scandals - what about Palin abusing her position to get her brother in law fired? Or the fact that both she and McCain have LIED about her commanding the Alaska National Guard overseas?

I think that lying about commanding troops during a time of war is unforgiveable.

Yup, Bob Dole, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, John Kerry

ranter actually they all ran for the Presidency multiple times. You moron.

petrfitz
3 minutes ago
I think that lying about commanding troops during a time of war is unforgiveable.

ok, but if she simply says that it wasn't appropriate, is it still a scandal for you?

petrfitz
45 minutes ago
So Obama admitted that any association with Rezko was not appropriate? Whats the scandal then?

Neither was their party's nominee. After they won their party's nomination and lost in the general election, they didn't return. You moron

I'd like to repost this:

ranter
about 1 hour ago
ignore this person
report abuse This is what Hillary Clinton said,
"your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago."

which brings up an interesting parallel to petrfitz' own real estate investments in New York City.

and I would like to repost this question:

ranter
about 1 hour ago
ignore this person
report abuse By the way, you want to blame McCain for the S&L crisis, fine.

But how do you get away with this incredible statement:
"Bush and McCain in charge during credit crisis."

In what capacity has McCain been "in charge during the credit crisis?"

and this, unanswered by petrfitz

ranter
about 1 hour ago
ignore this person
report abuse According to his Senate page, John McCain serves on the following 3 committees:
Armed Services
Commerce, Science and Transportation: These issues range from communications, highways, aviation, rail, shipping, transportation security, merchant marine, the Coast Guard, oceans, fisheries, climate change, disasters, science, space, interstate commerce, tourism, consumer issues, economic development, technology, competitiveness, product safety and insurance.
Indian Affairs

You want to blame McCain for something in Iraq, ok, go ahead you can probably make a case.

But where is McCain's responsibility for Fannie and Freddie given he in no capacity has executive authority and doesn't even have committee oversight involvement on this topic?

I also thought a retort by petrfitz to this would be appropriate:

ranter
about 1 hour ago
ignore this person
report abuse By the way, when did bankruptcy Enron happen? late 2001
When did Bush come into office? January 2001

When did September 11 happen? September 11, 2001
When did Bush come into office? January 20, 2001

Wow Bush really screwed things up fast.

When did the dot com crash begin? Peak of the market in March 2000?
I guess the market was anticipating?

I have no interest in supporting either party, let them fight it out for votes like they must every 2 and 4 years. But what is your issue?

ok we get it Peterfitz=Tony Rezko

ranter you are clearly a partisan republican.

And I would be happy if both McCain and Palin came out and said it was wrong and we were lying to the American people about her serving as Commander in Chief of the Alaska national Guard.

Then we would need an apology for lying to the American people about "telling Congress Thanks but no Thanks on the Bridge to Nowhere"

"THE FACTS: Palin did abandon plans to build the nearly $400 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport. But she made her decision after the project had become an embarrassment to the state, after federal dollars for the project were pulled back and diverted to other uses in Alaska, and after she had appeared to support the bridge during her campaign for governor.

McCain and Palin together have told a broader story about the bridge that is misleading. She is portrayed as a crusader for the thrifty use of tax dollars who turned down an offer from Washington to build an expensive bridge of little value to the state.

"I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere," she said in her convention speech last week.

That's not what she told Alaskans when she announced a year ago that she was ordering state transportation officials to ditch the project. Her explanation then was that it would be fruitless to try to persuade Congress to come up with the money.

"It's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Palin said then.

Palin indicated during her 2006 campaign for governor that she supported the bridge, but was wishy-washy about it. She told local officials that money appropriated for the bridge "should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done."

She vowed to defend Southeast Alaska "when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative" — something that McCain was busy doing at the time, as a fierce critic of the bridge.
"

And then an apology for lying about fighting pork barrel:

Palin's reputation for standing up to entrenched interests in Alaska is genuine. Her self-description as a leader who "championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress" is harder to square with the facts.

The governor has cut back on pork-barrel project requests, but in her two years in office, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. And as mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million.

What are McCain and Palin repeatedly lying to America?

Rezko basically bought Obama a house, in a scam transaction where Rezko (in the name of his wife I believe) paid hundreds of thousands over value for an empty lot attached to the property, and Obama paid next to nothing to buy the house. Very, very shady.

Also, McCain didn't team up with Keating or Enron to bilk anyone out of any money. Obama was intricately involved with Rezko.

Source, New York Post.

"McCain's lifelong record of service to America, his battle-tested courage, unshakeable devotion to principle and clear grasp of the dangers and opportunities now facing the nation stand in dramatic contrast to the tissue-paper-thin résumé of his Democratic opponent, freshman Sen. Barack Obama."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm a partisan Republican, ok, but I've challenged you to respond to baseless assertions and associations you've made, and you've now changed the subject.

Ok, Palin lied. Bad. Strikes against her.

But to use your logic, how many Americans lost their savings or lives because Palin said she said she commanded the Alaska National Guard overseas? How many lost their savings or lives because she supported the bridge to nowhere? How many?

Now answer the other real challenges I posed to you.

Biden opposed the surge and wanted to partition Iraq into three countries. Even go back to the Reagan years, he opposed Reagan's hard line measures against Russia.

Petrfitz how do you not see the screaming hypocrisy of what you say?

You tell 'ranter' they are "clearly a partisan republican".

so what.

You are an extremely partisan moonbat level Democrat.

And yes now you will ask me two dozen questions on McCains birthmother and how Bush is secretly planning on impregnating Palin to form the most evil spawn in the world...but seriously dude you need to get the F over yourself.

And you are right...I am a dumbass for thinking someone like you could make better life decisions for myself than I could. And I'm glad you were honest about your elitism. Making progress...

and lets not forget you did say this morning that anyone who disagrees with you is a "dumbass". So is that your bipartisanship or your elitism? Hard to differentiate.

And since you blasted Palin for voting for the Bridge to Nowhere

hate to break it to you...but so did your pals Obama and Biden

http://cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/obama-and-biden-voted-for-bridge-to-nowhere,1628/

uh oh.

Why do Dems always get the blame for "elitism" and wanting to tell everyone what to do?

Aren't the Republicans the ones with the so called "family values" (GOP has always been better at coining phrases to make their causes seem more palatable)? The ones that want to make every American live under Christian beliefs?

I was watching the Fox News Channel's coverage of the Democratic Convention and it was sort of funny. The way they said "oh, Obama went to HARVARD LAW" like its a horrible thing to go to the nation's best law school. Or how they nitpicked that everything was choreographed and there were people handing out the signs people held up and others telling the audience which signs to use when... Geez, like that didnt' happen at the Republican convention. There, it was all totally spontaneous and every body just happened to have the right sign to hold up for each presentation. Course, Fox commentators didnt say a single word about the choreography.

Btw, I am a registered Republican. Fiscally, I am a conservative (lower taxes, less government). Socially, I'm pretty moderate. Undecided right now. I was leaning towards McCain, since I think he's a straight shooter and does what he thinks is right for the country, not just his party. But Pallin... is entertaining, but seems much more show than substance. (Of course, same can be said for Obama).

Sorry, really OT now.

Back to McCain is Evil, No He's Not thread...

Meanwhile, back at the Savings and Loan scandal, the Bush brother who couldn't/wouldn't/didn't run for office:

Neil Bush was a member of the board of directors of Denver-based Silverado Savings and Loan during the 1980s' larger Savings and Loan crisis. As his father was Vice President of the United States, his role in Silverado's failure was a focal point of publicity. According to a piece in Salon, Silverado's collapse cost taxpayers $1 billion.[2]

The US Office of Thrift Supervision investigated Silverado's failure and determined that Bush had engaged in numerous "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest." Although Bush was not indicted on criminal charges, a civil action was brought against him and the other Silverado directors by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; it was eventually settled out of court, with Bush paying $50,000 as part of the settlement, as reported in the Style section of the Washington Post [3].

A Republican fundraiser set up a fund to help defer costs Neil incurred in his S&L dealings.

ok, Bush brother
1980s

relevance to McCain today?
relevance to Fannie and Freddie bailout?

Just relevant to me becuase the heading said S&L Scandal and the discussion touched on the cost of bailouts to taxpayers and I remembered this bailout from the past.

Still no ability to respond petrfitz? How about some substance.

any response from petrfitz yet to support his falsehoods?

dont know what you want me to respond to? your unintelligible ramblings? hmmm no one lost any money in the Obama Rezko situation and there was never any actual charges or investigation.

In the KEating affair - thousands of people lost all their money. And McCain was found by the Senate Ethics committe of "poor judgement" in directly assiting Keating. Oh yeah it was his pwn party that ruled that way.

And from the party that questioned whether John Kerry's war wounds were worthy of a purple heart to then let their own candidates LIE about commanding Troops during war time is utter hyprocrisy.

It should also be investigated as a crime for both McCain and Palin to claim that she COMMANDED troops in a war zone when she need did nor ever have the responsibility.

sorry type need = never.

Meaning both McCain and Palin claimed she COMMANDED troops in a War Zone and she NEVER did nor ever have the responsibility.

oh yeah by the way, I am the commander of all troops deployed in Afghanistan.

well, if it is a crime for McCain and Palin to say she commanded troups in a war zone, you've just committed a crime yourself. (yesterday doing that was unforgivable, today it is a crime)

How about now justifying your assertion that McCain is responsible for the Fannie and Freddie problems and bailout? Wasn't that the topic of this discussion that you created?

Where did McCain directly assist Keating? He was noted for attending a meeting, but he did not provide any help. Obama did engage directly in a sham real estate deal with Rezko.

hmmm wasnt mccain a senior member of the party in power whilst this crisis took place? wasnt it obvious to all that shame loans were being given to unqualified borrowers? didnt all you need to do was look at a peper, listen to the radio or TV and see all the commercials touting predatory lending?

So Mccain being a senior leader of the party in power was in a position to atleast question the fleecing of Americans. Did he? No.

What did he do? voted with Bush over 905 of the time and didnt do anything while Americans were getting their life savings stolen.

petrfitz...you have some good points but they're overshadowed by your mean spirit. Remember Obama wants a change from business as usual and you are the usual.

The core allegation of the Keating Five affair is that Keating had made contributions of about $1.3 million to various U.S. Senators, including McCain and he called on those Senators to help him resist regulators. Several of the Senators including Mccain met with regulators asking them to essentially back off of Lincoln Savings.

McCain attended several of these meetings refering to "our friends at Lincoln"

The regulators backed off, to later disastrous consequences.

Good news. Obama now says he might not raise taxes after all. I wonder what else he is now reconsidering.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091851312912585.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

and petroputz your basic tenet of this post is so laughably farcical that you clearly are oblivious to the underlying tug of war thats been going on in washington over fannie and freddie for decades. Your buddy Barney Frank would blow Fannie if it had a dick and the conservative GOPers have disdained Fannie/Freddie from the get go and are happy to see it folded up. Had this action not occurred, god knows what further losses we'd face. This was a necessary evil to stop these monsters once and for all from rampaging through tokyo.

Interesting article on Barney Frank from the WSJ:

At least the Massachusetts Democrat is consistent. His record is close to perfect as a stalwart opponent of reforming the two companies, going back more than a decade. The first concerted push to rein in Fan and Fred in Congress came as far back as 1992, and Mr. Frank was right there, standing athwart. But things really picked up this decade, and Barney was there at every turn. Let's roll the audiotape:

In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."

Two years later, Mr. Frank was at it again. "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," he said in response to another reform push. And then: "I regard them as great assets." Great or not, we'll give Mr. Frank this: Their assets are now Uncle Sam's assets, even if those come along with $5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities.

Again in June 2003, the favorite of the Beltway press corps assured the public that "there is no federal guarantee" of Fan and Fred obligations.

FANNIE MAYHEM: A HISTORY

Click here for a compendium of The Wall Street Journal's recent editorial coverage of Fannie and Freddie.A month later, Freddie Mac's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal broke into the open. But Mr. Frank was sanguine. "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," he said at the time.

Three months later he repeated the claim that Fannie and Freddie posed no "threat to the Treasury." Even suggesting that heresy, he added, could become "a self-fulfilling prophecy."

In April 2004, Fannie announced a multibillion-dollar financial "misstatement" of its own. Mr. Frank was back for the defense. Fannie and Freddie posed no risk to taxpayers, he said, adding that "I think Wall Street will get over it" if the two collapsed. Yes, they're certainly "over it" on the Street now that Uncle Sam is guaranteeing their Fannie paper, and even Fannie's subordinated debt.

By early 2007, Mr. Frank was in charge of the House Financial Services Committee, arguing that he had long favored some kind of reform. "What blocked it [reform] last year," Mr. Frank said then, "was the insistence of some economic conservative fundamentalists in the Bush Administration who, to be honest, don't think there should be a Fannie Mae or a Freddie Mac." What really blocked it was Mr. Frank's insistence that any reform be watered down and not include any reduction in their MBS holdings.

In January of last year, Mr. Frank also noted one reason he liked Fannie and Freddie so much: They were subject to his political direction. Contrasting Fan and Fred with private-sector mortgage financers, he noted, "I can ask Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to show forbearance" in a housing crisis. That is to say, because Fannie and Freddie are political creatures, Mr. Frank believed they would do his bidding.

And this is exactly what Mr. Frank attempted to prove when the housing market started to go south. He encouraged the companies to guarantee more "affordable" mortgages, thus abetting their disastrous plunge into subprime and Alt-A loans. He also pushed for, and got, an increase in the conforming-loan limits to allow Fan and Fred to securitize and guarantee larger mortgages. And he pressured regulators to ease up on their capital requirements -- which now means taxpayers will have to make up that capital shortfall.

But the biggest payoff for Mr. Frank is the "affordable housing" trust fund he managed to push through as one political price for the recent Fannie reform bill. This fund siphons off a portion of Fannie and Freddie profits -- as much as $500 million a year each -- to a fund that politicians can then disburse to their favorite special interests.

This is also why Mr. Frank won't tolerate cutting the companies' MBS portfolios. He knows those portfolios (bought with debt borrowed at taxpayer-subsidized rates) were a main source of Fannie's profits before the housing crash, and he figures that once this crisis passes they can do it again. And this time, his fund will get part of the loot.

petr - show anything that says McCain asked regulators to back off from Keating? Nothing was ever shown for that to happen. Now, Obama was intertwined with Rezko . . .

Mr. Bush has never been a fan of the government’s involvement in the mortgage markets; he has long viewed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as “ticking time bombs,” said his former chief economics adviser, Al Hubbard. As far back as 2002, he began arguing for greater regulatory control over the companies, but was thwarted by Republicans who controlled Congress. (Democrats eventually granted the authority, which provided the legal underpinning for the takeover announced on Sunday.)

Mr. Bush was so disapproving of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Mr. Hubbard said, that beginning early in his administration he refused to appoint members to their boards. “That is very significant,” Mr. Hubbard said. “No president has ever done that, but he said, ‘We’re not going to put people on the boards of these institutions that are these huge systemic financial risks to the economy.’”

-NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/business/09bush.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

On April 9, 1987, a two-hour meeting[4] with three members of the FHLBB San Francisco branch was held, again in DeConcini's office, to discuss the government's investigation of Lincoln.[8][6] Present were Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, McCain, and additionally Riegle.[6] The regulators felt that the meeting was very unusual and that they were being pressured by a united front, as the senators presented their reasons for having the meeting.[6] McCain said, "One of our jobs as elected officials is to help constituents in a proper fashion. ACC [American Continental Corporation] is a big employer and important to the local economy."

then mccain went "wink wink, nudge nudge"

Ranter - why did you pass an article where basically Bush blames everyone else for the troubles that happened while he was in office and the republicans were in control of both houses of congress?

he went wink wink nudge nudge in your mind but you have absolutely no proof of that, nor do you post links to these stories which would make you a tad bit more credible.

I can do what you do too...it isnt hard...Obama met Tony Rezko and after Obama made the deal to purchase the neighboring lot from Rezko, he went "wink wink nudge nudge" and all sorts of shady things ensued. Where is my proof? I have none, but then again you don't have any proof it DIDN'T happen either...so we're back to square one.

and factcheck.org is much more reliable than your biased opinions...
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.
She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.
She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.

Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesy" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.

Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

Read the whole thing if you know how to.

Sizzlack - why wont you answer? "Is Palin the Commander in Chief of the Alaska NAtional Guard overseas" as both she and McCain claim?

Please answer.

Sizzlack - why the silence? no answers?

Why wont I answer? You always do this. When did you ask me a question? When did I even say anything about Palin and the national guard? Oh wait...I didnt! I see. Petr...I have no problem that you hate Palin, and I have no problem you express it...that is the joy of freedom of speech. What I take issue with is that when someone says something about Obama that you don't like you launch a tirade against the person demanding they answer all sorts of biased questions and show proof. Yet when you do EXACTLY the same and someone asks you for proof...you turn around and make them answer more questions, most of which have nothing to do with the issue raised. I am not taking issue with this national guard statement, I don't know enough about it or pretend that I do. What I do have issues with are your smears that have been PROVEN to be false. Such as this "Palin is a Jew hater" story which at least you said you no longer believe (still feel that way?). But you have many times blasted Palin for "book burning" even though that isn't true, as well as the bridge to nowhere, even tho your guys voted for it too. Its the hypocrisy that drives me nuts. I enjoy reading your opinions on issues, because I enjoy getting all the angles, however I do not appreciate your unsubstantiated rumormongering and then freaking out at people because they have a different opinion. And dont tell me that I now have to refute "republican lies" because I am not on here spreading them. Just because MoveOn.org sent you an email doesn't mean you can simply copy and paste the rumor on here and say it is fact because you got it in an email (like the Palin Jew hater baloney).

I also find it a little strange that you take little to no issue with Obama's shady connections but feel that something like the Bridge to Nowhere is enough to remove Palin from the ticket? Doesn't that seem a little ridiculous? These are politicians, they are all shady, and they all have skeletons in their closet.

and if you really want me to comment on this national guard story which I am totally unfamiliar with could you please provide me with some info on it (and I mean AP, Reuters, AFP...NOT Daily Kos or HuffPo)

Petr - what do you have to say about Obama's comments about taking the Russia-Georgia conflict to the UN, where Russia has veto power?

hee hee Sizzlack cant answer why both McCain and Palin have said that she is commander in chief of the alaska national guard troops deployed overseas. They both said it in her introduction speech and numerous times since.

It is a bold face lie about commanding troops in time of war. she never has issued any orders and has no authority of the guard overseas.

i will be happy to comment on anything obama after Sizzlack or even you evillager comment on the commander in chief scandal.

evillager as a wallstreeter arent you crapping yourself about the immenent and bloody lay offs?

I didn't hear overseas, I heard in her state, which she is in regards to natural disasters and what not, but not overseas. So please, direct me to the quote and I will believe you...link??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor#United_States

"The governor may also have additional roles, such as that of Commander-in-Chief of the state's National Guard (when not federalized), and in many states the governor has partial or absolute power to commute or pardon a criminal sentence. "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDK-gC0Go7g&feature=related

official spokesmen of the mccain campaign

well what I think he meant to say was that the Alaska NG has been deployed overseas, not under the command of her when they are overseas (because that would be federalized) but they have been deployed. Anyway yea so this guy F'd up...what they like to call a gaffe. While you will disagree...you are making something out of nothing.

and Petf you just said " They both said it in her introduction speech and numerous times since." Can you send me a clip of her actually saying that?

or McCain?